Friday, March 02, 2018

Donald "WHO"?

Apropo of absolutely NOTING published by any days's political chicanery,, I would like to take this opportunity to speak about  America's Current President.

However, it is not my policy  sto speak in public against a serving politician.
I'm sure you have noticed this recalcitrance.

Still, I do wish that our current president has ... more to say about his politics than I do.

Hmm ...  I guess I have nothing to say.

Never Mind.

New Jersey: They Say That As If It Were "A Bad Thing"

Why be on a "Watch List" if you are not suspected of being  a terrorist?

Well ... for one thing, there is no oversight.  Is that  like ... if you're on a "List", you don't know and you can't find out, and you can't get your name off the "List"?

N.J. already using U.S. watch lists to screen gun buyers - The CT MirrorThe CT Mirror:
The New Jersey State Police said Friday they have used the U.S. government’s terrorist watch lists to screen gun permits and purchases for two years under a law signed by Gov. Chris Christie, providing a model for how Connecticut might access the same data. “It is in effect in New Jersey,” said Capt. Stephen Jones, a spokesman for the department. “New Jersey is the first state to use that as a disqualifier for the ability to purchase firearms, and it has been that way since the time of that signing. We do use that currently. We do have access to that data.”
(Emphasis Added)

Thursday, March 01, 2018

A "Good Opportunity" for a 'Temporary Ban' on guns?

There's always a "very good opportunity" for gun grabbers to legislate against the Second Amendment.    The Constitution has become, not the bulwark of freedom in our country,  but a target for those who would undermine those freedoms for which men have fought and died for over 200 years.

GOP's Brian Mast: President Trump Must Enact Immediate 'Temporary Ban' on AR-15s:
We’ve seen a lot of shootings out there. We’ve seen what’s happened in Parkland, we’ve seen what happened in Las Vegas, we saw what happened in Orlando. And for me personally, it pains to know that I went out there, willing to defend my country, willing to give everything, with almost the exact same weapon that’s used to go out there and, unfortunately, kill children here in Parkland. And I think there’s very real opportunity here for response and for action.
* ("I Feel Your Pain" ... not!  It's just "Political rhetoric;" pay no attention.)

Firearms are not weapons; people are weapons.  Guns are tools.

But .. They Know What Is Best For Us!

Evidently, the GOP thinks that civilians should be denied the most effective defensive weapons, because the same weapons are also available to "bad guys".

As if the Bad Guys can't get them; even though legally,  sometimes you and I cannot.

And the reason why the Bad Guys want those weapons is the they are more effective than those which you and I may legally own.
Advantage: Bad Guys.


Not everybody is responsible for their own actions.  Not everybody cares.

We have citizens who are full of hate and fury, and they abuse their rights when they predate on their neighbors.   They don't care to be "responsible citizens"; they are driven to madness, and nothing you can do will 'fix' that.

   The "reasonable" response is simple; defend yourself, defend your family.   Call the police if you will, but they aren't always very good at that 'community defense' thingie and they are spread too thin.

Once again we must provide not only for our "common defense", but for our own personal defense.

911 Is Not Your Friend

Powerful political factions have decided that "the children" (you and I) are incompetent to provide for ourselves.  Too often that is true, because Americans no longer teach their children to be responsible for their own actions, but are obliged to ask "The Government" to intervene.   Parents teach their children that in an emergency, "Call 911!"

Unfortunately, the police are not responsible for your well-being.   You are.

The police will respond to requests for help, and route the nearest patrol car to your address.  If you can get to the phone.   Sometimes they might even be of more assistance than taking crime-scene photos and interviewing survivors (if any).   They will testify at the trial of your murderer.

As a consequence, now even the (previously "trusted") Republican Party has decided that we cannot even be" trusted"  with the best means of personal defense.

Because of the "Mad Men"

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" we are advised in "The Wizard of Oz".

We have abdicated the responsibility of taking care of ourselves.  We have slowly, but inevitably, yielded our rights to The State, and they are delighted to take responsibility for "Cradle to The Grave" care of us. 

