Saturday, February 17, 2018

Books, books, books ... so many books, so little time

There is a distinct advantage (if you are a bibliophile, which I am) in having a larger personal library.

That is, if you have enough books, you can reach out and grab a book at random; and when you read it, it's as if it's a brand new book .... except it's also an old friend.

You may not remember the plot, or the characters in it; but the flavor lingers on like the taste of that licorice whip you bought for a nickle back when you were a little kid at your first County Fair.

Not everybody likes old books; well, not everybody likes Licorice, either.
It happens that I like, love and enjoy both "pre-read books" and black licorice whips.

(No, I don't like that abysmal "red licorice" ... it's a contradiction in terms, like "Cool Heat" or  ....
okay, don't get me started.)                                   

Where was I?

Oh, okay.  I remember now.

If your library is sufficiently large, you can re-read a new book every day; even though you have owned it for years had read it a couple of times, a well-written novel is always a joy because every re-reading exposes you to nuances which t he author didn't emphasize so thoroughly that you missed the  essence of the way he first voiced it.

Do you skim through novels, eager to see what's written on the following page?  So do I, and so I do miss much of the heart of a literary work upon first reading.

Fortunately, I never discard a book once read ... at least, not those which I have purchased.

And I have purchased a large number of books. 

Looking into the library room (my upstairs hall) I count four book-cases and 35 banker-boxes of books.   I have learned not to go into the garage and look at the book-shelves there ... it's disheartening to realize I have left so many wonderful books unread for so many years.

But I'll get around to them, eventually; I always do.  I take a box of books from the garage shelves and replace it with a box of books from the upstairs landing. There is no "strict rotation" of books; I have a box in the garage, it goes to the hallway; then it migrates to the upstairs landing, and eventually it ends up on my nightstand where I can read myself to sleep. (Too often I end up so engrossed in an old book, I don't get much sleep.)

If you have enough books (and I do), by the time you get back to 'your favorite book' you've forgotten about it, so it's always new.

Growing old is also a boon to a bibliophile/  I can't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday, let alone the plot or the surprise ending of my favorite book.

 Every day is a new day when you grow old.


Amy Schumer Asks for Donations to Gun Control Group In Lieu of Wedding Gifts

Every direction I turn, someone is asking me to give them money.

Is that the way your life turns, too?

Honestly, even in news articles, someone (including people I not only DO NOT KNOW but even those I WOULD CHOOSE NOT TO KNOW) expect me to give them money which would be better spent on causes which would benefit ME, not them. I'm thinking ... tomorrow's dinner would be a better investment in my pension.

What IS it about "Public Figures" that they toil not, they perform no useful purpose, but because of their notoriety they seem to feel that the cash dollars which I have  earned should be haphazardly pitched in their direction

Are these people, who have never met me, deserving to milk me like a barren cow just because I am presumed to know their name?   Am I entitled to bug them for 10% of their earnings if I tell them my name is "Jerry" and now they owe me money?

I guess that they believe "it doesn't hurt to ask", but for a total stranger (and a homely visaged one at that) to entreat me to pay for her freaking WEDDING by donating my retirement fund for a cause which I would not willingly support (either gun control, or the possible extension of her piss-poor politics via her prospective progeny)  .... that, to me, seems  an excessive exercise in Hubris.

  • (Is that a run-on sentence?  Never mind. )

Amy Schumer Asks for Donations to Gun Control Group In Lieu of Wedding Gifts: \
After announcing that she had wed chef Chris Fischer in a surprise ceremony this week, comedian Amy Schumer asked fans to forgo wedding gifts and to instead send donations to the Michael Bloomberg-funded gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer told fans about her wedding via Instagram, and denied she’d had a shotgun wedding, writing:“No, I’m not pregnant.” She then added: “And no gifts but thank you for asking. Instead please consider [a] donation to everytown for gun safety. Thought of Mayce and Jillian a lot yesterday and sending love to everyone who has been affected by gun violence.”
Okay, there is some humor implied in this announcement.  Specifically, the relationship between the term "shotgun wedding" and the plea for TOTAL STRANGERS to contribute to  Bloomberg's "Everytown for Gun Safety" ... really, did she think this trough?   I suspect such subtlty is beyond her.

I doubt it as much as I doubt the sanity of her fiance, who is supposedly willing to spend the rest of his life in the company of this airhead!

(And thank you Jesus for someone-who-isn't-me to bite the bullet and wed this ditzt! Can you imagine the children which would presumably result from this marriage???)

All I can say is, that if I ever contributed to "gun control" causes, which I would not do because they're all inane and insane, I certainly would not contribute my hard-earned dollars to any cause which is endorsed by Amy Schumer.  That's a perfect union, when you think about it; an airhead espousing an airhead cause ... what could be more intellectually perfect?

(Okay, I stuck the word "intellectual" in the last paragraph knowing full well that "Amy Schumer" (or anyone with the Schumer Name, including the congress-critter),  is not deserving to be mentioned in the same book, let alone the same paragraph, with the word "intellectual".)

(And yes, I realize that I inserted a parenthetical phrase inside of another parenthetical phrase; she is so inane, she deserves to be described parenthetically (parenthetically speaking).)

It may occur that the entire Schumer clan serves no better purpose than to cause outraged observers to violate the sylogisms which are strictly limited in " Wright's Rules of Essays".

On the other hand, the Schumers may (individually, and as a clan) be merely the scum of the earth, and deserve no higher approbation.


Friday, February 16, 2018

I think I would rather ... anything else

Amy Schumer Asks for Donations to Gun Control Group In Lieu of Wedding Gifts: \
After announcing that she had wed chef Chris Fischer in a surprise ceremony this week, comedian Amy Schumer asked fans to forgo wedding gifts and to instead send donations to the Michael Bloomberg-funded gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety.
I think I would rather cut out my tongue than do anything this woman suggests.

Her choice of "wedding gifts" only serves to polarize my disdain.


"It Ain't Funny, McGee!"



The FBI KNEW? And they didn't TELL anybody?

FBI Says It Failed To Act After Receiving Tip About Suspected Florida Shooter:
 Nikolas Cruz, a 19-year-old who was previously expelled from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, confessed to opening fire on the school this week. At least 17 people were killed.   Someone contacted the FBI’s public tip line to alert it to Cruz’s behavior, according to a statement from the agency. The caller said this behavior included a “desire to kill people” and “the potential of him conducting a school shooting.”
Oh.
Well you know ... we're only human.   We all make mistakes.
Pay no attention, move along, nothing to see here.

