Friday, November 24, 2017

Miss Bird

Not ... everyone ... appreciated Miss Bird.

I think her name was "Byrd.  Perhaps not.

It has been a long time since she was my "primary teacher" at Helen McCune Junior High School in Pendleton, Oregon, and it is remotely possible that I may have forgotten a few things about my personal life between not and then.

But I will never forget Miss Bird.

She was my home room in the Seventh Grade ... the first year I "graduated" from Grade School to Junior High.

Oregon is different from some other states, in that there are three levels:
Elementary School (also called "Grade School", which encompases "Kindergarten" through the Sixth Grage;
Junior high (7through 9th grade)
Senior High (10th through 12th grade)
Perhaps this is better  alternative from 1-8 grades, then 9-12 High School.  I don't know.

But it did insulate us, a bit, from the teasing and other abuse imposed on sub-freshman students in high school.  I know it worked for me, for I was very shy through my formative adolescence, and I appreciated the Junior High school teachers seemed to be more aware of the transitive years, and tended to ignore them.

Miss Bird was known as the most strict teacher in my junior high school, and I'm sure others knew it.
For my self, I loved Miss Bird beyond reason.

She seemed to understand that particularly odd formative phrase when children became young adults.  There is a period when emotions are only just beginning to be recognized by the students, and she seemed to have an insight into the struggles we were dealing with.  Although she was widely known (in Junior High School) as the most strict disciplinarian (often sending unruly students to "See Mister Bowles" .. the 9th grade Algebra Teacher who was the designated "man with a paddle" who would kick your ass .. he had a paddle board which I later recognized as a cricket bat and was perforated with 1/2 inch hols to make it whistle as it came down to strike your pale ass), I actually never knew her to raise her voice or "send you to Mister Bowles".

There was a day when a guy in the desk next to me threw up.  He was not my best friend, in fact he was quite an unpopular guy who wore a black leather jacket and always reeked of cigarette smoke.

One day, he was nervous about ... something .. and barfed all over the floor.

Miss Bird dismissed the rest of the class to the hallway, called the janitor to clean up the mess, and it took a half-hour for the clean-up.  I talked to him later.  He said Miss Bird was nice to him.  As it turned out, he had some serious problems at home (hence the black leather jacket reeking of cigarette smoke) and it turned out that he was the gentlest boy I knew in Junior High.

As I got to know him better, I came to know that someone there tended to beat him if he was "reported" from the school.  Or did anything that required his "Dad" to be responsible for his behavior.

Miss Bird never reported him for anything ... he got into more than a few fist fights, and the principle reported him to his parents .. but in class, if there was a problem with him Miss Bird would dismiss the class to the school-yard for 10 or 15 minutes if there was a problem with my friend, and nothing ever came of it.  Nothing.  Ever.  But he was always calmest when Miss Bird and he had had their little chat.

She was a fat broad.  Always wore dark blue or black dresses.  She kept herself clean and prim, and required her students to be clean.

She tought me more about language than I ever knew existed.  Verbs and adverbs, nouns and adjectives were easy.  Then she started on past participles and present participles, and I got lost in the haze which permeated the room.

She may not have been the best teacher on gerunds and grammer, but she was really really good on boys and girls.

One day I was walking down the hall and I met Connie Firstname (not her name) who was wearing hose and garters under a skirt for the first time, adjusting her hose with her skirt up about her hips.

She had delicious hips, and I'm pretty sure she didn't know I was in the hall.  But she got those hose and garters JUST RIGHT before she lowered her skirt.   Then she said something like "Oh, I didn't know you were there!"

And Miss Bird .. who appeared from nowhere, said "okay children, go back to your home rooms now".

I remained a sexual virgin until I got to Senior High School (and I may not remember that right, either), but Miss Bird made sure that me and "Connie" (not her name) .. oh, well, Connie got knocked up in High School *sophomore year*, but not by me.


I last saw Connie at our 50th High School Reunion.  She was in the middle of divorcing her fifth husband, had a half dozen children, and still was unable to keep her garters straight.   But I wasn't her sixth husband ... Thank You, Miss Bird!

THERE ARE PEOPLE in the education system, who can teach you to conjugate verbs and ... stuff.

And there are people who can teach you to be people.

I can understand the difference between a verb and an adverb, an noun and and an adjective.

Still not clear on the whole "participle" thingie, but I just write and let y'all folks work it out.

The thing is .. Miss Bird taught me things that I'm pretty sure were not in her syllabus.  And she did it with such gentle ease, I never saw it until years later.  Now, THAT is education!

Wish I had met her after I graduated from High School, though.  I'm pretty sure I would have had a whole flock of daughters who were rotund, dressed in dark (dresses always .. not skirts and NEVER jeans) and had pouty lips that promised ... well, I never knew the promise.

Miss Bird, I miss you still.  And Damn Me if you weren't the sexiest fat broad I EVER met!

And the smartest woman, of any profile.

*Come to think of it .. she was never fat; I was just young and stupid.  What she was, was .. full figured.

And it took me a lot of years to learn the difference.


The Ultimate Most stupid question Gun Law to Ever have Been Proposed!!

Here's just one more reason why you should feel okay about yourself for thinking that "The Giffords" are their own private Insane Clown Posse.
You aren't alone.

A recent bill proposed by "The Giffords" would ... require every gun part to have a serial number ..."

This single 'bill' illustrates the insanity of people attempting to make regulatory laws when they do not have ANY appreciation of the complexity and REPORTAGE of what they are asking ... because if you must register every part of a gun, then when you replace a part you must report the change.
It's the first bill I've ever heard which approaches the inanity of "Serialized Ammunition"; or the even more inane plot to require a firearm to butt-stamp an unique identifying firearm serial number on every round which is fired, so the gun can be identified by examining expended brass found  by crime scene investigators. .. I think we have a name for that INSANE proposal, and I've even written about it extensively .. I think I called it "Encoded" ammunition, but I'm not sure because I tried very hard to to not think too hard about it before it warps my mind.  (That part is not working well!)
 Somebody has to register that part number change ... and most of the parts of the umpteen million firearms currently in private (or public) possession are not designed for identifying individual parts.

If this all sounds stupid to you .. it gets worse when you think about it!   The Feds are almost swamped trying to keep track of the transfer of individual firearms. 

There are 52 parts in a common 1911-style pistol, including various springs. Would this bill require them ALL to have serial numbers? Some of them are 'consumables" (such as springs), and it would be impossible to impose serial numbers on them without weakening the federal support structure beyond the point where they would serve their purpose. 
(See the diagram and parts list for a common 1911-style pistol here.)

Other parts are commonly 'lost' during dis-assembly for cleaning and maintenance

.(SEE: Recoil Spring; Recoil Spring Plug)

 Still more wear out and must be replaced simply because they are no longer serviceable.  The simple process of reporting them as "lost or discarded during maintenance" would suggest a huge administrative process before a (serialized) replacement can be ordered, let alone received.
Would federal authorization be required?  That goes beyond the pale!

And a request for replacement would require the supplier to report the shipping of a "serialized" part, and the recipient to report receipt of the part.  Tracking parts would be a HUGE problem!

Other firearms parts are replaced by "higher quality" merchandise.  Some are rotated from one firearm to another for various reasons.  Some are disposed of because of wear, or unsuitability replacement; or freely moved from one firearm to another for various reasons which perhaps make sense only to the owner. 

