Friday, July 21, 2017

Do Guns Kill People? – See the exciting Video for PROOF!!

2ndVote GunCam – Do Guns Kill People? – 2ndvote:
Do Guns Kill People? Watch this LIVE feed for yourself…

I think every Brady Campaigner and Moms Demanding activist should monitor this website; preferably, recording the live feed as proof of their claims that firearms are the root of all evil.

Go, do it now!

[Hat Tip: Arms and The Law]

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Responsible Concealed Carry Drivers who are pulled over for a traffic stop

Posted as in informational text for those who carry a concealed weapon.
[H/T: thegunfeed]

If you haven't already seen this article, check it out; it may save you some embarrassment in the future. Even if you think you already know what is 'the right thing to do' if you're stopped by the police while you're legally carrying a firearm on your person, it should reinforce the message:

why be confrontational?

(Introduction from the video:)
"If you conceal-carry, and if you drive and  you're pulled over by a Law Enforcement Officer, what do you do?  What do you do, what are the things you DON'T do, that are going to keep you safe and are going to keep the Law Enforcement Officer safe?"
CPSO: How should you react when pulled over with a firearm in yo - KPLC 7 News, Lake Charles, Louisiana:
The Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Office has teamed up with Legally Armed America to create an instructional video on how you should act if you get pulled over and have a firearm. The video demonstrates the difference between a compliant and non-compliant driver. It also explains some dos and don'ts if you have a weapon on you when you get pulled over.
I won't steal the traffic from the original article, so go to the above CPSO link to find the video.

"When you have nothing to gain by being non-compliant ... why be non-compliant?"

The ultimate message, of course, is: "don't be THAT GUY!"

San Francisco - sanctuary for everyone but legal residents?

Folks in the San Francisco Bay Area are complaining about "youth" attacks on defenseless citizens.

Man beaten by 5-6 youths outside Richmond BART Station - SFGate:
A man was beaten and kicked in the head Thursday by a group of a half-dozen youths just outside the Richmond BART Station, police said. The man, who was not identified, was expected to survive, said Lt. Felix Tan, a spokesman for the Richmond Police Department. BART police initially responded to the scene around 11:30 a.m. — at the transit terminal frequented by buses directly outside the station — because they thought the incident was under their jurisdiction. Five to six juveniles assaulted the man, according to BART police. Officers said they could not locate the attackers, who escaped in the surrounding neighborhood.
(emphasis added)

Curiously, either the newspaper or spokesmen for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) authority, or the Richmond Police department refuse to identify the "demographics" of the "youths".   The claim is that revelation of their race might lead to racial violence, or something.

As if they don't already have that, in the Bay Area.    Remember Katherine Steinle?

Whether the attackers were blacks, or Mexican "immigrants", or a group of fun-loving Nob Hill teenagers on a lark from across the bay is left for the reader to imagine, based on one's own personal racial bias.   The only thing that seems certain is that if the attacking "youths" were caucasian, it would have been printed in the paper ... if only to prove that the attackers were not minorities, or were not illegal aliens  undocumented immigrants.

Personal Note: I lived and worked in the East Bay area (Oakland) for several years, back in the '80s, where I got my first job in the Data Processing business.   My wife and I decided to move elsewhere after the lady who lived in the next-door apartment was mugged by three  black adolescent girls in the parking lot of the grocery store in the next block.  They beat the shit out of her, stole her purse and scattered the groceries all over sidewalk, so I guess they weren't trying to feed their families.

That attack, too, happened during the middle of the day.


Group Stabs Man In Broad Daylight In San Francisco’s Dolores Park

... and SF WEEKLY even has a round up of bizarre crimes of the week.

Chicago ... eat your heart out.  You have the body count, but you don't have the Fruits-N-Nuts contingent to provide violence with a kink.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Brits Outlaw More Weapons

Street weapons like 'zombie knives' are to be outlawed under a dramatic crackdown:
SICKENING street weapons such as zombie knives and knuckledusters are to face a complete ban, under a dramatic new crackdown. Home Secretary Amber Rudd will today propose to make possessing them illegal everywhere, whether in public or at home.
H/T: The Captain

No, they're not outlawing ALL knives ... just "bad knives".

Judging from the photo accompanying the original article, it appears that the Brits don't like serrated blades, curved blades, long blades, thin blades with sharp pointy ends, and anything else that looks "sickening".

The article doesn't provide much details ... well, they're Brits and not as good at details as they are at sensationalism.

Not that "The Amis" (we Americans) are much better at defining the things we choose to ban; look at our government's attempt to define "Assault Weapons" so they could keep said weapons out of our irresponsible civilian hands.

It seems to me that there is no difference between governments in "The Free World" and "The Tyrant Countries", except that we here are suppose to be the masters and the government our servant.

Yes, we are just that gullible.

(BTW ... Note to Mark:  I'll have the deed to that bridge in the mail to you as soon as your check clears.)

(See Below The Fold for references)

Friday, July 14, 2017

Victory attained by Violence ... is momentary

Random Quotes - The Quotations Page:

Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. 

Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948), 'Satyagraha Leaflet No. 13,' May 3, 1919

Some Indians thought Gandhi was too accommodating. Among them was Nathuram Godse, a Hindu nationalistwho assassinated Gandhi on 30 January 1948 by firing three bullets into his chest,

Some  moments of violence are more important than others;

 it rather depends on your perspective.

I don't understand why Chicago imposes ineffective Gun Bans

Y'know, if gun bans "worked" to minimize firearms violence, I could understand why cities, and states, would impose draconian gun laws.

But ... here's the thing;

The only ones who obey anti-gun laws, are the law-abiding citizens.

Not the Criminals.
Not the Crazies.
Not even the Incompetent.

The only people who pay any attention to Gun Control Laws are the people who already recognize that there's "something wrong here" and who willingly obey the Draconian Gun-Control Laws.

Why do they listen to the clueless law-makers? *
  Because (a) it's The Law, and (b) they think they are helping ... even though they are the LAST people who will contribute to "Firearms Violence".