Up next, in a shocking story  "Wheel of Fortune" fans in shock.

Now, here's a story we can get our teeth into ... Vanna White knew the answers to the questions!!!
* (I lied about that) *

Oh, that's important news!  Everybody ought to tell everybody, so we can .. you know ...`react!;.

(Snark alert!)

It's not as if peoples lives are at stake.

Reality Sux

no kids one kid two kids

When reality doesn't suck enough, you gotta steal from  your betters.

Which is what I did here


http://cheezburger.com/9126877440/no-kids-kids

Thursday, February 15, 2018

ZERO


Mnuchin calls on Congress to look into gun violence issue after school shooting, breaking with rest of White House - The Washington Post:
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Thursday called on Congress to look into issues related to gun violence less than 24 hours after 17 people were killed in a school shooting in Florida.
(For the record ... no, I don't know how to pronounce his name either.)

"Gun Violence" has many faces; some of them have to do with honest, law-abiding citizens who would not dream of assaulting a citizen.
 But what if we find ourselves in a situation where we are faced with the decision whether to defend ourselves, and our home?

I don't know.  I just know how I deal with the issues on a day-by-day basis:


Wednesday, February 14, 2018

The Funniest Damn Thing Happened to me tonight

...  I was working on my computer, shifted to an alternate website, and when I tried to navigate on that website the connection didn't work.

Damn.  I hate that when that happens!

I tried alternate websites ... I couldn't go there, either.

Eventually, when I realized that I couldn't go ANYWHERE other than where I was when I locked up, I began to explore other possibilities.

Checked my internet connection.   Yes, it was all in the green (modem indicator lights).

Checked my mouse; yes it would move the icon from one part of the current webpage to another.

Checked ... oh, well ... HELL!  I checked every-damn-thing!  I even ran some tests on my keyboard;  I could navigate up/down, left/right on the current active page, but not much more.

(Yes, before you ask .. I DID reboot.  Cold boot, in fact; the computer came up just fine, but internet and other connections?  Not accessible!

By my notes, it took me from 2018 to 2030 to check the least logical obvious problem:  my mouse.

I replaced the AA batteries in my mouse about 3 months ago, it seemed unreasonable for them to have died so soon.  Looking at the indicator light at the base of the mouse, it still glowed green (as an indication that there was power in the batteries).

So what the hell!  I replaced the damn batteries "anyway", and kiss my sweet patootie if the connection from the mouse to the computer didn't start working,  EURECA!

 I So Smart!  (okay; slow ....)


My diagnostic process was all back-assward;  as a (retired) Computer Systems Analyst, I expected the problem to be in the most complicated link in the chain; the CPU.

Dumb ass me, I forgot the Number One Rule of Systems Analysis:


Look for the easy solutions FIRST! (Don't Mess with my Coffee Break!)

After  (check the log) 23 minutes of chasing the rabbit down the wrong warren-hole, I finally (FINALLY!) remembered my training and looked at the simplest possible solution:

That's right, it was the mouse.

Specifically ... even though the mouse had never done me no wrong, and the indicator light was shining bright green ... when I replaced the two AA batteries everything started working again!

Lesson Learned (again):  Don't trust indicator lights.

Don't trust "I replaced the batteries 3 months ago; how can they be dead???"

The batteries in the mouse were dead DEAD DEAD!!!    well, dead enough to count.

Yeah, yeah,  I hear you;  "Geek, you of ALL people ought to know better!"

Give me a break.  I'm old, I've been retired for (TooCloseTo) ten years.  So it took me 22 minutes to analyze the problem, find the problem, and fix the problem.  Does it help if I mention that (in the words of The Hobo Brasser) "Alcoholic Beverages Were Involved"?

The Good News is that I don't have to dismantle my roll-top desk so I need not drag the computer innards out and pay the Professional Geek Down The Street a hundred dollars to tell the Ex-Post Facto Geek that he's stupid and the problem isn't in the software, but in the hardware!

This started out being a really negative article; "How I Screwed Up My System In One Easy Step"
-- but instead it turned out to be a reasonable "don't go there" article;  check the cheap shit first!

Gene Wilder would have appreciated my situation.
He also had some small issues with mechanisms.

In fact, he made me look good by comparison with his *(Young Frankenstein)* movie, and I'm grateful.








Shooting at high school in Parkland, Fla.

Live updates: Shooting at high school in Parkland, Fla.; multiple injuries reported:
America has a gun problem and the blood it on the hands of NRA and GOP.
That's the news, and that's the tenor of accusations flowing across America today.

It's the kind of thing that happens with a Republican controlled congress, and with the active intervention of the National Rifle Association because .... you know, the gun rights thingie.

At least, that's the twist the Democratic sooth-sayers are touting.

No word yet on where he got the gun, what kind of gun etc. 
Best guess: he stole the inadequately secured firearm from his parents.

There's enough blame to go around, though; pundits are bound to blame it on the NRA (that has already started, although there is no evidence that the kid was a member of the NRA) ... but there's enough "wrong" to spread it around to the parents, teachers, legislators, etc.

Nobody has thought to blame the kid for being a total ass-hole.

Yet.

Probably, nobody ever will.

When you look at the historic mass murderers ... channeling that guy who shot Lincoln (I still refuse to name him, or other murderers) ... there is one thing they have in common:

RAGE!

They have a "My Life Sucks!" attitude, and rather than accept their own faults ... they decide to take their rage out on the people around them.  Unfortunately, when the person is a teen-ager, the people around them are other adolescents.

Kids.   Just a bunch of other "Lonely Teen-Agers".

The victims are children who are so wrapped up in their own adolescent crisis that they can't recognize one of their own who has gone "over the top".

Well, nobody who has survived their own teen-age angst can tell the difference between someone who is a 'lonely teenager" and a "mass murderer", either.  They all look, talk, walk and act the same.

All the blame that has been, is and will be spread around is probably just bullshit, anyway.

NOBODY can tell the difference between adolescent angst and the rage to kill.   It all looks the same, from the outside (you and me) and from the inside (the teenager's school-mates). 

And was the kid a loner?  Christ, at that age, half the kids in High School are "Loners".
If you're not one of the "elites", you're an "outsider". 

Hell, I was an outsider in High School.  My nickname was "The Zipper" ... or "The Shadow", because I was so skinny that when I turned sideways to the sun, nobody could see me.   (

I took a little pride in that; at least I had an identity; perhaps this kid didn't even have THAT; he might have benefited if he had a sense of belonging ... and a bunch of people might be alive today)

Hell, maybe the kid just wanted to go home, where he belonged.