But the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence suggests that "every thing that can be used to build a rifle" implies that "every thing that can be used to build a pistol", and that suggests the everyone from the manufacturer, to the retailer, to the new owner, and to subsequent owners .. should be somehow tracked through a magic database system that nobody in this century is capable of maintaining.

The physical impossibility to do so .. and keep track of and report every change in every firearms, is a bizarre and unmanageable imposition on private owners of firearms. 

(Oh, and are the police going to require their department to register changes to every firearm during their regular maintenance schedule?  I don't think so!)

Read more: 
The regulating of anything that can be used to build a rifle is very vague. The ultra-liberal governor of California, Jerry Brown, vetoed a similar bill on these grounds. Gov. Brown said that AB1673 had “far-reaching and unintended consequences.” He also vetoed a bill supported by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence that would require every gun part to have a serial number and would require background checks for ammunition purchases.
Bad people make bad choices.   And you can't make laws which are going to change that.

Some people are just bad.  Deal with the people, not with the guns.

Double Jeopardy? Or just a Pol who hasn't got her name in the news enough to peddle her career?

So let me get this straight:  In where-ever this is (I presume some backwards state like Arkansas), you not only get prosecuted for violating the law, you also get prosecuted for violating the law that makes it a violation to violate the law?

Senate bill introduced to make gun trafficking a felony: Gillibrand contends there is no federal crime that specifically recognizes gun trafficking. Her bill would modify current law to make it a felony to transfer two or more guns in an instance where there is a reasonable belief that doing so would be in violation of the law. The crime would extend to those directing or assisting others in such transfers. Penalties for those convicted could run as high as 20 years with ringleaders facing 25.

To my great chagrin, reading back on the original article I discover that this was not presented in "a backward state like Arkansas", but in the totally dark-ages state of ... New York!
The measure, proposed by U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, would make it a crime to sell two or more guns to someone whom the seller knows is prohibited from legally possessing them. It is a repeat of legislation proposed by Gillibrand in 2013 and 2015 that never made it out of committee.
(Just another example of a politician building a career on submitting one bill a year, to show she's really "doing something", even though the same bill has been rejected every dam time)

I offer most abject apologies to the fine folks in the great State of Arkansas.  I have done you a GRAVE INJUSTICE in comparing you unfairly with the backward folks in New York.

I have worked with Arkansans.  They were fine folks.  I never understood a word they said, but they said it with gravitas and great sincerity.  Whatever it was they said. 

Oregon Forest Service, Summer of 1967 ... we fought forest fires.  Very very tiny ones.  In between, we surveyed the hills around South Central Oregon (off Broken Top Mountain) for a road.  Great way to work your way through college .. even if you fuck up didn't get the measurements just right, nobody cared.  We all knew it would never be built, but we got paid over two dollars an hour for our work. (50 years later, there's still no road in those mountains.)

 My Friend, Mark from Arkansas, ate Spam Samwiches for lunch me for 3 months and never once complained.  I think his name  was Mark ... he pronounced it using some vowels I had never heard before, so I always just called him "Mark", and he always said "Whe's thet Staiik Samwich y' mek f' m' dinneh?"   

*That's a rough translation; either that, or he was spitting out the chaw he'd been working on all morning (mawnin) into the shirt pocket.  Either way, I made lunch, and he paid for Dinner at "Maw's Steakhouse in Bend".

That was great; when I got to Viet Nam, I though "C-Rations" were excellent cuisine, compared to lunch at Central Oregon.  (Maw's Steakhouse Saved My Life ... great food, even when we couldn't afford to spend $5 for a steak dinner!)

Growing boys ... what you learn when you're 19 may save your life when your 22.

Funny? I thought we already had enough of this from Democrats~

Investment Watch -Hoax! (Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Door)

Giving the Government Power to Determine Gun Ownership – InvestmentWatch:  (Nov. 16, 2017)
Legislation is being brought to the Senate (announced Tuesday) in a cross party bid that will effectively mean the Federal government has the final say on who is and who is not allowed to buy a firearm. 
Is this something beyond current firearms laws?

No, it's just a bad joke.

I don't mind jokes, even bad ones .. but I wish it had been presented less amateurishly.
As it was done, the tongue is too firmly in cheek; it's just a poor attempt to goad someone into responding as if it was a legitimate news report.

This isn't a 'legitimate" website, and "Not The Onion".   It's an attention-grabbing device.

Oh, hell, it's The Internet!  ANYBODY can put up balderdash and get it published.
As satire, it deserves even less credit than if it was true "financial reportage"

I've been online since 2008 and nobody has kicked me off the internet ... yet.

But even I am funnier than these guys.

Did you hear the one about the chicken crossing the road?

Oh .. you did?

Can you please explain it to me?  I didn't get it .. I think.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

I'll Huffpost and Huffpost until I blow your house down! (Ex Post Facto? Never heard of it!)

The Huffingtons are at it again, working political double-speak rather than facing the facts.

The problem with "Universal Backgrounds Checks" isn't so much the issue with distrust of firearms owners as it is with the way the checks are conducted. Heck, legitimate firearms owners are no more eager for criminals that the "mentally adjudicated unstable" to own firearms than anyone else is.

The problem is with the supposedly secure record keeping; there was an agreement back in the '90s that the proposed Background Check system would validate, but not permanently record, firearms transfers.  In fact, as soon as a transaction was not denied because neither party was disqualified from firearms ownership, the record of the traction was suppose to disappear within a very narrow period.

Why did firearms owners oppose that facet?  Because they didn't want to agree to a "Firearms Registry", which would track firearms transfers in great detail with the subsequent consequence that a database of transfers would be tantamount to registry of firearms.

But it it isn't permanently recorded, why do Universal Background Checks require that the firearm description ... including Make, Model, Caliber and Serial Number ... recorded on the background check form?  If it isn't permanently recorded, why is it considered as important as the personal identification of both the buyer and the seller?

And no, that's not paranoia ... that's "learning from Experience" as Californians learned when their state Attorney General back in 1990 agreed that a certain rifle  (the "SKS") would not be 'tracked' because it was a legal rifle:

The situation became more complicated for the writers of the
Roberti-Roos law in 1992 when then California Attorney General, Dan
Lungren, approved the sale of Chinese-designed SKS, which use detachable
Even though Lungren said the SKS “Sporter” was legal to sell, some
district attorneys throughout the state threatened to arrest anyone who
sold the gun claiming it violated the Roberti-Roos law.


 ... and then later that same Democratic Politician changed his tune and hundreds of up-to-then legal rifles which had been transferred between individuals and the detail entered into a state data-base were (arbitrarily) "reclassified".  Then the State decided that the specific firearm was an "assault weapon", retroactively downloaded transfer information from their database (which they swore would never be used for that purpose), and CONFISCATED EVERY RIFLE WHICH HAD BEEN SOLD UNDER THE ASSURANCES THAT IT WAS LEGAL!

And they were able to do so because every firearm transfer was part of their state database.

And now Huffington accuses the NRA of doublespeak?


Ex Poste facto laws are the way that politicians ... and politically biased pseudo "information sources", prey upon the naive and trusting citizens who put them in office and pay their salaries to protect their civil rights.

Just because they come right out in public and say "Oh, that's okay, we're not going to take THAT gun away from you", that doesn't mean they won't come back next week and declare it illegal.