*(We should talk about "Firearms Violence" someday, but ...  later)*

It is ridiculous to impose laws which only the law-abiding will obey!

Flashback: Chicago's Murder Rate Was Even Higher During Handgun Ban:
Chicago’s gun crime is soaring, and the city’s mayor is pushing more gun control as a solution, but ...
Only Law-abiding citizen obey the laws, because they think it is " ... The Right Thing To Do ..."

These people will have willingly disarmed themselves.
They're not part of the problem,   and they are not part of the solution,

 Chicago’s homicide was even higher when the city’s handgun ban was in place.
Politicians impose laws upon the law-abiding, because it's "What They Do".  Any politician who does not impose at least one law restricting the rights of their electorate will not be re-elected.  That's just the way it is, and it does not speak well of the people who elect them to public office.

I think that the best campaign rhetoric should be a Candidate who can honestly state:

I have never proposed, nor supported, a law which would violate your Constitutional Rights"!

There are very few politicians who can honestly make that claim; the only purpose of LAWS* is to    define new things which you can NOT do!  Nobody writes a law defining something you CAN do ... at least not since the Constitution was published!)

Chicago Stupid is like ... poop on toast?

I needed something new to rant about:

Thank Chicago for always having something STUPID to contribute:

Flashback: Chicago's Murder Rate Was Even Higher During Handgun Ban:
Chicago’s gun crime is soaring, and the city’s mayor is pushing more gun control as a solution, but Chicago’s homicide was even higher when the city’s handgun ban was in place.
Stop.  Think about that for a minute.

 Okay, now read more from Breitbart:
In other words, more gun control correlated with even more death and suffering.

Go back to the precise quote which excuses everything:

                             Forget it, Jake; It's Chicago

Okay, I Bowdlerized it a little:
Breitbart News reported that Chicago witnessed nearly 4,400 shooting victims and almost 800 homicides in 2016. And the Chicago Tribune reported that the city passed 1,000 shooting victims this year before April concluded. This means Chicago is on track for a year similar to 2016 in pain and bloodshed, especially when one considers the elevated violence that comes with hot summer months.
Has anybody mentioned that personal possession of firearms is ILLEGAL in Chicago?

Saturday, July 08, 2017

Oregon, Oh Oregon ...

The Senate of my favorite state (Oregon) has  been very busy lately:  two actions prove that they're "doing their job and earning their pay!"

First ...Oregon To Decriminalize Meth, Cocaine | The Daily Caller:
The Oregon legislature passed two bills Thursday decriminalizing small amounts of six hard drugs, including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and ecstasy. The first of the two bills now headed to the governor’s desk, HB 2355, decriminalizes possession of the drugs so long as the offender has neither a felony nor more than two prior drug convictions on record, according to the Lund Report. The second, HB 3078, reduces drug-related property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.
Isn't that special?   Now we can't keep druggies off the streets long enough for them to get past their addiction.

SECOND ... Oregon Passes GOP Senator's Bill Allowing Gun Seizure Order Without Gun Owner's Knowledge:
Oregon lawmakers passed legislation co-sponsored by Sen. Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) that allows a judge to issue an ex parte ruling for the confiscation of an individual’s firearms. The bill is SB 719, and it has now passed Oregon’s House and Senate. It creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order, which forces the subject of the order to hand over all firearms, as well as his concealed carry permit if he possesses one.
Personally, I didn't understand what "ex parte" meant until I read this article:
The ex parte aspect of the law means the bill does not require the gun owner to be present for part of the hearing in which the judge decides whether guns should be taken from him.

(Can you say: "Kangaroo Court", Captain?)

I had ranted against discussed this bill a few times in the past ... once night I raved before I went to bed, and raved the same subject the next morning.  (I deleted one; one overkill is a week is enough.)

I'm not sure which of the Oregon Senate's two actions offended me the most:  more rights for drug users who break the law (they can't work, so they steal to support their habit) ... or less rights for the hard-working law-abiding firearms owner.  (We don't have to break the law for the state to confiscate our property; we only need to know someone who holds a grudge.)

Well, we all make our choices.   It seems clear to me now that I have made a wrong choice of which vice to pursue ... it's safer in Oregon to be a heroin addict than a firearms owner.

Welcome to Oregon!   Bring Drugs and Money!

Friday, July 07, 2017

DC Personal Protection Reciprocity Act

At least ONE congress-critter got it right.
Congressman Massie introduces D.C Personal Protection Reciprocity Act - The Highland County Press:
Congressman Thomas Massie, R-Ky, chairman of the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus, has introduced H.R 2909, the D.C Personal Protection Reciprocity Act. This legislation would allow individuals with a valid concealed carry permit issued from their home state to carry their firearms in the District of Columbia.
This act would not grant "Special Privileges" only to Congressmen; it would allow ANY private individual who has already been vetted in his/her home state to carry in the District of Columbia.
(Earlier motions were an insult to Americans.)
No word yet on whether that extends to carry within The Hallowed Halls of Congress (one would assume NOT!)

And I'm not certain that I would wish it otherwise.

What Civil War 2.0 Looks Like

A few years ago (and not many, at that) there was a meme going around asking whether there would be a "Race War" in America.

I considered that a non-starter; although in the 1970's it seemed not entirely impossible. (see "SIEGE" by Edwin Corley; 1969, Avon Publishing)

What seemed more likely to me would be a "Culture War" ... between political factions rather than races.

Now we have seen Republican politicians attacked with a gun by a Lone Wolf self-declared "Democrat", specifically because of political ... read: Cultural .... differences.

Was this the shot heard around the world?