Dion: "Lonely Teenager"

PS: No, I'm not going to make any "PRO" or "CON" statements about Gun Control here, other than to observe that in the mood that kid was in, he could as reado;u used a knife, machete, or a club to attack his victims.

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

It's The NRA's Fault!

Girl Killed in Kentucky Mass Shooting Handed to NRA as a Sacrifice by Aunt - Slog - The Stranger: The AP reports that Bailey Nicole Holt, a teen shot last week at a high school in a rural Kentucky community, was "the salt of the Earth." Of course, this is total bullshit.
[emphasis added]

And of course, that's a fair description of this .... editorial?   Opinion Piece?

This may be the most incoherent article by a (supposedly) professional journalist I've ever read.

It's rambling, poorly composed, and follows none of the rules for essay writing as defined in Strunk and White "elements of essay"; point/counterpoint; thesis/antithesis; etc.   (I hear that Strunk and White are dead; now I believe it!)

It's not that I necessarily disagree with the author's point; it's just that I'm not quite sure I know what the author was trying to say

Well ... he thinks "guns are bad"; that much is clear.   But it all seems to be an emotionally charged rambling hog-swill of rhetoric.    Did I mention "chaotic"?

I appreciate anti-gun essays which make me think; I don't agree with them, but I do grade them.

(Think of the old joke about the woman who said of lecherous advances: "I will not respond to them, but I will grade them!")

This one rates an "F" grade, but only because no lower ranking is available.


So tell me something I DON'T know!

NJ assemblyman wants to limit ammunition capacity: TRENTON  (January 31, 2018)-
A New Jersey assemblyman says that he wants to limit the amount of ammunition a firearm can hold in the state. Democratic Assemblyman Lou Greenwald reintroduced legislation would limit the amount of ammunition a magazine could hold from 15 rounds to 10. The bill also designates a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds as a prohibited assault firearm. Greenwald says that his plan will save lives.
I think that there exists in the word processors of New Jersey reporters a form which they can fill out to announce this same message ... every week.

All they have to do us fill in the blanks:

A New Jersey[enter position here] says that he/she wants to limit the amount of ammunition a firearm can hold in the state. Democratic [enter position here] [enter last name here] reintroduced legislation would limit the amount of ammunition a magazine could hold from 15 rounds to 10. The bill also designates a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds as a prohibited assault firearm. [enter last name here] says that his plan will save lives.
<30>

You know you've read the same press release at least once a month for the past ten years.

Democrats; they are true to their creed, they will do anything to get their name in the newspapers, and they haven't had an original thought since the Kennedy era.


Tuesday, January 30, 2018

State of the Union Speech 2018

There is a lot of controversy about the STOTU speech, but I think this is the seminal moment (via NBC, a branch of the Democratic Party):

Trump talks unity, sows division in State of the Union - NBC News:
Mary Kate Cary, who was a speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush, said Trump cornered Democrats with his "call upfront for Democrats to join him on common ground. ... Pelosi looked like she was about to barf."

Full text of the State of the Union Speech available here .

It's one of the most enduring speeches in the history of our country.
It celebrates the humanity of America.

It's so powerful, it made Nancy Pelosi want to barf.

It don't get no better than that!

PS:  What is the Democratic response (other than Pelose)?

See here for totally unanimous outrage by the Celebrity Posturing-Set; they decimated the President's speech before he even gave it!  (They are SO predictable.)

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Armed Churchgoers In NEW JERSEY? When Hell Freezes Over!

A Republican state lawmaker wants to make sure all New Jersey churches, synagogues, and mosques have someone with a gun on hand to protect congregants.
  Assemblyman Ron Dancer, R-Monmouth, has introduced legislation that would allow the state's places of worship to select a "qualified person" to carry a concealed handgun during services.  "Especially in this era, places of worship are a terrorist target," Dancer told NJ Advance Media on Thursday. "These are worshippers. They're praying. They're totally defenseless."
Whether the bill will get far in the Democratic-controlled state Legislature is another story. 
Now that Chris Christie has been retired,  the new Democratic Governor Phil Murphy is busy undermining all of Christie's more 'lenient' Gun Control decisions.

NJ.COM:
Throughout former Gov. Chris Christie's tenure the state Legislature was controlled by Democrats. But over eight years, they were never able to mount a veto override, allowing the Republican governor to kill bills strengthening gun control, funding family planning services and and raising the minimum wage.
But with a new governor, one who's vowed to sign every gun bill that hits his desk and signed an equal pay executive order within hours of taking office, many of those bills are expected to resurface with different results this time around.
Starting Monday, the Legislature will revisit bills felled by Christie's veto pen, including those that would have the state rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and restore funding for family planning services.


(Funny, I always thought that the Democrats were suppose to be the  all-accepting Party, and the Republicans were the party of "imposing restrictions";  it appears I was wrong, all these years.  What would Jack K. Say?)

This may be the Opening Round of Republican vs Democratic 2nd Amendment controversy under the (Democratic) Murphy Regime.

As strange as it sounds, New Jersey-ites who support the Second Amendment have been "spoiled" by the former governor.

Thursday, January 25, 2018

Salon Surprise

We can always expect from Salon (and her friends) the least reasonable interpretation of "Cause and Effect": she thinks that firearms violence stems from the "Right to Carry" laws ... which  encourages law-abiding citizens to exercise their right  to carry a firearm.

And she thinks that this is a HUGE surprise problem?

Right-to-carry laws lead to more violent crime: Isn’t that a huge surprise? - Salon.com:
One of the most contentious arguments within the larger gun control debate is over whether right-to-carry laws that make it legal for gun owners to carry loaded weapons in public, usually concealed on their person, make people safer. Gun rights advocates argue that packing heat is a prevention against crime and violence, invoking slogans like, "An armed society is a polite society." Gun control proponents, however, argue that a proliferation of loaded weapons is bound to lead to more violence, if only because people have easier access to the means to harm others.
Salon (and I speak of her as a person, for the sake of discussion) assumes that the proliferation of armed citizens is a factor in firearms violence.  I think she's an illiterate dork who doesn't understand the problems of inner-cities violence, where only the strong survive.
 (Or other violence, which needs no other excuse!)

Okay ... the most aggressive survive.

The fact is that people who legally carry a firearm (CHL, or "Concealed Handgun Licensees")  are NOT the progenitors of violence; they are, however, the persons who may be on the scene to counter illegal firearms aggression .... and they may be "there" before the police (who are often less-well trained than the CHL) arrive.