Americans who rely on the Constitution to protect their rights, and their elected representatives (and their appointees) to respect those rights, have been getting a raw deal from both their representatives and the henchmen who do their dirty work for them.

And the Huffington Post is just one of their minions .. who don't get paid for lying to Citizens; they just do it for practice ... until  they  can get elected to lie to citizens who pay their wages.

The NRA's Background-Check Doublespeak | HuffPost:

... And if NICS is fixed to everyone’s satisfaction in a way that really prevents the criminals, the drug abusers and the mentally ill from walking into a gun shop and buying a gun, the idea that private gun transfers requiring background checks is a violation of the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t pass muster in any court. When all is said and done, the NRA’s opposition to background checks boils down to one, simple thing; namely, that government regulation of the gun industry is a bad and unnecessary thing. In that respect, the gun industry’s opposition to regulation is no different from every other industry.
 Nobody wants to take your guns away.
Except hollywood celebrities, comedians, talk-show hosts, Liberals, your State Government, your Federal government ... oh, since Al Franken was elected a U.S. Senator  these categories seem to overlap quite a bit, don't they?  I always thought it was inevitable that a "Franken" was elected to the Senate.  He fit right in with the rest of the Clowns; his recent legal problems only prove the appropriateness.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

It's raining!

It's Oregon.

I wouldn't have it an other way

Thank you, God, for allowing me to have been in the Great Pacific Northwet.

(not a typo)

Gun laws in neighboring states

My daughter lives in California.  Which is among the most gun-free states in the nation.

My son ("Davy who is in the Navy, and probably will be for life") is stationed in Washington.
Folks there are also more "civilized" when it comes to 2nd Amendment rights.

They're against it.

I would love to visit either or both of my children, but there is a small problem, 
I live in Oregon; a state which respects the right of its citizens to defend themselves ...because it's burdensome to carry a cop in your hip pocket.  Pistols are smaller, lighter, and perhaps more reliable.

Both California and Washington frown on people carrying firearm.

  There is no reciprocity between the states.

Because both of these adjacent states refuse reciprocity with Oregon handgun licences (CHL), I am denied the right to defend myself if I wish to visit my children, and my grandchildren.   (No, I'm not worried that they will attack me ... but I don't know their neighbors!) 

I miss my family, but they cannot (or will not) move closer to me, and I am reluctant to violate the laws of their chosen state of residence.  I'm talking about Carrying Conceal Weapons. 

They won't move because they have good jobs with high wages.  Even though they their Civil Rights are  often denied by state law.  Disappointing ... I should have raised them better. 
(Oh, and The Son is in the Navy .. he goes where they send him.)

Have you ever been shot at? 
Not fun .... I've been shot at many times, in Viet Nam (I was drafted ... it wasn't my first choice of a vacation in "The Orient") so I've since been inclined to carry a firearm for my personal defense, and I have held an Oregon Concealed Handgun License (CHL) for many years.

My sojourn to The Orient convinced me that if you're going to be shot at, it's better to have a means of defense be an armed combatant than to be cowering target.  This isn't paranoia ... it's experience.
Generally speaking, the "Bad Guys" prefer that their victims be disarmed; it is much safer for them.

I'm not sure why my neighboring states (especially California, which has one of the highest crime rates in the nation) refuse to grant that their citizens are constitutionally protected by the Second Amendment, but that's their choice ... the otherwise-sane citizens of those states elected their lawmakers and have acceded to their judgement.   It's difficult to get a license to carry there.
You get the politicians you deserve.  Fucking idiots!

(Note: I have been a resident of both California and Washington, upon occasion, but I keep  coming back to Oregon ... which is also a "Liberal" state; but my neighbors here are not CRAZY!")
For the past 20 years, I have chosen to live in a state where I am "allowed" to exercise ALL of my Constitutional rights.  I guess I've been spoiled by that; but I ain't gonna move closer to my kids.

The'll come to their senses, eventually.


Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others ... wtf?

Okay, so I "Get" that some Arkansans are ... um ... safer than others?  So why are the others different?

And who gets (understands) what, and why?

Enhanced Arkansas Concealed Carry Permit Allows Guns More Places: LITTLE ROCK, Ark. --

More than 200,000 Arkansans have their concealed carry license, according to Arkansas State Police. In the coming months, the enhanced carry permit will allow guns in more places. Firearms will be allowed in public buildings, universities, bars and churches. Arkansas State Police is expected to release its training program in January. One concealed carry instructor said if you get a permit you're entering a good faith agreement with the community when you carry.  "Second Amendment gives you the right to own arms, but if you carry in public you enter a social contract with us," said Ron Garatt, the G.I. Guns and Ammo owner. Instructors also recommend coming in at least once every few months, to re-qualify. One instructor said some people quickly forget the basics, like loading a magazine.

Ok, so here are MY questions:

(1) Why are some CCL's better than others?  If you are 'trusted' to carry concealed, what makes you "less trusted" than others?
(2) If you are a CCL, but you are trusted in the streets ... what is it about you that renders you un-trusted to carry in a courtroom, school, church or low dive?  To my way of thinking, churches and bars are equally unattractive:    I'm not buying what they're selling.  (The same goes for Universities.)

I'm just saying .... and while I'm at it:

this is so friggin' lame.  Who forgets 'loading a magazine" and still passes the qualification for Concealed Carry License?   This is just SILLY!

Are they this silly in Arkansas?

Shannon Watts wants to know if you have guns in your house. Oh yes, and was your turkey slaughtered humanely?

Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) | Twitter

Okay, two points;
(1) I was kidding about the turkey and humane slaughtering
(2) I don't give a damn what Watts wants

Other than that, this whole tweet is a joke.

Okay .. I don't tweet.  Just kidding about that, too.

Fingerprint recognition software in a pistol grip? Where's the Morality?

There is a small, but significant community which thinks that "Fingerprint Recognition" might be a justifiable safety technology to keep unknown persons from using stolen firearms from being used in mass shooting events.

It's called "Biometrics"
it's another way for gun-grabbers to justify abrogating our civil rights.

RetMSgt said...

Had fingerprint recognition for our time clock at work. I had been picking up black walnuts in the yard, which stained my fingers brown. For three weeks my fingerprint was not recognized. People knew who I was, but the machine didn't.
Yet, some people think this is a reasonable way for both firearms owners, and firearms confiscators, to find a common ground which would satisfy the concerns of both communities.

Here's what I think:

A gun is just a tool, like a screwdriver or a hammer.  If a man steals your gun, or your screwdriver, or your hammer to hurt people, he deserves whatever happens to him.

  If a man needs shooting, then shoot the sonovabitch.  A gun doesn't know what's right, and neither do politicians, scientists, or engineers.

Just you.  

The kicker?  Shoot the wrong man?   Wrong reason?  I'll hang you.

We don't need "Fingerprint Recognition".

It's called "Morality". 
Look it up. 
I'll wait.

Monday, November 20, 2017


There are SO MANY questions which naturally arise at this news story!
Woman, 18, accused of raping man at knifepoint pleads no contest | SAGINAW, MI -- The 18-year-old woman accused of raping a man at knifepoint earlier this year has pleaded no contest to reduced charges and could avoid prison time.
There was a joke, popular many years ago, about why women are nicer than men. 
The question: What crimes have men been prosecuted for, but women have not?  The punchline: RAPE!

Times have changed.   

Either that, or more reporters are finding and filing "Man Bites Dog" stories.