Here's a sample of text from an article (H/T: FREEHOLDER) which might make you think more seriously about that "unlikely outcome":

Analysis: What Civil War 2.0 Looks Like

Analysis: What Civil War 2.0 Looks Like | Ed That Matters: Since the election of 2016, the left has gone crazy. Their version of the tea party is called Resistance, and the spearhead of that is a loosely formed terrorist group called Antifa. Antifa is short for Anti-Fascist. The irony of their name is not lost on those who actually know history, as their tactics are straight from the fascist playbook. In the past few months, these groups have repeatedly disrupted peaceful pro-Trump rallies. They have called for and used violence against people who support the president or disagree with them and even against members of the media who will report things Antifa doesn’t want reported.
Note that this was written almost three weeks ago.  It was prophetic.

Since that time,  Dana Loesch on NRA-TV has made a video called "The Violence of Lies" ... and several of her comments have been taken out of context by 2nd Amendment Opponents who accuse her of (among other things) "inciting violence against women".  Which strikes me as an odd interpretation, since the NRA actively encourages women to stand up for themselves against violence, as does Loesh in several of the videos she has made as spokeswoman for the NRA.

That small video seems to have turned the Information World on its head; where Truth is a Lie and the Touchy-Feelie Crowd is easily offended: but aren't they always?

On Thursday, DeRay Mckesson, a leader in the Black Lives Matter movement, tweeted that the ad was “an open call to violence to protect white supremacy.
A chilling National Rifle Association ad gaining traction online appears to be 'an open call to violence'
          This chilling NRA ad calls on its members to save America by fighting liberals

Tamika D. Mallory, a co-organizer of the Women's March, released an open letter to NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, calling the ad "a direct endorsement of violence" against citizens "exercising their constitutional right to protest ....
and in contrast a comment which quotes Loesch directly:
6 days ago Inverse dot com says: ... N.R.A. Ad Paints Gun Owners as Victims of Leftist 'Terrorism', quoting:. "The only way we stop this and save our freedom is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth." ... and editorializing:  "Loesch paints a twisted picture of protest..."   The article paints the NRA and Leosh as "Anti-Semites", which is a base canard and they should be ashamed of themselves for using the Jew Card as well as the Race Card.
There were dozens more links found by my search: "Dana Loesch + Protests", but the writers who  use her quotes to further their own political baggage usually carry the same keywords: violence and (somewhere in the screed) chilling,.   Did they never notice which group breaks windows and burns police cars during their "Protests"?   It ain't Dana And Her Friends.

The expression "... fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth ..." seems to be anathema to enemies of the Constitution, who don't like either the word "fight" or "violence", or the expression "clenched fist" scares the crap out of them.

They don't seem to even notice the small word at the end:


These all seem to be "Trigger Words", much in favor in  Liberal Academia today, where students are indoctrinated rather than challenged, and where Truth is less important than Feelings.

I FEEL that these morally lame "wanna-be-men" people need to grow up.

The world is what we make of it.

The Left would make this a reactive world, where words are hurtful.

The Right would make this  a proactive world, where "sticks and stones" are hurtful, and would prefer to deal with the honesty of the stick and the stone ,

The left metes insinuation and would prefer not to address the real Constitutional issues.
Hard facts are too difficult for them to deal with.  They do better with innuendo and slime.

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

Putting a "Brave Face" on Mayhem

It's Chi-Town.

Violence leaves about 60 shot, 8 of them dead, for July 4th weekend - Chicago Tribune:

"The important thing to me is at this point we've had 230 (fewer) people shot this year," First Deputy Superintendent Kevin Navarro said Friday. "I think that's a start, definitely. But every time we have one less person shot, that's a win for us."

If that's "The Important Thing", Chicago, why don't you go after criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime?  Instead, you go after honest citizens who have a firearm to defend themselves, their families, and their homes.

There are few risks to a career criminal in illegally carrying a gun where only Bad People carry guns.   Illinois in general, and Chicago in particular, need to re-evaluate their policy vis-a-vis gun control.

If you want to get guns off the street, prosecute every crime which involves a firearm.   Not the people with no record .. the felon who is caught in the act.

It's a "rider" if you're convicted of a felony while in possession of a gun.

But everyone knows that the "rider" (extra penalty of imprisonment) is the first thing that is on the table when a District Attorney is negotiating with a defense attorney.  The State is too often willing to waive the added crime of firearms possession by a felon if the defense attorney is willing to plead guilty to the original offense.

Stop doing that!

If firearms are a danger to society ... apply your limited resources to prosecuting crimes with a firearm.   Spend less time prosecuting pick-pockets, and more times getting the guns off your streets

When you give away the "enhancement" of "felony with a firearm", you undermine your only way to discourage the use of a firearm in a felony.

What's more important? Convicting a robber of a mugging, or getting guns out of the hands of felons?

Instead, you add laws to prosecute honest citizens who have a firearm.  What could be more illogical?

Tuesday, July 04, 2017

Natural Philosophy:The Difference between Men and Women (Toilet Seat Division)

It's true that men can urinate into a coke bottle without wetting the outside.

So why it also true that we cannot urinate into a commode without getting the seat wet?

Is this some kind of Cosmic "Gender-Levelling" device which God has dreamed up to make men humble?

Or is that why God created Women ... to make men humble?

Note to God:  It ain't working out the way you planned it, eh?

The 2nd Amendment Does Not Give You The Right To Own A Gun

This is an important constitutional point, and who knows how long it will be available online, now that Bob Owens Has Left The Range.   But the discussion is interesting.

The 2nd Amendment Does Not Give You The Right To Own A Gun:
Listen to this college history lecturer turned firearms instructor. He knows his stuff.
You can access the video at the above link.

(I tried to access the source code for the video, but it hasn't been uploaded to any internet source available to the public.  And since it's proprietary to Bearing Arms, they have the right to restrict  SOLE access to their own website.)

I hope that Bearing Arms is careful to preserve this video, because it explains the Constitutional nuances of the Second Amendment, which many people just do not understand.