People who don't know about guns raise the question that, when cops show up at the scene of the shooting, they don't know which person with a gun is the "bad guy", and may end up shooting the "good guy".

This isn't a problem; the Good Guy is the one who lays down his firearm as soon as legitimate authority arrives. The good guys don't feel  that they are the equivalent of the police; they just  feel like the guy who plays his garden hose on a house fire until the firemen show up.

They're the Good Neighbor; they don't start the violence, they just want to stop it!
They are more than willing to yield the scene to (tardy) legitimate Law Enforcement Officers.

Good Neighbors just want all the 'bad stuff' to STOP!

Salon, and her friends who assume the worst of honest citizens, offer the suggestion that armed citizens are "A Problem".  

They're wrong

Good citizens care about their family, their friends and their neighbors.  The fact that they have made the exceedingly difficult decision to arm themselves isn't an indication that they are eager to shoot people; it just means that they have accepted the responsibility to protect themselves, their family, and (under the worst circumstances)  their neighbors. 

They may not even like their neighbors ... but are they still willing and able to protect them under the worst circumstances possible?
Think about it; do you like your neighbors enough to risk your life to save them?

And if you haven't decided to arm yourself to protect your family,
how comfortable are you when you decide to denigrate your neighbor because he or she is willing to lay down his or her life to protect your family?


Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Las Vegas Trade Show

Gun industry converges near Las Vegas mass shooting site:
The gun industry is holding its biggest annual trade show this week just a few miles from the site where a gunman slaughtered 58 concertgoers outside his high-rise Las Vegas hotel room in October using a display case worth of weapons, many fitted with bump stocks that enabled them to mimic fully automatic fire. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, pointed to the irony of the location and planned a protest to renew calls for tighter gun sale regulations, including expanded background checks.
Vegas has been the site of firearms trade shows for decades ... for the sponsors of the show to change the venue at the last minute because of the recent massacre by a crazed man would generate even more press, and at the same time validate the insane political statement (whatever it was) he gave his life to make.

To cancel the show would have the same effect.

But to continue with the planned schedule and venue sent the message that firearms were not the issue in his maniacal massacre; any effort to depict the private ownership of firearms in a negative light was ignored as not being worth the effort.  The Second Amendment stands on its own, even when the rights acknowledged are abuse by maniacs.


The National Rifle Association influences politicians by spending $14 MILLIONS in political contributions!

NRA’s influence comes from $14 million in spending — not just campaign contributions : Sunlight Foundation:
The National Rifle Association ("NRA") is 'accused' of contributing (according to "Open Secrets") a LOT of money to "Private Interests".

QUOTE:
All of this money, of course, is invested by the contributions and membership dues of the NRA. When people talk about money in politics, they often point to the money that a candidate receives from a special interest (regardless of the amount of that contribution) as evidence of undue influence. Nowhere is this more true than with the National Rifle Association. .... The NRA, according to OpenSecrets.org, has contributed about $593,000 in 2016, almost entirely to Republicans. And while contributions certainly tell part of the story, it is the NRA’s big campaign spending that makes up most of its influence: The group’s two political arms, the NRA Institute for Legal Action and the NRA Political Victory Fund, have spent $14.5 million opposing and supporting federal candidates, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by the Sunlight Foundation.
(emphasis added)

Hmmm ... so people who support the Second Amendment of the United States Contribution are willing to contribute (in membership fees, and voluntary contributions), to defend your constitutional rights?   And this is "A Bad Thing"?

Don't Americans have the right to give money to institutions which support their Constitution?
If so ... why should they be publically castigated. when more frivolous issues are supported with no comment at all?

Here is just a short list of charities which enjoy an annual contribution of $13,000,000 and up (and not all of these fundings are from private contributions):

You can get an "overview" here; note that most of the major participants are labor and educations unions.   But there are some "outliers", such as ....

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
TOTAL FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES$46,114,330



WETA: "Washington's source for compelling television and inspiring classical music"
Net Assets:                                                                                                                          $136,239,734

The Washingtone
Founded in 1961, WETA (The Greater Washington Educational Telecommunications Association) is the leading public broadcasting station in the nation's capital, serving Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia with educational, cultural, news and public affairs programs and services. WETA's mission is to produce and broadcast programs of intellectual integrity and cultural merit that recognize viewers' and listeners' intelligence, curiosity and interest in the world around them.

So we are willing to accept the societal expenditure of $46M to save puppies, and $136M  for "compelling television and inspiring classical music", but we are unwilling to accept the societal expenditure of $14M to protect our constitutional rights?

Oh ... and that fourteen million dollars contributed to the NRA is privately donated ... voluntarily, by the participants.

But the puppy-fund and the television funds are ... you guessed it ... supported by your tax dollars.   You don't get to choose; it's federal!

Don't you sometimes wish that you had the option of deciding which cause your tax dollars went to?

Wouldn't you rather contribute to the Society for Maintenance of Ethnic Russian/Siberian Huskies (SMERSH) than the Preservation of Urasian French Female Siberians (PUFFS)?

I'm telling you ... this society is going to the dogs!



Monday, January 22, 2018

Yeah ... right!: (Virginia Guns Rules)

One gun a month, three guns a month , 20 guns a month ... who are they to determine what is the "correct number"  of guns should be appropriate for someone to exercise their Second Amendment Rights?

Assembly 2018: One-Gun-a-Month Bill Dies in Senate Courts | Community Idea Stations:
“When people roll up to New York and they laughing at how many guns they were able to collect in Richmond, that should be a problem for everyone. And to think those guns are all going in the hands of legal, law-abiding citizens, that's laughable, because you know it's not," he said. "We need the General Assembly to step up."

"Legal, law-abiding citizens?  What's the problem here?  Is it in your stars, or in your selves?

What?  Are they embarrassed because someone is "laughing about how many guns they were able to collect"?  How DARE they (Virginia Legislature) assume that the number of guns a month purchased should be considered an indicator of probity?

I never knew a politician who was so embarrassed by his constituents laughing at him that he took "stern measures";
The measure is one that both former Governor Doug Wilder and Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney have called for reinstating.
“There’s no reason that a person needs to have more than 12 guns in a year to go purchase. I think that’s just something that's common sense that needs to be brought back, it’s practical,” said Mayor Stoney.

If it were the First Amendment issue, they are liable to being  stoned by their constituents for their obvious willingness to restrict their constitutional right;  everybody like to shoot their mouth off,.