Because we are children to them; we don't understand how things are done today, and "They Know What Is Best For Us".

Still, takes longer for the police to respond to a 911 call than it takes you to call 911.
A gun in your nightstand is as close to your hand as is the cell phone on top of it.
And far more immediately effective.
The best use of 911 is to call for someone to clean up the mess, and arrest the survivors.

You may be the only survivor, but it's still better to be arrested and go to trial, than to be murdered.


But if there are "options" .. you should be aware that your life is not always fatally threatened (for example) by a robber.  There are few actions which are more personally terrible to contemplate than taking a life.  Is the content of your wallet more valuable than the life of a teen-age mugger?

If you are responsible for the end of a life, you may spend the balance of your life suffering pangs of conscience  which are much more awful than being robbed. (Or, you may be indicted, and prosecuted.)

  If you are armed, you are  responsible for your actions to a greater degree than if you are not armed.   The courts may find you not guilty, but when you carry a weapon you have assumed a responsibility not only for your self, not only for the legality of your actions, but also for your morality.

It's a fine point, but one which you may rerun in your own mind for the rest of your life.  
"Did I HAVE to shoot?"

When I write these opinions, I put myself in the "same place" as my hypothetical victim.  Every situation is different.

When you choose to arm yourself, you have assumed a responsibility which may be  both moral and fatal.  If you decide that you cannot accept the responsibility for taking a life, you should not arm yourself.

If you think that it would be morally justified to defend your pocket-book equally to defending your life, you should not go armed.

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

A mean-minded, inane, ill-considered interpretation of the Second Amendment

Hiding Behind the Second Amendment Is a Nasty Scam and Misunderstanding of American History | History News Network:

 (....) there is a way forward to more rational gun control through the Second Amendment and a close look at that critical year in American history, 1794. (1) Gun control is a long-established principle and practice in the U.S. (2) Military-type weapons have no place in the hands of private citizens, at least where they can be used in public. Assault rifles, and indeed any semi-automatic weapon, can be banned or confined to closed ranges for sport shooting. (3) Citizens do have a right, as the clumsy Second Amendment states, to keep and bear arms. What kind of arms is the question; why not adopt the notion of some gun magazines and websites, that a revolver is a better choice for personal self defense than a semi-automatic weapon? A “wheel gun” is much less likely to jam than a semi-automatic, which must be cleaned and oiled regularly to work properly. Revolvers are slower to fire and to reload, giving the public more protection from mentally disturbed shooters, while giving good guys a reliable chance to shoot. Nor is there any self-defense need for a large magazine. In the hands of an untrained and frightened person, a shotgun is far better for home defense than a pistol is. Semi-automatic weapons are not needed for hunting; a simple bolt-action rifle or a shotgun is enough. (4) Let each gun owner be restricted to a certain number of rounds at a time, say 12, a number that again provides for self-defense. Israel limits gun owners to 50 rounds a year. We can do that, although the task of reducing the 10-12 billion bullets and shells purchased each year in the U.S. to a manageable number will be immense. But there is no longer any excuse for not starting the process.
(H/T: Say Uncle)

(1) "Gun Control" is a recent abrogation of the Second Amendment, and one proposed by weak-minded people who assume that police are competent to defend your person and your property.  The police are not obliged to protect either your person or your property; their mandate is to investigate the crime scene and attempt to arrest the perpetrators.  They are not your protectors.

(2) a "Wheel Gun" is neither more reliable nor more effective in defense of self, family or property.  They are subject to malfunction as much as is a semi-automatic pistol.  Auto-loading firearms may actually be less susceptible to malfunction in the event of, say, a primer which has not been fully seated (admittedly a situation which is most experienced with reloaded ammunition).

Also, anyone who owns a firearm and does not pay close attention to the proper maintenance is equally likely to experience failure-to-feed problems, whether using a pistol, revolver, shotgun or rifle.