The central point is, of course, that the Constitutional Forefathers DID NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT to preserve the rights of the common citizen.  Therefore, in the first ten amendments to the constitution called "The Bill of Rights" or The Enumerated Rights ... even though they specifically were not 'enumerated' (ranked by order of importance) .. every one of these rights were deemed as important as any other of the Rights defined there'

Here is a list of the Bill of Rights, in an video file:

Bear in mind that the "Colonists" had suffered under the thumb of The King (George III) of England, and the unwonted excesses of the British troops who were stationed in the colonies to keep order, protect the colonists from predation by native people, and to enforce British Law (including the collection of taxes).

Mostly, the latter.

When you review these amendments, recall that each was enacted to address a specific grievance which the British King's policies had visited upon the Americans.

In the meantime, I hope you all have a joyful and NOISY celebration of American Independence!

And now ... the traditional Independence Day  Geek Fireworks Show!

God Bless America!

Miami judge rules Florida's self-defense law is unconstitutional | Miami Herald

Florida’s updated “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law is unconstitutional, a Miami judge ruled on Monday. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch ruled that lawmakers overstepped their authority in modifying the law this year to force prosecutors to disprove a defendant’s self-defense claim at a pre-trial hearing. The judge ruled that under Florida’s constitution, that change should have been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court, not the Legislature. “As a matter of constitutional separation of powers, that procedure cannot be legislatively modified,” Hirsch wrote in a 14-page order.

H/T:Arms and the Law

Although I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on television, it occurs to me that Judge Hirsch is swinging the duty to present a defense of a judicial position from the prosecution to the defense.

I seem to remember that there is a document ... let me see .. *(shuffle; Declaration of Independence; Constitution of the United States of America; Federalist Papers)*  well, I can't find it now, but I have this strong suspicion that there is some niggling "Innocent until Proven Guilty" clause somewhere.

You'll have to take my word for it, but if it is true that the accused is assumed to be innocent .. whoa!!! Judge Hirsch (wasn't he a lead player in a comedy series "TAXI" a few decades back????)

... sorry to be so disorganized ...

Anyway, I rather assumed that this self-defense law would merely supplement the "innocent ... etc." thingie, rather than throwing a Rat into the Bar-b-Que.  Which is what Judge Hirsche (are you SURE he isn't a mid-20's television star?) seems to find offensive that the Defense will require the Prosecution to make their case:

From the Miami Herald
Florida’s updated “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law is unconstitutional, a Miami judge ruled on Monday.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch ruled that lawmakers overstepped their authority in modifying the law this year to force prosecutors to disprove a defendant’s self-defense claim at a pre-trial hearing.
The judge ruled that under Florida’s constitution, that change should have been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court, not the Legislature.
“As a matter of constitutional separation of powers, that procedure cannot be legislatively modified,” Hirsch wrote in a 14-page order.
I'm just guessing, because everybody knows that the Prosecution is trying to establish the facts of a case, not to throw the accused into eternal penury; and the judge just wants to ensure that Justice Is Done.  So I'm not sure why Judge Hirsch is feeling so cranky this morning (needs more fiber???)

I rather suspect that the objection is that the defense may be offered in "Pre-Trial" hearings, rather than at a trial. But isn't that A Good Thing?  Why empanel a jury for a full trial, when they can present salient evidence during pre-trial hearings and everyone can just sigh, say "Oh .. well. alright then; next case???"?


Monday, July 03, 2017

What if Automobiles were regulated as closely as Firearms?

Gun Sales Are Plummeting and Trump Wants to Help | The Nation: 

President Trump .... signed legislation that would prevent the Department of Justice from using Social Security records to identify mentally ill people and prevent them from purchasing guns. O
What if you could be prevented from buying ... or even driving ... an automobile because you had been adjudicated as "mentally ill"?

What if you had to get a special license before you could buy a car?   And if you already had a car, what if you had to go through another similar process before you could buy any car ... ever?   And if the state decided you shouldn't drive a car (for any reason), you would have to turn over the car you already own.  Without compensation.

What if you had to buy a special drivers' license before you could cross state lines with your car?  And what if the next state decided that your car was too small, or too large, or could contain more then 10 (or 8, or 6) gallons of gasoline?

What if your state decided it had the right to enter your home and determine whether your car was "securely stored", and they could take away your car if the answer was "no"?

What if you had to buy a special license, the process being conducted by the lowest-paid state employee, before you could buy a car with special features, such as a larger gas take, ability to operate on hi-test gasoline, or had more than four cylinders?

What if your car was so small that you could conceal it in your garage?  And what if the state could enter your home to determine that your car was secured so that your child could not access it?

What if you could only buy one car a year.  Which may not seem unreasonable, but what if your car was wrecked and you needed to replace it .... but you had already bought your "One Car A Year"?

What if your car needed a new muffler, and you had to buy a new one, but you had to pass a special "vetting process" and buy a special license which cost you $200 even if you could justify buying that car.

What if you wanted to teach your child to drive, but your state would allow only special "Training Programs" (vetted by the state) to conduct the training, and the cost was prohibited.

What if you wanted to buy an old clunker car, because that was all you could afford ... but the state had disallowed purchase of a "Clunker Special" car?

What if you wanted to lend your car to your neighbor, but you had to go to a car dealer and have him run the transaction through a national database to determine whether your neighbor (who already had a car, but it was in the shop) was legally allowed to possess ... not OWN, but POSSESS ... a car; or that specific car?

What if you kept your car locked in your garage, but your child knew the combination to the lock on the garage door and took it out for a spin.  Even though your child had a special license to operate (if not own) a car .. an accident would make you legally liable for any damages caused by the accident, right?



(See below for a statistical breakdown of cause-of-death: cars vs guns)

Light Loads can Explode Page: Of interest to those who load their own ammo

Light Loads can Explode Page:

NEVER, NEVER, mix fast burning pistol powders like 2400 with large volume cases without some sort of overpowder wad, for if you do, you too could experience a debacle.
I have not mentioned this for several years, although I'm away I have written about this strange and complicated phenomena.

Using very light powder charges in high-capacity cartridges may, under specific and bizarre circumstances, subject your firearm to a loud, disconcerting, and very expensive KaBOOM! moment.