But a "Second Amendment issue" is different; not "everybody" likes to own guns, so it's an easy target.  (forgive the pun)  Not everybody is eager to shoot their guns off.

In contrast; how many statements in opposition to their opinions are to be legally allowable, and who may chose which statements (guns?) are permissible?

Who are they to decree what is the "Practical" number of guns a law-abiding citizen should purchase?

Are they merely embarrassed by "people who roll up to New York" and "laughing at how many guns the were able to collect in Richmond"?

Are Virginia legislators more concerned about their "image" than their service to their constituents?

Or is this something more personal? 
Is Virginia all that eager to obviate the Second Amendment Rights of its' citizens?

(Hard to believer, from one of the original 13 colonies!"
"the fault, dear brutus is not in our stars, but in our selves that we are underlinings"

Firearms Safety Classes: Teaching "Beginners"

It surprises me to learn that some people dismiss the challenge of teaching "Beginning Shooter" classes.

Rodney Dangerfield must’ve taught beginners | Cornered Cat:
 ... teaching beginners is the most dangerous and difficult task any shooting instructor ever faces. And yet we tend to look down on people who teach such classes. Even instructors sometimes look down on themselves for not teaching ‘real’ classes.
I've been teaching "advanced" classes for eight years, and I have never volunteered to teach "Beginners" because I'm a big coward.

Sometimes, though, it's impossible to avoid that challenge; this is especially true when beginners over-value their gun-handling skills because of ignorance, or bad habits which can be developed because they have become accustomed to handling guns without proper supervision.
Because  they over-rate their gun-handling skills, they often sign up for "advanced" courses ... and they show up at one of my "Introduction to USPSA" classes because they expect me to teach them the advanced techniques of skills they haven't already developed for themselves.

Ultimately, though, no matter how "experienced" the student population may seem to be ... we are all "beginners" when it comes to learning new techniques ... such as drawing from a holster, and competing under the pressure-cooker of a limited amount of time to competitively complete a course of fire.
This is the purpose of the first hour of an "Introduction to USPSA" class which I teach monthly; it is designed to identify and correct "bad" gun-handling practices.

Even though I'm careful to confirm that my students are experienced ...(and during the first hour ... the "Lecture" hour ... of a class, I ask each student to describe his/her experience with his pistol,, with competitive shooting and simply "Drawing From The Holster") ... I am still surprised by the occasional student who seems "Unclear On The Concept".

This class was originally envisioned as an "Advanced Course"; designed to hone skills which have already been learned and practiced, but not to the level of achievement needed to compete successfully.  Over the six or seven years I've been teaching it, the course has been modified to teach competent, experienced pistol shooters to compete in a narrow range of gun-handling skills specifically tailored for competition.

Unfortunately, it has been interpreted by prospective students as a class which would teach only 'advanced' (slightly) 'gun-handling skills' for people who have never learned to draw from the holster and engage a myriad of targets.

Well .. that's okay by me.  I can do that.  In fact, I think it's a better use of my time, because the people who already compete in USPSA classes probably already think they know everything they need to know, and this class may serve to introduce new competitors to the sport.

But I don't willingly teach "beginner" students; still, from time to time I find myself confronted by students who are unfamiliar with the controls of his/her firearm ("oh, this gun doesn't have a safety") or who do not know how to safely draw and re-holster a firearm, or whose grip is unsafe.

Even so, the class still serves several useful purposes.
Every year I have to correct the grip of at least one unsafe  student who practices the "Left Thumb Over The Right Wrist" grip, because he/she is unaware that the slide on a semi-automatic pistol WILL recoil and chew their support-hand thumb!

There are several indications that The Student is not  competent to undertake an Advanced Pistol Course:


  • The Student cannot holster his/ pistol using one hand, without using the other hand to find where his holster is. We can teach this, even though it may not be the most 'important' lesson;
  • The Student cannot find his safety without looking, or does not automatically "safe" his pistol when holstering.  This should not be part of an advanced course, but it is still important.
  • The Student is unaware that his pistol, if so equipped, has a thumb safety which must be engaged before holstering; and which must be dis-engaged up on the draw; I'm not sure that this student is ready for a competition course, but perhaps he/she missed the "Introduction" course.  Better that they learn it here than not know it at all;
  • The student, when responding to commands or instruction when holding his/her pistol, pivots his/her body in such a manner as to point his/her pistol at the instructor when receiving instructions.  I'd rather this student learn from a different instructor; I get nervous when people point guns at me!

One of the most difficult of "Bad Habits which a "new competitor must overcome is the nonchalant gun-handling skills which one develops when he goes to the range in a casual environment of "shooting at the range with friends", 


This encourages them to leave handguns on the counter, to casually be picked up and otherwise handled without supervision,

Even though I invariably announce that the ("New Shooter") class will be taught using USPSA rules of gun handling, I still see students wandering around the shooting bay with a pistol in their hand, usually with the purpose of asking me a question about some semi-obscure nuance of gun-handling practices.

Perhaps I need to loudly announce: "STARTING NOW! to emphasize the onset of strict firearm safety practices on the range.  One would expect that intelligent firearms owners would understand immediately, but they have been desensitized by years of casual firearms-handling practices.

(That's what you get when you go to the range with "friends", who excuse your execrable gun\-handling habits.  They are not your friends, if they let you get away with being unsafe.Still, the course advances the purpose of training pistol-shooters in "best practices" of safely handling a pistol.)

They do not realize that the rules of safe gun-handling are in effect ANY time you are shooting.  Even in the company of close friends (who are willing to forgive you if you are an unsafe dork).

If you are in my class, and you break tis basic rule of Firearms Safety ... I won't forgive you.
In fact, I'll yell at you.  With any luck, I'll embarrass you in front of your friends; perhaps I'll convince you that you should never carry a gun.

Then you need to convince me (and yourself) that you are Competent.
That's the best possible outcome of a training session.

Thursday, January 18, 2018

Pseudo-Laws: NJ Limits Magazine Capacity to five (5) rounds

There is no limit to Magazine Capacity to which Gun Control Advocates ("Gun Grabbers") will ultimately agree, but they believe that if they can convince law-abiding firearms owners to agree to ANY limit, they will eventually establish a criteria which undermines the Second Amendment

New Jersey has just exceeded all expectations by introducing a bill which would limit the legal capacity of a magazine in a semi-automatic weapon to five (5) rounds; it's a publicity stunt, which also serves the purpose of distracting legitimate firearms owners from more complicated 2nd Amendment issues.