I'm getting old;  I don't know any women who carry a knife.
(Although I know a few who carry a gun .... sigh)

PS: That must have been one homely woman.

Sunday, November 19, 2017

"If I only had a brain!"

I have a smart phone.  It's as dumb as the Vice President .. who thinks we should all have "Smart Guns" because it's a NO BRAINER for him.

Very convenient, because Joe Biden has no brain.  In fact, he looks a lot like Ray Bolger.

 (He is also protected by Secret Service guys who carry "Real Guns" because "smart guns" are a concept whose time has not yet come.)

Hat Tip: Gunmart Blog --
I KNEW that the anti-gun crowd was going to play this card... - Gunmart Blog:
 So, here is my question for you, Joe. You are sitting there all smug and pious telling people to go ‘buy a smart gun…. do it for the second amendment’. ,,,, I mean, if it saves only one child from finding a capitol police gun in the bathroom… If you believe so much in this technology then… YOU FIRST!

Friday, November 17, 2017

"Nobody Wants To Take Away Your Guns!" (Baloney!)


ERPO = "Extreme Risk Protection Order"

I've written about this before (almost exactly a month ago) since an ERPO law was enacted in Oregon.

Anyone who wants to take away your gun(s) can do so with no fear of consequences for their unilateral mischief.   All they have to do is to convince a judge that they have a "close relationship" with you, and  you are "a risk to yourself or others", and BINGO! ... the cops are at your door to search your home and confiscate every firearm you own.   

(And when I say Anyone, even an "acquaintance" can trigger an ERPO.)

And you're not even invited to your own trial.

The only way you can get your guns back is by going before a judge and suing ... and proving that you're not crazy.   Or a risk to yourself, or to others.

Now, just how are you going to do that?

The only crazy ones are the states who, like my home state of Oregon (where I've never been arrested or had police come to my place of residence), are empowered to compromise my civil rights without ever having met me.

How would you like it if the neighbor down the street, irked because you complained that his dog was pooping in your front yard, filed an ERPO on you?   He could do that; and nobody would blink an eye.   There is, apparently, no provision in the law for his investigating what is essentially an false arrest.

I'm a widower, and I've not remarried.  I may date from time to time, but ....

That's all over, because one bad date and *the imaginary* she has the perfect tool for wreaking revenge on me.   Just one little lie to any judge in the county.   That's all it takes.    

People say that gun-owners are paranoid;  I've never been paranoid before, but this works for me..  Except the key definition of "paranoia" is the word "delusion".   If someone is attempting to cause me emotional, fiscal or societal harm, being accused of being a threat to myself or others is not a delusion.  It's a fact.

MSM Proposes Gun Confiscation Orders After Mass Shootings Continue:

ABC News recently published a piece focused on a gun control tool known as an Extreme Risk Protection Order, essentially a restraining order between gun owners and their guns, that would allow for the confiscation of their lawful property on the mere say-so basis from others like family members, acquaintances or law enforcement officials — without the gun owner’s knowledge or input.

ERPO laws are already in effect in such places as California, Connecticut, Oregon and Washington state, with similar legislation being worked on in a multitude of other states and Washington, D.C., as well as — to a lesser and limited extent — Indiana and Texas.
The way these laws work is by allowing family members or the police to express their concern about the potential imminent danger of an individual in a petition to a judge, who could in turn order the individual to surrender their lawfully possessed weapons for a temporary period of time.

Yes, I realize I've said much of this last month.   But that's when it was just a flash in the pan.  Now gun-grabbers in even more states are signing on to this unconstitutional injustice, and it's got to stop somewhere!

Is every state which is signing onto this gun-grabber bandwagon including that the accused will have his day in court?  And is he/she assumed to be guilty without evidence?  I don't see that in the versions of such bills I've seen yet.

As nearly as I can tell, this is just another arrow in the quiver of people who don't think the average citizen has a right to possess an object which they hate (that is ... a firearm.)  So far, it has been a low-profile attack, and I have no idea how successful it has been.  MSM doesn't keep a score card on this one.

Well,  they wouldn't.  It's a "Stealth Attack" on the 2nd Amendment, and opponents of the Constitution are well known for using any trick in the book ... and now, apparently, inventing new ones ... to achieve their goals of undermining the "unpopular" civil rights of Americans.

If they can't stay in the headlines, they can't be heard.  It doesn't matter to them if they win or lose, they'll just turn a corner and find another unpopular cause.

But the Second Amendment is "A Big One", and they really want to score a win in this column.

They don't care about the harm they cause to honest people who think the Constitution is an inviolable part of their country.

Taxing a Constitutional Right?

Paying for the Second Amendment – Baptist News Global:
What about a Second Amendment Reparations Tax, levied on all American households and corporations? If the Second Amendment is essential to American identity, and if additional firearm-related legislation is a long time coming (if ever), then why not create a communal fund to assist those families and institutions devastated by inevitable gun violence? Such a FEMA-administered reparations tax would commit all of us to the task of “binding up the wounds” created by firearm violence. If we can’t affect the laws, the least we can do is help pay for the funerals.
I was raised a Baptist; this kind of "Holier-Than-Thou" mindset is why I am no longer a Baptist.

Here's an alternative solution:  What about a First Amendment Reparations Tax?   How about we remove the tax exemption for churches whose ministers preach against Rights guaranteed by the same constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and religion?    If you feel that strongly about “binding up the wounds”, pay for it out of your own pocket.   Don't steal from mine.

 And don't demonize Second Amendment supporters with one side of your face while you want to tax us with the other side.   Your article bemoans the attack of innocents in a church, and rightly so; it was a heinous crime.    If you want to be safe from this kind of attack, hold church in a National Guard Armory.   That's where gun shows are held, and they're not being subjected to violence.

Because everybody has guns there, nobody uses them.

Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition.  I bet you know that song.
It's got a good beat, and you can dance to it.  I give it an 85% rating.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Democrats Lie because The Truth Is Unpalatable

All politicians lie, some are more skillful or subtle than others, but Diane Feinstein takes to lying like a pig to mud; it's her natural domain and she likes it.

Her recent press release (see below) admits that she will not be able to get a gun ban law past the Senate, because they tried it once and it didn't work .. after a 10 year "trial run" it bumped into the Sunset Provision which Republicans required before agreeing to that odious plan.

Feinstein argued then, and now argues again, that anti-gun laws would limit crimes with guns if they just get the 'military style assault weapons' off the streets.   *

(Or if all firearms owners would shoot each other, with the last remaining gun ownerwho  would explode an atomic bomb rendering him/her to a fine mist along with all the guns in the world ... at which time the firearms industry would bootstrap itself because EVERYBODY WANTS A GUN!)
In 1994, she (and elected partners-in-crime) put American Citizens who own firearms through a decade of turmoil and trouble, and for no better purpose but to massage her ego.

She now claims: "we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war.

The truth (which is a stranger to the not-so-honorable Senator from California) is that her earlier plan *the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban* proved that the laws which she forced upon honest Americans did not significantly reduce the rate of people murdered or otherwise assaulted, which was the promise used to justify passage of the law ... provisionally.  It was accepted for a period of 10 years, with the agreement that Conservatives had no confidence in the plan but would ALLOW IT TO BECOME LAW;  but Liberals would, in return, allow the law to expire after ten years if it did not accomplish the goals which were the justification for the law.