Rather than to attempt to explain it, I direct your attention to the link at the top of this page.

(Essentially, instead of a steady burn as the ignition works its way through the powder column ... ALL of the powder charge ignites "all at once", which presents a dramatic pressure spike beyond the usual.    Your firearms may very well not be sufficiently sturdy to resist this PRESSURE SPIKE!)

But don't take my word for it.  Go, RTWT!

PS:  Again, I highly recommend The Reloading Pages of M.D. Smith

Time After Time: Democrats and Gun Control Outrage

Political grandstanding at its best.

For Every $1 the NRA Gave Paul Ryan, I'll Name a Gun Victim |

Representative Robin Kelly:
Despite every effort, including a historic sit-in, we’ve failed to force Speaker Paul Ryan and his leadership team to hold a single vote on legislation to save American lives from gun violence. I was going to try again, and I was going to go after the root of the problem: the millions that the National Rifle Association spends to ensure the Speaker’s silence and inaction.
(Kelly represents Illinois' 2nd district in the United States Congress, is a vice chair of the Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and was an organizer of the 2016 House of Representatives sit-in to end gun violence.)
Representative Kelly seems outraged at the "millions" that the NRA spent to "ensure the Speaker's silence and inaction".   (One would almost wonder how many millions of dollars Representative Kelly's supporters and PACs paid for his elections over the years.   Shee talks as if she's outraged that Ryan enjoys the perks of the ruling party ... which would not be the Democrats.)

Despite every effort, including a historic sit-in, we’ve failed to force Speaker Paul Ryan and his leadership team to hold a single vote on legislation to save American lives from gun violence.

Surely, Rep. Kelly, you know you can't force a majority.  This is rhetoric.

And the Democratic Photo Moment (historic sit-in), Ms. Kelly, is not something that a reasonable man would choose to keep before those who might be his future constituents. WIth respect, you all look like bobble-heads.   Or kindergarteners having been told "It's Nap Time"

Actually, a large part of the NRA's contributions probably went more often to Donald Trump's Presidential Campaign than Paul Ryan's;  and they were donated to defeat the odious Hillary Clinton, whose campaign promise to undermine the Second Amendment Rights of free Americans made her the primary target of millions of us.

Ryan won the post of Speaker of the House because the House, the Senate, and the President are all Republicans.

You know Republicans.  They're the people who get to appoint their party members to high position, right? The people who win elections because they look and act like responsible adults?

Ms. Kelly would do well to remember that Americans love their freedoms, and they cannot abide a politician who promises to undermine their Constitutional Rights.

Remember Al Gore?  Well, neither do most folks, except when they research "Electoral Vote" vs "Popular Vote".

Remember Hillary Clinton?  Well, neither do most folks.
(Well, they do .. but with a sigh of relief as in "Wow, we dodged THAT bullet!  Sigh!")
Now that we're safe from her.

Both of these democratic candidates ran on the platform of undermining the Second Amendment.  Both of them lost.  Coincidence?

Undermining the Constitution is NOT the best route to the White House.  It is, in fact, the fastest route to obscurity.  Unless you don't consider losing power and prestige and respect a sign of obscurity.

On the other
  • A vote on a jobs bill that creates opportunity so kids pick up pencils and books instead of guns, ....
That's something that EVERYBODY could get behind.  We want our kids to grow up to be responsible, productive citizens.   We do NOT want them to be known only as statistics in urban warfare ... or names on a tomb known only to their family.

Saturday, July 01, 2017

Unnecessarily hyperbolic?

I think so.

I couldn't understand whatever the point the author was trying to make.  Could you?

Carl Ramey: On guard against 'stand your ground'

It's That Time Of The Year Again

This is the time when the bombs and the booby traps go off again.  I hear, I react, and I say again: "It's not real, it's just people having fun".

And I'm glad they enjoy the noise and the thrills.  They get to make loud rude noises, and even though it's not yet Independence Day .. it's fun!

America ... The Land Of Losers!

On June 28 I wrote an article which brought some interesting comments; among them, this:
Anonymous Anonymous said...California government marches to the beat of a different drum. Folks that don't like it can always move elsewhere.
Guess what?  This is the "Elsewhere" where people moved. 

Essentially, except for the "indigenous people" which the earliest European colonists found here (and almost immediately wiped out by a combination of Guns, God and Gonorrhea .. not to mention measles) this was a land unpopulated by thriving, advanced nations.   It was not necessary for the new "colonists" to  take the land away from those few humans found here; they just had to breathe on them; then sit back and let nature take its course.

You can't get more American than THAT!

(Later, of course, there were some obscure hold-outs .. see Wounded Knee ... our sterling soldiers soon negotiated an honorable peace.)
Americas Statue of Liberty is the host to a gift of the French People.  It is the only monument to freedom which is dedicated to freedom: don't let nobody tell you no different!
"The Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World" was a gift of friendship from the people of France to the United States and is recognized as a universal symbol of freedom and democracy. The Statue of Liberty was dedicated on October 28, 1886.  It was designated as a National Monument in 1924.  Employees of the National Park Service have been caring for the colossal copper statue since 1933.
America is the progenitor of the twin documents which delineate the concept of freedom:  The Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution of the United States of America.
The Declaration of Independence defines the reasons why Americans decided to separate themselves from their British founders, and the basic precepts of FREEDOM which should rightly be available to ALL men to define.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, 
The Constitution delineates the basic principles under which Americans have decided to live:
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America.[1] 
(With no reference to the "foreign nation" which, by the singular virtue of having colonized it, seemed comfortable with the assumption of power to GOVERN that new land.  Oh .. that would be England!)
  Unfortunately, having tasted freedom, free men are loath to give it up!
These documents are the foundation of America; both in the original establishment of the nation, and as the enduring requirement of free men to continue to manage their own affairs, regardless of the wishes of a "foreign" nation which would impose its own laws upon them as if it were a mere "colony".