(H/T: The Gun Feed)

STATEMENT1314 This bill revises the definition of “large capacity ammunition  magazine” to reduce the number of rounds of ammunition a legal  magazine may hold in this State.  Under current law, it is unlawful to own or possess an  ammunition magazine that is capable of holding more than 15  rounds of ammunition.  This bill would reduce the maximum capacity of a legal  ammunition magazine in New Jersey to five rounds.
It's difficult to believe that the framers of this bill expect it to pass. 
According to them, there is a "Magic Number" of maximum rounds which you are legally allowed to load into your firearm, according to various gun-control bills which have recently been introduced.

But this is the first time that the magazine capacity of a semi-automatic pistol has been legislatively reduced to less than can be loaded into a typical revolver (aka: "Six Shooter").

Nobody knows what maximum number of rounds  legally loaded into a semi-automatic firearm would be acceptable to Gun Control Advocates (anti-gun folks), but ultimately any acceptance of a limitation will establish that a "limitation" is a reasonable measure.

And that's just ... wrong.

Firearms owners are continually criticized for their unwillingness to accept "reasonable" restrictions of any sort, but the truth is that any compromise  results in an abrogation of our rights, while the gun-grabbers are unwilling to accept a "compromise" which does not undermine our rights. 

(Is there any "compromise" which would NOT deprive us of our freedoms?)

This bill is not expected to pass; but it illustrates the extreme methods which gun-control fabulists will employ to undermine the clear intend of The Second Amendment.

Those of us who support the Second Amendment must win every challenge; those who would take away our rights only have to win one fight.

Don't give them a cheap win.  Fight for your rights.

Never Give An Inch.


Tuesday, January 16, 2018

WTF? Professional Navy Guys Run into each others' SHIPS? WTF?

The ocean is so huge, and our ships are so small;

How can it happen that they run into each other ... not once, but twice in the same month????

Navy filing homicide charges against 2 ship commanders:

The Navy has been reeling from tough questions arising from the two collisions. The destroyer USS Fitzgerald struck a commercial ship off the waters of Japan in June, killing seven U.S. sailors. The destroyer USS John S. McCain collided with an oil tanker in coastal waters off Singapore in August, killing 10 U.S. sailors.
My son is in the navy.  I thank GOD that he is in a "land" rotation (he gets to live with his family ... yea!) and is not immediately vulnerable to ships' captains who are not competent to navigate in the open seas.

(I can say this without fear of reprisal, because I've too old to draft, and I've already served my time in Viet Nam .. what are they going to do to me?)


(What a bunch of maroons!)

Campus Carry .. good or bad thing?

Wichita State gun case shows loophole in campus carry law - The Gun Writer: WICHITA, Kan. —
The case of a former Wichita State University student who was arrested for carrying a loaded gun on campus points to what could be an unintended loophole allowing criminals who are barred from carrying a gun to get away with it.
It also points to local "regulations" (probably not 'laws") which constrain college student from their right to protect themselves.

The work "LOOPHOLE" should be a warning that someone's Constitutional Rights are being infringed. 

Or not:
When the laws are imperfect (as usual),  interpretation is dubious.

The original article infers that the student was not of sound mind, and had 'issues" which might have affected his judgement;  it's difficult at this time to determine whether or not he was competent to carry a weapon.

Whether or not this is, indeed, a "Loophole" remains to be determined.  In the actual event, that the campus police disarmed the student was probably a valid precaution.

Las Vegas Shooting Reaction (we knew it would come down to this)

Senate committee hears testimony on gun control bills - The Gun Writer: OLYMPIA, Wash. —
A couple who survived last year’s mass shooting in Las Vegas were among those who asked a Senate panel Monday to pass a slate of bills that include a measure to prohibit so-called bump stocks, a trigger modification devices designed to accelerate a firearm’s rate of fire. Opponents to the measures told lawmakers on the Senate Law and Justice Committee that law-abiding gun owners will be punished by the bills.
There is no way that this group of "lawmakers" can  present a finding which will not infringe on Second Amendment Rights.    I'm not defending "Bump Stocks", I'm just saying ....

... anything which restricts the 2nd Amendment opens the door to more restrictions.

NOBODY want's to restrict your constitutional rights ... or so they say.
(Personally?  I'm dubious)

This might be a really good time to talk to your Federal Representative with the message that you choose not to be penalized because of the outrageous unacceptable violent actions of someone who has no connection to you.


Nobody Much Likes Trump

Trump ends 1st year with lowest average approval rating

The thing about Donald Trump as President is that the alternative would have been The Hillary Person.

While the Democrats are working hard to emphasize Trump's lack of popularity, they don't have to  (REFUSE TO!) reference the Clinton Catastrophe ... which is significant, and should be emphasized if the Ruling Republicans weren't so smug (and surprised!) that their candidate actually won the Oval Office.

Well, nobody on the Left could have provided a stronger candidate ... and nobody on the left would have been more odious that the "American Majority" would have voted Trump into office.

 It may be significant that the Left could not field a more odious candidate than the "Hillary-Beast" (even her own party didn't like her!), and there was no Democratic possibility who was more likely to generate "Anyone Except Her!" votes. 

It's not as much that she (Hillary) was the first female candidate to be sincerely presented as a Presidential Candidate, as that the Democrats had nobody better to offer; she was the most "popular" (in terms of name recognition) candidate, so the Dems offered her up as the "Loser Of Choice", having no expectation that she could possibly win.

So they threw the chick into the cauldron knowing that she couldn't survive the fire.

As an insult, the Republicans offered their least-likely candidate in opposition, and The Trump won as the Least Unlikely Ass-hole,  And the Least Unlikely Ass-hole won, because he seemed to be a legitimate candidate ... which Hillary obviously was not.  It was an election which was unwinnable by the Democrats (so throw the dog to the wolves .. what had they to lose?) and the Republicans could not lose. 

So both parties decided to make a mockery of the campaign, and both achieved their goals.

I do not have fond hopes for a Trump Presidency; but I would have had even lesser expectations for another Clinton Presidency.  I was not alone in my indecision, and while I wallowed in my angst while choosing the "Least Awful President", I was strangely gratified by the millions (okay .. thousands) of Americans who  bit the bullet and voted for "Anyone But Hillary!"

Now we are resolved to support the President who is, if not perfect, is "Not Hillary".