After ten years, the Sunset Provision took effect:  The law didn't have any affect on violent crime rates, but it imposed an enormous (and unpalatable) burden on legal firearms owners.   The Senate agreed over steaks and drinks at The Capital Hill Hotel that the whole idea was a f*cking Flop and nobody wanted to be known as the Senator Who Trampled the Second Amendment.

And so, the law was repealed.

(Diane was not invited to the dinner; and hasn't had a dinner with a republican ... ever!) 

The NRA had little need to politicize the act, which all agreed was clearly a really bad idea.

Even the Washington Post had to admit that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban failed:
Did the law have an effect on crime or gun violence? While gun violence did fall in the 1990s, this was likely due to other factors. Here's the UPenn study again: "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."
One reason is that assault weapons were never a huge factor in gun violence to begin with. They were  used in only 2 percent to 8 percent of gun crimes. Large-capacity magazines were more important — used in as many as a quarter of gun crimes. But, again, the 1994 law left more than 24 million magazines untouched, so the impact was blunted.
And Feinstein's statement that "The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004" is an outright lie. That odious piece-of-shit law was never instrumental in the goals it was based on; it only affected law-abiding people, It never even inconvenienced the criminals, although it might have made the black-market for guns more profitable.   Feinstein was "off-target", focusing on weapons which had never been a major factor in American crime rates: she wanted them banned then, and she wants them banned now, for no better reason than that she doesn't like them.

Since when has American law been predicated on a Senator's personal distaste for an inanimate object?  And why does California continue to elect a lunatic to the Senate? 

(Oh, sorry; that's what they do there.  I can't complain, my elected senators are not much more rational than California's, but they haven't been messing with my Constitutional Rights!)

---------------------------------------- supplemental references ---------------------------------------

Feinstein Press Release:
Senators Introduce Assault Weapons Ban - Press Releases - United States Senator for California: Senator Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement: “We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote. “This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004. Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere. “To those who say now isn’t the time, they’re right—we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war. To my colleagues in Congress, I say do your job.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Bad Holstering

I realize that this is parody, but you and I have seen people on the firing line who haven't been "significantly" less safe.
What IS "significant" is that the last time I checked, you can't DQ a competitor in IPSC/USPSA for 'sweeping" during drawing or holstering.  (I need to recheck that I am referencing the current edition of the rule book.  Or someone might check for me, and reply in comments.  I'd appreciate it.)

Which is, situationally, "cringe-worthy" because I've seen some people who are not practiced in competition use their 'off hand" to direct their pistol into their holster by placing their off-hand over the muzzle ... literally.  Rare, but not unknown.

The best you can do, as a "Range Officer" or "Safety Officer" (depending on your competition venue) is to quietly suggest that this is not normally considered a Safe Practice, and offer to work with them in the Safety Area to practice safer gun-handling techniques.

If they are unwilling to learn, they'll eventually perform some other "Unsafe Act" which is not protected by the rule book.  But then, you'll have another heart-stopping moment.  Cringe!

Getting back to the image, this breaks at lest three competition safety rules in several disciplines.  Which suggests that I have no sense of humor.

When it comes to range safety, I have no sense of humor.

Rule Number One:   Don't Frighten The Range Officer!!!!

Finally ... Someone Other Than Me disputes that "Revolvers Are more Reliable"!

I don't care to know the details.  I'm sure it's far too technical for me to understand.

But I've had my own "WTF?" moments with revolvers, and they were always my fault.

The problems I've had were with ammunition which I reloaded ... but I didn't get the primer as fully seated as I should.  (Translation: it was my fault!)

The funny thing about a wheel gun is that if you have a primer that's just a little bit less than 'poked in the primer pocket so that the primer doesn't  hang up on the frame', that cylinder thingie just won't turn.  And you're left with a revolver that not only won't cycle, or fire, but maybe won't even allow you to remove the cylinder to reload it!

My Revolver Stopped Revolving - Lucky Gunner Lounge:
Revolvers fail, too. I feel like I’m starting to sound like a broken record at this point, but I’ll probably keep bringing it up until people stop spreading misinformation about revolvers being “100% reliable.” In the video below, I describe yet another revolver failure I recently encountered. Two of them, actually. And I’m not talking about the kind of problems you can fix in a couple of seconds on the firing line. I mean, “put it in a box and mail it to the men with tools” kind of problems.

Personal Anecdote: (Stop me if you've heard this before)

Several years ago (15 to 20 years ago, if it matters) I went to a special "Concealed Carry" match at Tri-Country Gun club.    Doesn't matter ... it's a 'local club' to which I was once a member.

I didn't have a "concealed carry" gun, or holster, so I just used my Taurus Revolver (4" barrel) in a 'regular' holster, and moved the holster way behind my right hip.  Then I put on a rain jacket (this IS Oregon ... I thought it was reasonable) and kept the jacket buttoned so the gun didn't show.  When it was my turn to shoot, I had to unbutton the jacket, but I wasn't really concerned about winning the match; I was just shooting for fun anyway.  I have little patience or concern for people who "can't take a joke".

Some folks took exception to this as not being "Real Concealed Carry"' but I ignored them, as is my usual practice toward people who don't like the way I do things.  And I eventually survived their caustic comments by just not listening to the damned fools. 

*The match rules didn't define "Concealed" anyway, which was an indication that they had no better idea than I did about what "Concealed Carry" meant.*

But that's not the point.

The point is, I was using my own personal handloaded ammunition, and one of them didn't have the primer seated quite as 'fully' as it should have been.  So when I reloaded my pistol during one of the match stages, the cylinder wouldn't cycle!

The "high primer" kept the cylinder from cycling, and I ended up disobeying one of the primary range rules; I had to take my LOADED PISTOL off the range, go to a distant "safe" bay, and eventually hammered the cylinder so it would unlock.  Literally, hammered the cylinder with a ROCK so I could break it loose and unload it.

This taught me a couple of important lessons, not the least of which is to NEVER load a revolver with ammunition which hasn't cycled the cylinder before.  And ALWAYS use factory ammunition if you care about either reliability or safety with your revolver.

 *Especially if you're not as good a reloader as you think you are.*

The upshot is, that you should never load ammunition into your revolver, if you intend it for "serious purposes", until you're certain it will cycle reliably.   That rule also applies to Semi-automatics, but for slightly different reasons

And ..  oh yes, Revolvers are not significantly "more reliable than semi-automatics" because ammunition with flaws which will cycle (if perhaps not perform well) in an automatic may not be as reliable in a Revolver.   A revolver which locks up because of a high primer is not something you want to bet your life on, which is why I never again will load ammunition in a revolver without spinning the cylinder ... "just in case".   Stranger things have happened to me.

Curiously, I still keep that same (loaded) revolver in my bedside night stand.   But I don't have just one weapon; I always have a backup under the "Belt AND Suspenders" philosophy.  It's difficult for me to imagine why anyone would want to raid my home, but I've become convinced over the years that there are people who are more unreasonable than I am.  And yes, Mark, I realize that's hard to believe.

The NRA IS Stronger Than Our Government!

I started writing a "reaction" to that titular statement (added in full below), and after an hour of trying to undermine the thesis, I realized that it was true.   The NRA is "Stronger Than Our Government"!

The key word here is "STRONGER".  The NRA is not more powerful, not more influential than our government.

Just Stronger!