(Britain established "Colonies"; America established "Partners".  Well, nobody is perfect.)
(Except for "Me and Thee"; and sometimes I worry a bit about "Thee".)
I hope to examine the concept of "Independence" more thoroughly on Independence Day later this week.
But I suspect I might be overwhelmed by pomposity by then.  So don't hold your breath.  
This is as much scholarship and research as I can manage in a single week, and I may have already over-used it,  You know the drill: if you're interested, do your own research.  You know as much about it as I do.

I'm just glad I don't live in Europe.  Or .. well ... anywhere else.
No man can say more for the concept of "independence", without voting Democrat.

Friday, June 30, 2017

Are deaths caused by doctors in hospitals more common than gun deaths?

How do you categorize a murder scene IN a hospital BY a doctor WITH a gun?

Gunman and woman dead, 6 people hurt in shooting inside Bronx hospital in New York City | SOUTH BRONX, New York City -- Police said a gunman and a woman are dead, and six other people were injured after a shooting inside a New York City hospital Friday.
This was a horrible thing to happen, it's difficult to determine how it could have been prevented.

And at the same time, it's sure to skew some statistics.

People have been comparing statistics about death for years, and (besides toddlers drowning themselves in a bucket of water, and other 'swimming' and 'falling" categories)   the Big Three seem to be guns, hospitals/doctors, and car wrecks.

Okay, that's four.  Let's eliminate the factor which isn't related: automobile accidents (which often lead to hospital visits, but let's not go there. Okay?

Police said a former employee at that hospital -- identified as 45-year-old Dr. Henry Bello -- opened fire with an assault rifle, injuring six people on the 16th floor.
(Might I mention that the firearm used, an AR15, is not actually an "Assault Rifle" .. unless you're a Liberal Journalist?  And that I just raised the question about whether there are journalists who are not Liberals ... thereby adding one more needless complication?)

The Doctor vs The Redneck
How is "Doctor" more morally acceptable than "Bubba"

I don't much care for statistics (or lies, or damn lies) so I'm not going to make much of the question.

EXCEPT to say that we, as a society, hold Doctors to the highest regard where "Professionals" (College Educated To A Trade) are concerned.  We don't expect much from Lawyers, and they don't give us much.  Shrug

But when the people --- who have supposedly dedicated their professional lives to a Socratic oath --- go off on binge-murders, there's something more seriously wrong here than when Bubba says "Hey, Y'all!  Watch This!" just before he kills seriously damages himself in front of a camera.

At least Bubba lacks the moral turpitude to deliberately slaughter his friends and co-workers in a rit of felous jage ... sorry that's an Inspector Clouseau moment
No, I don't think that Doctors kill people more often than Bubba.

But we will never know, will we?
 "What happens in the Operating Room Stays In The Operating Room"!

Feds: Second Amendment Not A Second-Class Right

"This court recognized that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right..."

In a strange twist, a FEDERAL Judge put the spurs to Californian lawmakers.

Federal judge blocks new California high-capacity magazine ban, but fight looms | Fox News:
A federal judge in California on Thursday blocked a state law that would have barred gun owners from possessing high-capacity ammunition magazines. San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that the ban approved by the Legislature and voters last year takes away gun owners' Second Amendment rights and amounts to the government taking people's private property without compensation
(H/T: The Gun Feed)

Californian lawmakers .... and the anti-second amendment majority of Californians who voted them into office ... will scream and shout, counter-sue, invoke their states' rights privilege, and from that point this is going to get nasty.

And very interesting.

Also, probably (for pro-second amendment folks) occasionally disappointing.

There are plenty of states which already restrict "Magazine Capacity" in their laws.  To say that a federal judge with an understanding of the Constitution is going to make a difference in the nation's most populous (with Texas) state and most Liberal (can't think of one that's MORE-SO, offhand) is to say that Wishing On A Star will bring Jiminy Cricket to the rescue.

From the Constitution:
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
... which might lead one to assume that Constitutional Rights are interpreted the same by every state.

... but sadly, you would be wrong.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

What is the Supreme Court good for?


Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to concealed carry restrictions - Washington Times:
(June 26, 2017)
Second Amendment advocates stung by the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up a closely watched gun rights case vowed Monday to pursue litigation as long as it takes to get the justices to affirm the right to carry a firearm outside the home. The court opted Monday not to hear Peruta v. California, letting stand a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a California law requiring a gun owner to show “good cause” in order to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public.
I'm a bit conflicted, personally, about this issue.   Second Amendment aside, I am aware that criminals (and those with criminal intent) will carry a firearm any time, any place, and for whatever reason suits their purpose.

Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens have the same ability to do so, without facing harassment by Law Enforcement Officers?   Do Californians think that by denying Constitutional rights to ordinary people, they will eliminate the use of firearms by their {HUGE!} Criminal element?

Here is a Case Study, and I swear I am not making this up:

Joe Bfetznikcke (pronounced: "Brown") from down the block isn't the one who is robbing passers-by with a pistol.   He has a clean record; no arrests, and he mows the lawn in front of his suburban home every week, rain or shine.  He's a good citizen and a good neighbor.

He also mows the lawn of his next door neighbors: Scherputz (pronounced "Frank" who hasn't worked in 20 years but buys a case a beer every day and when the wind is right the air reeks of  chemical funes; and Judi (pronounced "Scheuddinskiavich") who has a lot of boy friends who only seem to visit her once a week.  Each.   She has no visible means of support, but drives a Mercedes.

Joe has other neighbors who are not quite as "socially aware", and who all have a criminal record; he wants to defend their families, but he's not "physical".  So he mows their lawns, too.
Joe's a schmuck.   But he's OUR SCHMUCK!

Joe works in one of those business park buildings in a computer development business, and he's a geek.  He lives on potato chips and ZAP! Cola, and couldn't fight himself out of a paper bag.

In fact, if a paper bag wanted to take his  (unsecured) parking spot at his place of employment, Joe would back out and park his 1997 Ford in the "NoseBleed" section of the parking lot.

He parks his car in the company parking lot before dawn, and leaves after dusk.   He is a hard worker, a good family man.