I'm not happy with this, and I don't think that Trump will be on the "Top Ten" list of Presidents of the United States of America; he enjoys the "Least Expectations" vote which would have otherwise have been afforded to "The One Who Would Have Destroyed America" (because of her political mandate).

Consequently, it comes as no surprise that Trump does not enjoy universal popularity.

He is the "Least Foul Dog" in the fight, and is nothing more than a place-holder in the Presidency.

His job is to not screw up more than is absolutely necessary, and nobody expects him to live up to his expectations.  The good part of this is, he can do no wrong!  When nobody expects much from him, anything he does .. any policy he espouses which turns out "all right" ... will be greeted as a stunning exercise in diplomacy, at worse.

Which is what Hillary might have expected ... but she would have expected to have her every move lauded as "just what we knew she would do", and her failures would be brushed away.

I never wanted a "Perfect President".


I always wanted a President who was flawed, who made mistakes and nobody covered them up.

I want a President who had no expectations of a Second Term.

I want a President who is so imperfect, that we all know that his errors of diplomacy will not be glossed over by his political party.  That's "honesty", and (if you will) "transparency".

Remember Eisenhower (five star general, eight year president)

  Remember Reagan?  (hollywood actor, eight year president)

 They made mistakes, but they made progress.  Neither of these past Presidents were without fault, but our country thrived under their leadership because they weren't looking for 51% approval; they just wanted to get the job done, and to make our country a better place to live in.

I'm not sure that Donald Trump will, or is able to, live up to their standards.

But I'm damn sure that The Hillary has only one goal .. to be re-elected to the highest office.

You don't get that by being popular, Ms. Clinton; you get that by being effective.

Bill Quotes:

I did not have sexual relations with that woman
There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.
When I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two -- and didn't like it -- and didn't inhale and never tried inhaling again.


Hillary Quotes:

If I want to knock a story off the front page, I just change my hair style.

Clintons; as deep as a mud puddle.

Gruesome: The Ultimate Cost of A Cheap Holster

There is a reason why experienced shooters urge you to invest in a good holster.

That's a decision which could save your ass. Literally.

Gruesome pictures at gunfree zone.com

Back story: Bearing Arms

I decline to post the really ugly photos of a guy who shot himself in the leg: three holes, one shot.
(In, out, in again)

"New Shooters" tend to spend big bucks on a pistol, and all the accouterments ... but often won't spend 10% of their investment on a decent holster.  Hey, you may decide that pistol shooting isn't what you want to do, so why waste the money?

Answer: Because you're not as good as you think you are.

I've been competing in USPSA competition since 1983; performed tens hundreds of thousands of draws from the holster, and I haven't shot myself yet ... even though competition requires you to get the gun into action as quickly as possible.

Why haven't I shot myself yet?

Because I always spent the money to provide myself with the safest (if fastest) holsters I could buy, because I always chose holsters for competition, not EDC (every-day carry).

Can't access the trigger in a holstered gun, because of the holster design. With this type* of holster, you learn to MUST keep your finger off the trigger until the pistol is pointed in a safe direction ... which is defined as "pointed away from your leg". 

 ( *Note:There are other holster manufacturers which provide the same level of safety; I'm not necessarily suggesting that this is the best version of a "safe" holster!  It's only an example.  In fact I don't own or use this holster, or any holster by this manufacturer.)
If you decide that your "usual" mode of carrying a pistol is predicated on safe retention, you may choose another design.

Yet a third design may be your best choice. 
You should evaluate your options and make your own decisions, based upon your circumstances.  What are your priorities?  Concealment is only one priority.  Accessibility may be another, and retention yet a third.   This is not the best source for recommendations, but I urge you to consider all these criteria

If you;re concerned about EDC (Every Day Carry) your choices will perhaps not be my choices.

They say this as if it was "A Bad Thing"

Aren't you glad you live in America?


Man charged after police allegedly find 109 unregistered guns:

Don't you wish everyone did?

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Listening to "The Lizard Brain" will get you killed.

In this video, the man was confronted by "polite police", and then it went bad.   It's usually not a good idea to wave a gun at the police when you're outnumbered and being arrested

Teen's Friends Claim He was "Executed" by Police. Then the Cops Release the Dashcam. [VIDEO] | Tribunist

Folks will say all kind of shit make bizarre statements to excuse the actions of their friends.  But your friends aren't listening to you; they're listening to "The Lizard".    That's the back-part of your brain which causes you to react emotionally rather than with reason.  You know ... the Mini-Me.

Here's the five-minute video: if you don't want to watch somebody being shot, don't watch it.




Referencing the comments to the original video, someone said "he tried to cock the gun" (racked the slide on his semi-auto pistol); nobody can figure out why that comment was made, because it has no bearing on the consequences of the (ineffective) resistance shown here.

"there would be no need to cock it now"
That's true, but irrelevant.  In times of stress,  even experienced shooters will do dumb things.

Example: in training for pistol competition (IPSC or USPSA ... look it up) people who are familiar with their pistol, but not experienced in the time-pressure of competition, often "rack the slide" after performing a reload ... even though they "know" there is already a round  in the chamber.   This wastes precious time and does not reward the shooter.  That's what is happening in the video.

But The Lizard Will Not Be Denied.

The "Lizard Brain" instinctively over-rides the "Primate Brain" because the shooter desperately wants to know that there is a round in the chamber, so he does the one thing that he knows will chamber a round.   This is a waste of time, in a moment when survival depends on Correct Decisions made in a matter of  micro-seconds.   If these people were capable of Correct Decisions, they would have found a more demanding, but safer, line of work.

People have died from this instinctive inability to correctly prioritize response to aggression.  As you see here.

When considering a life style which includes firearms, Training and Practice can imprint more productive instincts, such as always knowing how many rounds are left in the pistol and whether a reload is necessary.

Criminals who are accustomed to using a firearm as a means of intimidating a victim are not likely to have sought training, nor have they practiced to establish "correct actions" in their Lizard Brain.   "Correct Actions" are foreign to them, as is retrospect and comparing the rewards of their actions vis a vis the potential dire consequences.   They are merely thugs, and bullies. To them, a gun is not an instrument of survival; it's just a tool, which they consider needs no more expertise  than to know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.   Crime is easier than work; that's all they know, and all they need to know.

We are fortunate that thugs and bullies are so arrogant that they don't even bother to learn the nuances of their tools; they are too lazy to learn a productive skill.  If they were not thus, they would become carpenters and live a long and (ultimately) more productive life.

And they would not resort to common thuggery if it were not so easy to do; they might find it a difficult lifestyle to survive in a nation of armed citizens.