(3) "Military Style" weapons not only have a place in the hands of civilians, but they are prominent in regards to the original intent of the Second Amendment.   That Constitutional Right was not promulgated to protect duck hunters or target shooters, but to provide citizens the means to oppose an oppressive government by force of arms.   When civilians are not allowed access to firearms which are the functional equivalent of those weapons issued to the military, citizens are at a decided disadvantage when the government turns against them.  (And that is the situation which resulted in the American Revolution against the British occupiers.)

(4)  "The Clumsy Second Amendment" stipulated that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".   There is nothing "clumsy" about that, any more than the wording of any other Constitutional Amendment.   The first amendment states freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly,  etc.  When the Internet replaced the printing press, Americans found it easy to include technological advances under the aegis of 200-year-old phraseology.   There is no reason to assume that advances in firearm designs should be more controversial than the Internet.

(5) " No need for a large capacity magazine" is simply a feel-good way of imposing a limitation on the Second Amendment.   If assaulted by multiple attackers (who also may have  "large capacity magazines"), the honest citizen should not be limited by a law which is not observed by his attackers.  Moreover, the individual may find it necessary to protect himself, family, home and property against multiple attackers.  The attackers have the advantage if the citizen is disadvantaged.  I do not think this was the intent of the founders of the Constitution.

(6) "... a shotgun is far better for home defense than a  pistol is".  Says who?   In the confines of a private residence, a long gun is more unwieldy because of it's length, which makes it difficult to return fire around a doorway (for example).  Also, a shotgun is VERY LOUD!  One shot renders the home-defender temporarily deaf, which negates his ability to hear the movement of his attackers.   The advantages of a shotgun are the ability to spread the shot in a wider pattern than a  pistol (or rifle), but in a close-combat environment such as a residence,  that questionable advantage is negated because most encounters are likely to be engaged in distances of, say, twenty feet or less.  There is no significant expansion of a shot pattern at that distance; hence, no increase in efficacy.   Also, shotguns which are used for hunting are often limited to a three-round capacity as they are intended for "sporting purposes" (small-game hunting).  A pistol or revolver will typically allow at last five or six shots before reloading is required.

(NOTE: there are shotguns which are not intended for hunting, and which have a higher "magazine capacity"; Mossberg has a few.)

(7)  "Semi-automatic weapons are not needed for hunting; a simple bolt-action rifle or a shotgun is enough."   What a strange statement to make in an article which is not themed on hunting, but on self-defense.  Actually, semi-automatic weapons are becoming more prevalent in hunting (the same gun used for home defense may be used for hunting, in many cases), and it only makes sense that the firearm owner uses the same weapon for multiple uses ... if only to maintain his familiarity and efficiency with a single weapon.    And why NOT use a semi-automatic weapon for hunting?  Is this a moral wrong in the view of the original author?

(8) "In the hands of an untrained and frightened person ..." is a base canard in which the author assumes that anyone who chooses to defend hearth/home/family is either untrained or frightened.

Okay, I will grant you "frightened".  I spent the year from September 1969 - 1970 being frightened, in Viet Nam.  I survived because I received a LOT of training (over a year) before I rotated to "The Land of Bad Things" and I was familiar with a number of weapons.

I so much believe in training that I teach a class in "Practical Pistol Shooting" at my local gun club, where I introduce new shooters in the techniques and practices of shooting a pistol under conditions of (sometimes) 'extreme' stress.   Competition shooting is a great way for people to learn and practice safe gun-handling procedures.   I do not charge, nor does my home gun club charge, for this instruction; we do it because we want everyone to be well versed in safe gun-handling.   I very much encourage anyone who chooses to use a firearm for self-defense to seek out and take advantage of any training offered by a local gun club.
Sometimes there is a nominal fee involved (for materials, etc.) but most frequently the training is either at a very low expense, or (in the instance of my class) is free of charge.

(9) Restricting the number of rounds at a time" ... is a very, very BAD idea!

The only way to achieve proficiency and safe gun-handling expertise is practice, practice, practice!