He is entirely defenseless, and the Bad Guys know this.  They have robbed and assaulted his co-workers regularly, and Joe is only thankful that he hasn't been targeted.  Yet.

But he can't get a permit to own and carry a firearm (even though he has taken all the 'right' courses, and he feels vulnerable).   Why?  Because he has "No Good cause " to be awarded a Concealed Handgun license.

 He has never been personally threatened, the police haven't arrested anyone for assaulting his co-workers (which doesn't mean they haven't been assaulted, robbed, beaten, battered, abused and raped) but it was not JOE who was the target.  Yet.

Joe would like to carry a gun.  He has bought a pistol, taken the classes, works out at the range AND the gym on a weekly basis, but since he has not received a specific threat, he can't legally carry a gun.

Despite several applications which Joe has submitted, the local Sheriff has not yet decided that Joe has "Good Cause" to carry a gun.  And since the sheriff is the sole arbiter of who does or does not "deserve" a license to carry, Joe is defenseless.

So what's Joe going to do?  Wait until he gets mugged?  Or should he break the local laws because he's pretty sure it's just a matter of time because he lives in a BAD NEIGHBORHOOD where crime is unstoppable by the police.

California is one of the "Hold Out" states which cleave to their ant-gun gods .... liberal assemblymen and other politicians who hate the idea that law-abiding citizens might legally carry firearms in protection of themselves, their families, their community and their property.

The sheriff in his county is a "May Issue" kind of guy, and he cannot imagine any reason why Joe might want to carry a gun.   That's his personal opinion.  Of course, the sheriff carries a gun, and he works in an office where everyone carries a gun .. including his sultry blond secretary, Schuerrienaughe. (Pronounced: "Jill"; she's Irish).

The court opted Monday not to hear Peruta v. California, letting stand a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a California law requiring a gun owner to show “good cause” in order to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public. The state law left the authority to decide what constitutes “good cause” up to local authorities such as sheriffs or police chiefs.

But the Supreme Court, which has the power to declare that a standard of responsibility which works for 'most' states might be permitted in 'all' states, is reluctant to dip its collective toes in the boiling pot of political acid which is the Gun Control/Gun Rights controversy.
 The state law left the authority to decide what constitutes “good cause” up to local authorities such as sheriffs or police chiefs. Gun owner Edward Peruta, of San Diego County, brought the case after he sought to carry concealed firearms for self-defense but was denied a concealed carry license in 2009 because he was unable to show good cause.
Yes I wiped myself thoroughly when I finished this parable.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017


I don't want to talk about fake history.  ... although Shakespeare is a master ..
 Shakespeare's Saint Crispin Days Speech from Henry V.
    And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
    Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day

But I don't want to talk about an imaginary "Band of Brothers", either, seem  they ever so real.

I want to talk about a real man, an true American Hero, a man who is unknown today:

I want to talk about a man who is the epitome of True Valor: Green Beret MSG Roy Benavidez.

Actually, I want you to hear his 1991 speech.   You  will wonder if you are among those ...... gentlemen in England 

(I'm linking to the original SPECTATOR article because it provides some .. background to what I think you would be better served to see.The author of the article deserves the presentation although his introduction is buried deep in the comments section of a ... not entirely noteworthy SPECTATOR Article:
To clear my mind of this article I have gone back to my all time favorite Medal of Honor recipient now on Youtube. Green Beret MSG Roy Benavidez. He gives incredible speeches and if you have time watch-if limited goto the 5min mark and listen to his remarks. Perfect for this Memorial Day and will clear your mind of this article.
To make it easier for you to follow the thread here is the speech: (25 minutes)

I know you will be inspired. I was there, if not then, and I am inspired.

H/T: Spectator

The 200 round arsenal

Scalise upgraded as gunman James Hodgkinson had 200 rounds of ammo in storage unit, FBI investigators say | Fox News:

Meanwhile, FBI officials said leftist gunman James Hodgkinson had more than 200 rounds of ammunition at a local storage unit when he attacked Republican lawmakers as they practiced for the annual Congressional baseball game.
Three things:  Along with most Americans, I'm pleased to hear that Representative Steve Scalise is no longer on the Critical List.   "Fair Condition" sounds very encouraging.

Second, what's the big deal with JimmyThe Arseman having 200 rounds of ammunition in a STORAGE locker?  What has that to do with anything?

And third, if that  was intended as the "Shocker Line" ... I've got over 200 rounds of ammunition on my kitchen counter at this moment;   that's the leftover .45 caliber ammunition * I didn't shoot up when I went to the range this morning.

I've also got 3500 bullets in .45 and 10mm calibers sitting by my reloading bench;  every one of them will be used to poke holes in cardboard targets.
Let's see you make a headline of THAT, Hoplophobia America!  

* (Thanks again, Ammoman; those .45 samples you sent functioned flawlessly in my 1911!)

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Australian Gun Confiscation: "It's Complicated"

NRA-ILA | Nationwide Firearms Turn-in Not Enough for Australia’s Gun Haters:

I had to read this latest article several times to get the sense of it.  In the end, it DID make sense .. in a sort of Alice in Wonderland manner of speaking ... but it still reeks of governmental arbitraryism:

Unlike the confiscatory scheme that followed Australia’s 1996 National Firearms Agreement, which banned most ownership of semi-automatic and pump action rifles and shotguns, the 2017 amnesty is not coupled to any new restrictions on the types of firearms an individual may own. Further, under the current amnesty, firearm owners will not receive any compensation for the firearms they relinquish.
To participate in the amnesty, gun owners will have to bring their unregistered firearms to a drop-off point designated by state and territorial authorities. In an improvement over the 1997 confiscatory turn-in, gun owners in many cases will be able to choose the final disposition of their unregistered firearms. 