Liberals, of course, do not acknowledge this lesson.   They find it "uncomfortable" to be critical of their philosophical brethren.

Friday, January 05, 2018

NY Assemblyman: " Limit gun owners to one gun, one bullet"

"That does not repeal the Second Amendment!    It just makes it work for everyone."
[Video] NY Assemblyman Thomas J Abinanti: Ban guns with military origins, register all guns. - The Gun Feed: [Video] 

Um ... no.
That doesn't work to reduce gun violence; it only serves to impose arbitrary restrictions on the law-abiding ... who aren't part of the problem, but are part of the solution.

"Whether it's guns on the street, or people with mental problems ... " does a good job of defining the two most likely sources of gun violence; but doesn't address the question of how he plans to make these progenitors of gun violence abide by gun-control laws.

I challenge you to put more money into mental health facilities, rather than cutting the services which are out there today.
Um ... yes.   

Nobody doesn't think this is important, but even this doesn't shield us from people who are just evil, or politically motivated.    Or are just all "I'm Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Going To Take This any More!"   Against these classes, there is no defense except retaining our right to defend ourselves, our families, and our communities.

As for the mentally ill, Psychologists and other mental-health practitioners will be the first to state categorically that it's impossible to predict when someone will reach his tipping point and rampage.

Which rather obviates his original thesis, which is that gun control can limit rampage.  It can't.

The criminals, the crazies, they will find a way.

And then you're all on your own, cursing the New York Assemblyman who has a plethora of ways to keep firearms out of the hands of the innocents, but knows better than to suggest a way to keep firearms out of the hands of murderers.

OH!  And about that ... if he REALLY want's to minimize firearms violence, he should be campaigning to impose the maximum sentence against those who commit violent crimes while in possession of a firearm.

Crooks understand "added time in prison".


Tuesday, January 02, 2018

Ring Ring!

Ring Ring:
"Allo, Mamacita?  I am sending you some money.  Use it to pay los coyotes to bring Pablito to San Diego.  Next month we can bring Estevez and his sister to El Norte".
Cash Remittances to Mexico Set $26B Record in 2017, Says Central Bank:
The latest figures from Mexico’s Central Bank (Banxico) show 2017 being a record-breaking year for receiving remittances by Mexicans abroad. From January to November 2017, Mexicans sent $26,167,00,000, the highest figure to date. In 2016,another record-setting year, Mexicans sent $24.1 billion. Banxico reports that 97 percent of the funds sent to Mexico came through wire transfers. Mexico’s second largest source of income was the export of oil for $18.5 billion in the first 10 months of 2017.

"A billion here, a billion there ... pretty soon you're talking Real Money ..."
(Everett Dirksen apparently didn't say that .... exactly)

A gun in your home increases your risk of death

A 2014 study by the American College of Physicians has "determined" that having a gun in your home increases your risk of violent death.

Well, we're all going to die ... that's a 100% data factum which has not been addressed by this study.

Drum roll, please:

The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household MembersA Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians:
 Background: Research suggests that access to firearms in the home increases the risk for violent death.
 Purpose: To understand current estimates of the association between firearm availability and suicide or homicide.
Firearm accessibility was determined by survey interviews in most studies;
misclassification of accessibility may have occurred. Heterogeneous populations of varying risks were synthesized to estimate pooled odds of death.
 Conclusion: Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.
Keep an eye on that balderdash-ish statement about "misclassification", because here's the punch line, where the authors list their data sources:

The "Kellerman Studies" of 1992 and 1993 are listed among their primary sources.

The Atlantic ("The False Promise of Gun Control": March, 1994) provided a long-winded (and generally incomprehensible) explanation of why Kellerman's conclusions ("a gun in your home creates a 43% chance that you will die a violent death", or words to that effect). don't prove the point that he .... and this later study ... were trying to make.

Invester's Hub provides a much more to-the-point explanation of why Kellerman has been debunked.

(There are other sources, but this one hasn't been referred to before here, and it seems to be a more legitimate source than the gun-websites I've linked to previously.)


It has been said that "The Best Way To Tell A Lie Is To Tell The Truth Unconvincingly".

The corollary is equally valid; the best way to tell the truth is to tell the lie unconvincingly.

Any study which cites Kellerman as a reference source is readily identifiable as a lie.

The mere fact that you have a firearm in your home is not a sound basis for the conclusion that you will die a violent death ... unless you are a criminal and have a gun in your home to defend yourself against your rivals in crime, which typifies Kellerman's study subjects.

If you are a law-abiding citizen, the presence of a gun in your home only provided you with a valid means of defense against home-invasion. 

If you use that gun to attack family members, it only proves that you are already the victim of your own flawed personality.

Nothing more.

Oh, and the quote about "Pooled odds of Death"?  That's just bullshit.

Monday, January 01, 2018

Registration = Confiscation

Joe presents a frightening (and real-life) scenario illustrating exactly the reasons why firearms owners are so adamantly opposed to Registration:

Miss a deadline, lose your gun rights forever | The View From North Central Idaho:
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
The state of New York wants to .....
This (click on the link above) logically feeds back to Universal Background Checks, where both the buyer and the seller are required under force of law to provide information (to either a state or a federal "clearing house") about both the firearm and the buyer ... and incidentally, about the seller as well.

The New York "SAFE" Act requires a level of reporting all details of an otherwise-legal transaction to the level where it's difficult to believe that the laws might have any other goal than to quell an otherwise legitimate firearms transfer between private citizens.

That the failure to comply with every jot and tittle of the regulations will result in penalties which are not only burdensome, but would deprive participants of their civil rights "forever" ... not to mention the confiscation of private property ... makes it apparent that the goal is not to regulate, but essentially to ban legal transfer of firearms between private citizens.

It's a "Witch Hunt", where civil rights are abrogated and the possibility probability of prosecution because of a simple  misunderstanding may cause the imposition of punishments which are too drastic to risk.

The Constitution was specifically designed to prohibit any level of government to threaten private citizens for exercising their rights.   While the state of New York may smugly continue to brow-beat its citizens, it is unbearable for the rest of us to watch The Lawyers work their sneaky wiles.

The consequences of such a law are that both buyers and sellers will be disinclined to submit to the law.  Honest people may lose their property and their freedom because they have not done anything wrong, in their opinion, than to oppose an unjust and burdensome law.

Any law which will not be obeyed is not a law, but a cause celebre.

It's a publicity stunt, and New York State should be ashamed of itself for imposing such a burden on its citizens.