Thinking that limiting the amount of ammunition an individual may be "allowed" to expend is the best way to keep him from learning to be a safe and proficient shooter.   Is this what people who don't really know anything about shooting think is the best way to be safe?   The only way to learn to be a proficient, SAFE shooter is to shoot a lot, frequently, and pay attention to getting the best hits in the shortest possible time.   Shooting skills deteriorate without frequent and intense practice.

Did the author of this article learn to drive a car by reading a book and sitting through a long and boring lecture?  (That seems likely, and I do not want to be on the same road with him!)

Nobody learns a complex physical skill without constant practice, and practical exercises.  You cannot learn without making mistakes .. we learn more from our mistakes than we do from taking a written test.

(10) Academia Sucks!

 This original article (see above) was penned by by Robert W. Thurston
Robert W. Thurston is Emeritus Professor of History at Miami University.
I seriously question the qualifications of Bob to expound on the Second Amendment, or any subject which has to do with safe gun-handling.  Did he ever fire a pistol?  Has he ever competed in a shooting match?  Gone hunting?  Gutted a deer?  Wounded an animal which escaped, and died in pain because he didn't track it down in time to end its misery ... and wept at the pain?

Has he ever been shot at, or shot at another living entity?  At ALL?

I think not.  

I think he's an academic who has never been in the field, never fired a shot in anger, never killed, never had to defend himself, never got blood on his hands and ... in short ... does not know what he's talking about.

I may be wrong about Bob.  He may be a war veteran who ... oh, no?

This is Robert W. Thurston.

He's an Academic.

Never mind; for all of his scholarship, he don't know a damn thing about "Real Life".

Move on.  There's nothing to see here.  He's a nobody.


Dems fear NRA members: Their Fears Are Misplaced

In the latest push to subvert the Second Amendment rights of American, the Democratic Party is walking on cat feet.

They look at the latest flurry of mass murders, they hear their constituents cry out for them to DO SOMETHING! ... and they propose laws which will not affect the insane, but will only serve to impose draconian controls on law-abiding citizens to protect themselves against the murderers.

The problem is ... the Democrats fear Republicans.

Republicans are not the problem.


Sunday, February 25, 2018

A good guy with a gun doesn't always stop a bad guy with a gun

CNN is wetting its collegial panties with joy at the demonstrated evidence that the NRA is wrong, and it does so by implying that a good guy with a gun must stop a bad guy with a gun.
Here's definitive proof that a good guy with a gun doesn't always stop a bad guy with a gun - CNNPolitics: There are no simple solutions. There are no foolproof answers. Mass shootings are not entirely preventable.
Law Enforcement Officers are not legally required to protect private citizens; why then does CNN imply that armed private citizens should be held to a higher standard?

As usual, CNN is oversimplifying the situation, and then castigates the NRA by accusing that organization of oversimplifying the solution:
"To stop a bad guy with a gun, it takes a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said to applause from the CPAC crowd on Thursday morning.
The CNN article makes assumptions which are not warranted (as is often the case when Leftists attempt to misinterpret pro-gun positions).    The National Rifle Association never claimed that the mere presence of "a good guy with a gun" would automatically counter the predatory actions of "a bad guy with a gun".

That claim would be just ... stupid; much like these insinuations of CNN.

The Constitution enumerates Rights ... not Obligations.

The fact that an armed citizen was nearby during another {sigh} shooting, but declined to risk his life in protection of others, speaks only the constitutional choices available to each individual.  The CNN article suggests that an armed private citizen has an obligation to defend others which the state does not even assign to Sworn Officers.

The Second Amendment recognizes our personal right to carry a firearms; it assumes that we have the right to protect our persons, our property, and other persons. 

It does not present a mandate for the individual to protect others, at the risk of our own life.

 Few of us know, for sure, how we would react when faced with armed personal combat. 

This CNN article is just another feeble attempt by an anti-gun website to undermine the 2nd Amendment by implying that armed citizens are guilty of moral terpitude if they are unwilling to risk their own life by protecting others.

One wonders what the author of the CNN article would do, if presented with the challenge of protecting self or others against an armed aggressor.   But that is a problem for his laundry service.