In other words, it's not so much that the firearms are being confiscated because they are "bad" per se; it's that they have not been registered!   Therefore, they must be confiscated.
"Hi, you're Alice?  I'm the White Rabbit and I'm going to make everything just PERFECT for you, and ALL will be returned to the way it was before you fell into the Rabbit Hole. 
 Of course, it's not ...  going ...  to ...  come ...  to ...  you ...  for ...  free ......

These guys are serious about registering EVERY firearms; unregistered firearms are BAD not because they are BAD GUNS but because they have NOT BEEN REGISTERED!

But wait!  There's a "Good Side"!
An individual that has an irrational animus towards guns can choose to have their former firearm destroyed. Those turning in firearms eligible to enter the lawful stream of commerce may also be able to sell the firearm to a licensed dealer. Firearms license holders who turn over a firearm they are eligible to own will be allowed to register and retain possession of their gun. Of course, given Australian history, some gun owners might prove justifiably reluctant to make the government aware of their unregistered arms, lest they be targeted in some future confiscation effort.
So .. they can "turn over" (GIVE?) their gun to a dealer, and then "retain possession of their gun" later.  RIght?  It looks really good on paper, but it doesn't look good on Video?

Of course, that 'retain possession of their gun" thingie ain't free.  But then .. neither  are you.  They've taken your guns, so what are you going to do.  Whine?  Be a little bitch?  No ... just Bend over and beg for it.  We OWN you!"

The guns which are not BAD but are UNREGISTERED must be confiscated.  Without compensation.   But then the guns can go onto the open market .. and can the owners then redeem the firearms from the dealer?

Well .. yes.  They can BUY their guns (back) from the dealer.  You know, those dealers who have paid the Government (elected) who confiscated the guns, without compensation to the original owners; but the dealers will receive full compensation from the buyers (previous owners).
You know; the guys who have no choice in the matter at all, because "Government".

The people they elected" government.  The servants of the people.
Is this the image that our politicians see for us?

(What?  They just got their guns stolen by the government and are then permitted to BUY  them back?  How gracious of the government which they voted into office to steal their stuff "without any compensation"), and then allow them to buy it back!)
Yes.  That government.  You expect better from American Government?
[To learn more about the details of Australia’s National Firearms Amnesty, including the specific rules for each state and territory, visit]
Here's The Good News:
....the entire Australian Plan is a piece of crap, and everyone knows it.
To continue:
In the U.S., researchers and gun rights advocates have long agreed that turn-ins are ineffective policy. This fact is not lost on all Australian politicians. Liberal Democrat Senator from New South Wales David Leyonjelm, recently said of the 2017 amnesty, “It’s purely for appearance purposes. It won’t do anything to address guns on the street, they’ll end up with grandma’s rusty old shotgun or rifle. Which was never going to be used in crime in the first place.”

This is the "Australian Plan" which Hillary, in November of last year (2016) proposed as "Something we should look into

 (Or if not an exact quote, is close enough for government work.  Her government.)

Okay, I've done my bit. I told the story, took the side-streets, trolled the alleys and hinted at federal crankiness which might be echoed by our government as much as has been by the Australian government ... the folks we reckoned to be fair cobbers.  Until now.

What you do with it is your business,
Me?  I'm going to sleep now.  Pleasant dreams!

2nd Amendment at Work: Gun in POV

Should workers be allowed to leave guns in cars at work?:
Dayton Daily News: June 22, 2017


Business groups are fighting an Ohio Senate proposal that will open them up to civil lawsuits by employees and others who bring handguns on to company property. “For us this isn’t a concealed carry issue as much as this is an employer rights issue,” said Chris Kershner, vice president, public policy & economic development for the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce. “Employers should be able to manage the actions in their private business on their private property, period.” 
I love this.  I hope it goes all the way to the Supreme court.

By depriving this employee of the right to leave his secured gun in his (locked) car at work, he is depriving the employee of the right to carry the gun during the trip to and from work.

Which is a clear infringement of the employee's Second Amendment Rights.   Especially if the employee has a Concealed Carry License.

It's not as if the employee is asking to carry his firearm into the workplace; he only asks that he be able to leave it stored. secured. in his private auto at the terminus of each trip to and from work.

The issue is whether the employer is legally permitted to deny the employee the right to carry during the transition period.

The employer is not.  If the employee is legally empowered to possess a firearm on the public highway, that extends the right to keep it safely stored at the terminus of each transition.

The "personal property" rights of the employer do NOT trump the constitutional rights of the employee.  In fact, the relationship between the employer and the employee are not a factor.

The lawyer is right in one point, though:  this is NOT a "Concealed Carry Issue".

It's a constitutional issue, and this lawyer is being payed WAY too much to fight the issue, if he uses the "Employee Rights" claim to fight the Constitution.

At best, the lawyer should fight to require that the firearm be "safely secured" while on private property.  But then he would have to hire a security consultant to define the term "safely secured".

He MIGHT convince a convivial judge that the employee should fit the bill to have his POV (Privately Owned Vehicle) guarded while at work.  But given the big pockets of any corporation, vs the small salary of an employee, that would also be deemed Unconstitutional in a Supreme Court decision (not that they would touch this case!)

What do you want to bet that this lawyer didn't finish first in his Law School Class?

NOTE" This kind of contretemps has been fought between Colleges and their employees several times over the past few years; the ultimate result has almost universally been found for the employee.

On the other hand, if the Attorney can show a single incident when the care has been 'irresponsibly' left unlocked, it might turn the case.

how much do you think the Lawyer would have to pay to find a petty crook to jimmy the door of the employee's POV?

PS:  Boyd said the business groups hope the provision will be removed in the final version of the state’s two-year budget that is being discussed now in a 6-member conference committee made up of members of the Ohio Senate and House of Representatives. The House version of the state budget does not include the provision.“Looking at this new amendment we think it just exacerbates the problems of 199 by creating a new way to file a lawsuit against employers and private property owners,” Boyd said. “It’s a step backward for Ohio’s legal climate.”
In other words:
  Screw the citizen it's gonna be bad for business. Besides, we got the State on our side .. so screw him twice!!  Who does he think he is?