Our government is filled with politicians, all seeking re-election to positions of power and influence, and often full of themselves.  They want to be king-makers ... or kings in their own local barnyard.   From the local level to the national, they pander to the voters to support their own personal careers.  They campaign for re-election by saying anything which will give them one more vote.  They'll say anything for that vote.  I don't stoop to calling them all charletons but we know there are many in elected office.

 Sure, most of them are honorable men and women, but some are selling tonic water from the back of a wagon. And you're buying their tonic water with your votes.

The National Rifle Association is a 'club' with five million members who have the odd notion that the Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment (and all the others) and not coincidentally enjoy the "Shooting Sports"; which include hunting, competition, and personal defense according to the Constitution.

The difference between "Our Government" and "The NRA" is the Government is a group of people fighting for dominance.    The NRA, on the other hand, is a group of people in (almost) complete agreement about their goals and their message.   Their goal, and their message, is the Constitution of the United States of America.

If you will fight to defend the Second Amendment, you must necessarily fight for ALL of the Constitution.

There is infighting among congress and almost any other organized group; but the infighting within the NRA is almost always "technical".   Lately, the controversy in this group is about "Bump Stocks"; which will be rancorous, but will not undermine their homogeneity of purpose: to defend the Constitutional rights of all Americans.

So when an obscure editorial comment (see below) complains about the NRA, our thought is that he should be complaining about the Government ... which cannot make a decision.

We've already made our decision, to defend our Constitution and (not incidentally) our Second Amendment Rights. 


We don't expect "Leadership" from politicians.   Their goal is to be re-elected, not to defend the Constitution.   It's an effort for them to even find a way to pretend to care about the Constitution.


We don't expect "Leadership" from Europe.  They don't a Constitution!   There are no moral guidelines in Europe.   They are a disparate bunch of tiny groups which cannot agree on anything, and their constant bickering relegates them to nothing more than background noise, like static from an FM radio tuned into a frequency which you can't clearly receive from Outback, Alaska.

 A letter to the editor of a Florida newspaper insists that "The NRA is Stronger Than Our Government":

I think America is confused. We have no real leadership. Maybe we need to look to Europe for models of leadership on gun control and other issues.
When will Congress finally do something about the NRA, which has become stronger than our government, and enact and enforce stronger gun control laws? Every time there is a mass shooting we learn that someone fell down on the job, ignored significant warnings about the shooter, let important findings fall thru the cracks.
Why are lawmakers so afraid of the NRA? Get rid of every ineffective representative in Congress. I'm mad and I'm frustrated and I have to stop reading and watching the news. Let me know when we have a real president and lawmakers who really do love America more than their jobs.

 Wikipedia Entry:
Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington, DC. Over its history the organization has influenced legislation, participated in or initiated lawsuits, and endorsed or opposed various candidates.

NB:  The author of this letter to the editor is someone who wants his government to treat him as a child to be coddled and protected.  He is not someone who wants his government to protect his Constitutional Rights.  He could stop reading and watching the news, and learn to love America for what it is.  He chooses instead to take counsel of his fears.   This is no country for old men.  He could move to Europe, where they would be happy to give him no 'rights' but not ask what he can do for his country.

Monday, November 13, 2017

Everyone Has A Right To Have An Opinion, But ... it's Not Your Problem!

Sometimes your opinion isn't worth spit.

From a recent comment-roll on National Review Online:
The entire experience of mankind shows that as gun ownership decreases, so does possession of guns by criminals. Millions of Americans who get bamboozled by gun manufacturers propaganda and buy guns "for self-defense", not only endanger themselves, statistically speaking, but also keep criminals well armed, since so many guns get stolen. Speaking of which, former owners of stolen guns should have unlimited civil liability for whatever guns stolen from them are used for - unless the police report from the time of theft shows the gun was stored reasonably securely (e.g. in a standard gun safe). If you keep a gun in a night stand, you REALLY should know that that's the first place a burglar will be checking for valuables.
Yeah, yeah, your mother wears a moustache!

I like folks who have an opinion but I prefer that they know what they're talking about.  I take issue with a few points raised by the commenter:

  • Exaggeration"the entire experience of mankind" is over-written.  Gun ownership has never decreased; it has only increased.  Population and manufacture have increased.  The point he's trying to make is fallacious and arrogant.   The possession of guns by criminals is a fact of life.  You're not responsible ... it's not your problem.
  • Misdirection: "bamboozled by gun manufacturers propaganda" assumes that gun owners are ignorant and easily led.  People buy guns because they like to shoot.  As more shooting sports appear (eg: Cowboy Action, IPSC, Three-gun etc.) more people find a reason and an outlet for their purchase of firearms.  And having "matches" at "Clubs" allows them reason to practice shooting, leading to a better degree of expertise.  Competition also allows individuals an opportunity to meet new friends, share experiences and advice, and become more comfortable with gun ownership.   (That is not something that Anti-gun Liberals want to hear.)   Criminals buy or steal guns, and use them for less "socially acceptable" purposes.  Responsible gun owners will find the safe-storage solution which provides the best balance between self-defense and keeping THEIR kids from shooting each other.  As far as everyone else is concerned?  Not your problem!
  • Lies from Liberal Sources:  "...people who buy guns 'for self-defense/, not only endanger themselves, statistically speaking, but also keep criminals well armed, since so many guns get stolen ..." is a Two-For-One.   Not only does it surreptitiously channel the debunked Kellerman fallacy, it also also provides the subtle suggestion that firearms owners should ALWAYS keep their guns locked up.   If you own guns for personal defence in your home, storage in a "safe" makes it much more difficult to access it when you most immediately need it.  Yes, you need to balance the security of your firearm against the security of your family.  The decisions you make will probably be the most appropriate for you.  What everyone else does with their guns is not your problem. (The assumption is that there are people in your home who are not to be trusted with a gun that isn't locked in a huge metal box.   It's a valid point in some homes, but not in ALL homes!)
  • Night Stand Storage:  Well, it's uncomfortable to sleep with your gun under your pillow.  And "occupied residence home invasions" are becoming more common as intruders are (incidentally) encouraged by published articles which suggest that it's A Bad Idea to keep a gun in a nightstand.  You'll find the best balance between accessibility in an emergency, and accessibility by people who can't be trusted with a gun.   Other people might not agree with your decision, but you don't need to please them.  Their opinion is not your problem; your family is.
Ultimately, the entire article was written by someone who thinks that a gun in the home is more likely a danger to the residents than to any intruder.   Which isn't necessarily bullshit, but close enough.

Post Script:    former owners of stolen guns should have unlimited civil liability for whatever guns stolen from them are used for - unless the police report from the time of theft shows the gun was stored reasonably securely (e.g. in a standard gun safe).

Isn't that typical? Make the victim be the bad guy, because he (or she) had chosen to defend his/her self, family, home or property.

  Liberal thinking is often that it's the next best thing to a mortal sin to take responsibility for your own actions and for your own safety.   You should count on your Government (fire department, police, janitor) to keep you from burning up your own home, defend you against armed aggressors, and clean up the mess you left behind.

Conservative thinking is that when the stuff hits the fan, you're often all alone.  Calling the fire department is great for fires and rescues, but isn't it better to not smoke in bed?  Calling for the police is a good idea, but by the time they get here the blood might have already flowed, and isn't it better that it's not your blood? 

And if you get stuck in a tree trying to rescue a cat ... the cat would have found its way back to earth eventually.

Even if it's your cat ... It's Not Your Problem!

Sunday, November 12, 2017

I BELIEVE in Gun Control!

... if I'm controlling it.

"Funny"? I'll give you "FUNNY"!

Forget Bob Hope and "The Road to Where-ever" movies.  In my mind, the two funniest comics in Show Business are Gene Hackmen and Marty Feldman.

No .. wait .. I got that wrong.   Gene WILDER and Marty ("old screw eyes") Feldman, under the directorial genius of  Mel Brooks!

Young Frankenstein.

Blazing Saddles.

It takes some serious comedy to make me laugh, but this combination of wit and nitwits constitute the series of films which I call "The Road To Nowhere" .. and I mean this in the nicest possible way!

Chloris Leachman keeps showing up (see: "High Anxiety") ... to my everlasting pleasure.

... and if that's not enough to put you 'in the mood', I give you "A Comedy Tonight" by Zero Mostel.

Never Give An Inch

If "People Of The Gun" are an anachronism in Modern America, we should at least leave a Dinosaur-sized footprint behind as we die off.

Dianne Feinstein is at it again.   Hit 'em high, hit 'em low, there's no limit to her perfidy:
Democrats' New 'Assault Weapons' Bill Would Ban the GLOCK 17, More Semi-Auto Pistols - The Truth About Guns: The text of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s assault rifle ban bill is now available on her website and, contra Nick’s expectations, it isn’t simply a copy-and-paste re-run of the failed Clinton era assault rifle ban language. It’s worse. Much worse.
I don't know, maybe Senator "Mr. and Mrs. America, Give 'Em All Up" has the right of it.  Perhaps we "Bitter Clingers" (to quote another famous American) have stayed stuck in an era which the rest of America has passed by.  We may have outlived our "Stale Date".

But I don't really think so.  There's an intractable element of our society which rejects the "New America" because we were born in an era that believed the Constitution protected liberties which all mankind can - or should - recognize are "inalienable".

Today, the Constitution is nothing more than an irritating anachronism (there's that word again) to the new "Dear Leaders".   They will be happy when the Old School dies off; it can't come too soon, to them.

But the pivotal moment in the American Revolution came when the British attempted to confiscate the contents of an American arsenal

Americans of that era decided to fight and die to protect their right to keep and bear arms.  England at that time was the "owner of America" and arguably the strongest military force in the world.  But Americans with flintlocks (which were prohibitively expensive at the time) not only paid the price in the applicable gelt at the time,  but in American Lives, to keep their guns.

They needed guns to fend off attacks from the Native Americans, who resented the encroachment on the land where they were born.

The Liberal intelligentsia is, today, not yet strong enough to force Americans to voluntarily "give up their guns"; but they're working on it.  Their tool is to denigrate gun owners as being rabidly violent anti-social neanderthals.    And it's working, even if there is little evidence that the average firearms owner is either anti-social or irresponsible.   Whether we are Neanderthals is a side-issue.

These New Americans don't think we need guns.  Well, they live in major cities where police are readily available ... for various values of "readily available".  They are reluctant to take responsibility for their own personal protection; except for the Gang Bangers, who know best their need for personal defense.  Or defense of their 'turf'.

The police are reluctant, at best, to go from door to door and search private homes with the goal of confiscating firearms. (We have given up the concept that private arms must be keep in an arsenal ... good choice!   The Brits could learn from this.  See "Concord" and "Lexington".) 

Police don't know which firearms owners are 'crazy' enough to resist confiscation with force, but their thought is that there are more than a few.   So let the Liberals among them (and they are few) risk their lives to serve their masters; most police are 2nd Amendment supporters, anyway.   My personal experience is that legal gun owners are the most responsible and law-abiding members of society, but there is no such thing as a "Universal Truth", no matter what the Huffington Post says.

Essays should end with a conclusion, proven by preceding arguments.   At least, that's what the "Ten Golden Rules of Essay Writing" says.

Here's my conclusion:

Dianne Feinstein is full of crap.

Saturday, November 11, 2017

The Giffords Sue The Donald

Gee ... who knew that the President was a hireling of the Evil NRA?
I just may renew my annual membership, after all!

Trump administration sued by gun control group founded by Gabby Giffords:
A gun control group founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., is suing the Trump administration for failing to disclose documents revealing the National Rifle Association’s influence on Trump’s views towards gun policies. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives earlier this week, accusing the ATF of failing to comply to various Freedom of Information Act requests for documents concerning communications between the NRA and the administration.
Personally, I think that "The Giffords" should start their own television program.  It would be like "The Jeffersons" except without the humor.   Should they hire someone to say "Dy-No-Mite!" every time a bad joke needs a punchline?

You can tell that a gun-control group is not receiving contributions when they resort to "Shock-Jock" tactics to keep their name in the headlines.

Texas Freeway Shooting Spree

Some nut has been shooting at cars on a Texas freeway.

As if Texas hasn't had enough problems with idiots who can't control their temper.

Man charged with aggravated assault in I-35 shooting spree | AUSTIN (KXAN) —
(November 6, 2017) Police identified a man accused of shooting at cars with an assault rifle along an 18-mile stretch of Interstate 35 Saturday morning.
Hanging is too good for this creep!

McClang Defends the Second Amendment

Senator John McCain McClang interrupted a Senate hearing on the appointment of a Defense Department nominee because the candidate's politics seemed dismissive of Americans' Civil Rights.

Who knew that Ol' John still had a pair?  I'm calling him "Senator McClang" for the sound they make when he walks.
Senate panel stalls nominee who called assault rifle sales 'insane' | TheHill: The Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday declined to move forward with a top Defense Department nominee after he made bold comments on gun control and military abortion policy during a committee hearing earlier this week. Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told reporters that lawmakers still “have a number of questions” — specifically on “guns and abortions” — for Dean Winslow, the nominee for assistant secretary of Defense for health affairs. Winslow during a Tuesday hearing said he thinks it’s “insane” that civilians can buy assault rifles in the United States. That remark came just days after a deadly mass shooting in Texas. McCain at the time interrupted Winslow, telling him, “I don't think that's in your area of responsibility or expertise.”

"Military Style Weapons" to be banned?

Three days after one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, 22 Democratic senators on Wednesday proposed a national ban on military-style weapons of the sort the Texas shooter deployed to massacre 26 people in a church on Sunday.Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both of Connecticut, were the lead co-sponsors along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.“Connecticut’s ban was a model for us in drafting this,” Blumenthal said in an interview.

Do Democrats understand that there are very few firearms which cannot be accurately defined as "Military Style Weapons"?  This includes most hunting rifles, which are sometimes described (by Democrats and other Gun Confiscators as "Sniper Rifles".   Pistols?  Revolvers?  All issued to Military personnel.

(Well, of course they understand that!   It's in the book; you can look it up.)

Confiscation?  Not obviously on the public venue, but we can bet Registration is on the horizon, and Confiscation follows Registration as surely as Dawn follows Dusk.   And the kind of bill proposed would not be possible to enforce without registration of firearms in private hands "already legally in the hands of owners".   How else can they tell 'new guns" from "those already legally in the hands of owners"?

Oh, the Democrats are just eating this up with a Big Spoon!

Democratic senators propose military-style weapons ban - Connecticut Post:
The measure would ban the sale, manufacture and importation of affected new guns, but would not confiscate those already legally in the hands of owners. It covers broad classes of semiautomatic firearms including most versions of the AR-15, which the Texas shooter used, and which has been used in several mass shootings. The bill would also ban high-capacity magazines, which are also already banned in Connecticut. "Weapons of war have no place in our communities,” Blumenthal said in a written release. He defended Connecticut’s 1993 ban on military-style weapons in the state Supreme Court. “These killing machines have no purpose for self-defense or hunting and they must remain on the battlefield where they belong — not in our churches, schools and theaters,” he added in the release.
So, if "weapons of war have no place in our communities", why would the good folks in Connecticut (who have already raised the "WILL NOT COMPLY!" banner high) be expected to obey another new law which is impossible to enforce without compliance ... and without protest ... and without justification?

And for that matter, why would the REST of America feel comfortable with an "Assault Weapons Ban" .. which we proved decades ago would have no meaningful benefit? 

(1994 Assault Weapons Ban)

Connecticut seems an odd place to begin the confiscation of firearms.  One of the original 13 colonies, Connecticut has a proud history of resisting firearms confiscation.

In 2014, news sources reported that in Connecticut a confiscation of firearms was in the works, but this turned out to not be true.

Is it possible that this is just another example of "Fake News"?

Or have both state and National officials raised the flag of confiscation, just to test the waters?

Or have they truly, under the maniacal leadership of Democratic Senators, decided that this was "the right thing to do".

CTPOST.COM reports that this is not merely a proposed state ban, but is proposed as a FEDERAL ban on "Assault Rifles":
(Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both of Connecticut, were the lead co-sponsors along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.)Three days after one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, 22 Democratic senators on Wednesday proposed a national ban on military-style weapons of the sort the Texas shooter deployed to massacre 26 people in a church on Sunday. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both of Connecticut, were the lead co-sponsors along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.“Connecticut’s ban was a model for us in drafting this,” Blumenthal said in an interview.
(Did anyone notice that it was a guy with an "Assault Weapon" who drove the rascal away? 
I didn't think so.)

Oh, Crap.
It hasn't been two hours since I swore to myself that I would no longer report on the Texas Church Massacre ... but our National Leaders haven't been able to demonstrate even that miniscule modicum of restraint.   (At least nobody mentioned the word: "BumpStock".)

You know what I think?  I think we should tar and feather the rascals, and run 'em out of town on a rail.  Like they did in the old days.

Write your congress-critter.  Better yet, phone his office.  Tell him this is a threat to Americans in every state and that nobody who votes for this kind of shenanigans will ever be elected to public office again. 

Oh, Crap!

When "The Economist" weighs in on a subject, it's a signal that we're so f*cking tired that anybody can have an opinion ... even if it's bullshit.   Which it is. (Nothing new here; move on!)
A minority of gun owners have a veto over gun laws - More mass shootings:
The NRA’s membership is relatively small. It should be less powerful than it is.
That's it?

That's all "The Economist" has to say about that?
Okay, I'm officially NOT blogging about the Texas Chainsaw Madman With A Gun Massacre any more
Nobody doesn't understand what happened there, nobody is any more or less upset.
But when the Mainstream Media (The "Economist", for Crissakes?) weighs in with nothing new to say except "GUNS BAD!"  you can be pretty sure that they no longer give a shit about the people who died there


Still Crazy After All These Years

The latest Crazy Talk from anti-Constitutional Liberals reveals (again!)  the  maniacal Bias of Liberals against "good men with guns".

The Texas Church Massacre was stopped by a "good man with a gun", after a "bad man with a gun" slaughtered 26.  Who knows how many more would have died if nobody had been ready, willing and able to step up and shoot the crazy son-of-a-bitch before he could have murdered many others in the pews of their church.

You can't stop the "bad men with a gun" because they will defy current laws; you can only hamstring the "good man with a gun", because they will obey the law .. however unwillingly.  Because  "law-abiding".

And yet the crazy Gifford family ignores recent history, and allows their emotions to over-ride the Constitution because of their own personal tragic history.

We can't blame the Gifford family for allowing their experience to color their response, but it would be "nice" if the could step back and realize that none of the laws they espouse would be "common sense" ... because the "bad men" would ignore them.

Criminals will always have guns, because "Criminals"!

Trump administration sued by gun control group founded by Gabby Giffords:
“The Trump administration appears willing to let the National Rifle Association dictate its federal gun safety policy, which includes remaining silent on how to stem our nation’s gun violence epidemic,” said Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Giffords Law Center, according to the Huffington Post. “Protecting the safety of Americans should be the top priority of any president. Unfortunately, gun lobby profits seem to be more important to President Trump.”
Oh, thanks a HELLUVA LOT, Gifford Family, for making it much more complicated than the Constitution really needs to be:


Wednesday, November 08, 2017

"Concealed carry laws are a useless weapon against church shootings" - Chicago Tribune

The Trib lives up to its reputation for distorting the news, asserting that "Concealed Carry parishioners in Texas would have been unable to subdue a determined killer ..."

(See the original Chicago Tribune column by Dahleen Glanton) hereafter referred to as "she".

I must have misread all of the reports which categorically stated that an armed citizen stopped the Texas Church Shooting the other day.  (Reference: National Review, USA TODAY, CNN, CBS Baltimore. etc.)

Because a Chicago Tribune "contributor" contends that the man who stopped the Texas Church Shooting contends that he didn't stop the murders.

Concealed carry laws are a useless weapon against church shootings - Chicago Tribune:
Everyone knows that the issue of firearms is both complex and contentious. There is no “one-size-fits-all” answer to how to stop mass shootings from occurring in churches or anywhere else.
But it is unlikely a parishioner armed with a handgun would have been able to subdue a determined killer like Devin Kelley. Dressed in all black, wearing bulletproof tactical gear, carrying a military-style rifle and equipped with dozens of rounds of ammunition, Kelley entered the Texas church prepared for a massacre. When he was done, 26 people, about half of them children, were dead.
(emphasis added)

And yet, one armed man did stop the killing.  And you have a lot of nerve to contend that he did not.

It's amazing that a Chicago newspaper is so eager to denigrate the willingness of Texans to protect their own innocents; one can only assume that the Liberal Message ("Guns are always bad!") is more important than the truth as far as that Chicago Tribune contributor is concerned.

Glanton quotes Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (out of context):  
“All I can say is in Texas at least we have the opportunity to have conceal carry," he said. "And so ... there's always the opportunity that gunman will be taken out before he has the opportunity to kill very many people."
(Glanton opines:) "The attorney general is delusional if he thinks an armed church member or even a security guard could have frightened Kelley into submission."

It may be possible that the Tribune Reporter merely misunderstood the Attorney General of Texas.

More likely, she is so involved in her personal anti-gun opinion that she cannot be relied upon to candidly quote her original news source without demonstrating her contempt for defense of the Second Amendment.

Glanton lives in Chicago, which has (arguably) the most strict anti-gun laws, and the highest murder-by-gun rates in the country ... yet she has the temerity to castigate Texas because their laws allow a private citizen to stop a mass shooting before it went any farther than it did?

Perhaps the key point in her screed is evidenced in her phrase: " ... could have frightened (the murderer) into submission".

Lady, the armed Texan didn't "frighten Kelley into submission".

He shot him dead, right then and there.  In doing so he stopped the murder of innocents immediately.

(And you would hoped for a 'better solution"?  Like ... maybe he would have convinced the gunman to stop shooting people by voicing a persuasive, logical argument?)

People who don't recognize a Hero when they see one, and who are all-too-ready to second guess them for "doing the right thing" ...?

She disgusts me.