Wednesday, May 15, 2019

People often say ... "Why Do You Need A gun?"

Nobody really "needs" a gun!

Actually .. nobody really "Needs" a gun ... Until they really need it!
(Criminals .. subconsciously provide Society a service in their ineptitude; they prove the concept that everybody needs to provide for their own defense!)

Witness this incident where they attempt to attack an Armed Citizen in his home ... and are foiled by an A Man With A Gun


Kentucky homeowner shoots at intruders: WARREN COUNTY, Ky. (CNN Newsource) - A violent home invasion was caught on camera when four men burst through the door of a home in Kentucky, but they soon discovered the man inside was already armed. The home security cameras caught what happened next.
The consequences of this foiled "Home Invasion" was, of course, that the armed home-owner was able to interrupt their plans by the simple display of a firearm.

It's "axiomatic" that the Left should encourage the concept that "nobody needs a gun".

Perhaps the graphic evidence that a man with a gun was able to thwart the expectations of people who are bold enough to rob an occupied residence ... suggests that the Second Amendment is still pertinent.


"When seconds are important, the police are only hours away."

Anyone who expects the police to protect them from immediate threats by criminals, is naive.  At best.  Stupid .. at worse, because when you really need a gun, the police are  minutes away.

(Their only duty is to clean up the mess when your wife and daughter have been killed because you couldn't protect them.   Sorry if I seem overly critical, but they are not charged to "Protect You", regardless of the motto  their car.)

There is no police force in the nation which accepts the responsibility to protect you from casual violence; the best they can do is to collect evidence and hope to find murderers "after the fact"; they are not liable to civil suit for their failure to protect you, irregardless of their common motto   "To Protect ... And To Serve".


Yes, I've said almost all of this before.  You need to be aware that there is NOBODY who is going to protect you.

You need to protect yourself ... and your family, and your home.

If you are not armed in your home, you need to buy a gun and learn how to use it responsibly.

Wikipedia suggests that there is approximately one gun per home in America.


(Actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership )
393 million guns for 326 citizens
Does this sound like "Too Much"?

I don't think so.  I own a couple of dozen guns myself, and every one has a different purpose .. for varying criteria of competition, and also home defence.

 (There are  different needs for "home Defense" versus "Personal Defense".
For example, I need concealability for Personal Defense, but I need high-round capacity for Home Defense.  And I also shoot "competitively", which has an entirely different requirement for Match Meets.
Don't even ask me about "hunting",)
For people who have no experience with firearms, all of these  variants seem obvious:  "Why Do You Need So Many bullets?" for self-defense.

The answer is equally obvious; you never know how many bullets you will need in a self-defence situation.'

For those who would assign an arbitrary number of bullets allowable to a gun, I suggest that they don't know what they are talking about; for each specific situation where an armed citizen needs to defend him/herself, a number of rounds fired versus the number of rounds needed to reduce the threat, may vary.

Most people aren't currently proficient with their firearm.  Which means they haven't gone to The Range to practice.   BAD PEOPLE!

( I haven't been to the range in a month, so I'm no better than the people I talk about!)

Having the experience of armed combat (Viet Nam, 1968 - 1970) I know that the number of rounds  expended versus the threats eliminated are ... phenomenal.

When you're being fired upon, the rounds expended toward a specific threat are often more intended to threaten the aggressor (keep their heads downthan to actually kill them; essential, you shoot to threaten your opponent more than to fulfill the expectation that you will kill them before they can kill you.

It's called: "incoming Fire Suppression", and it has been the  primary tactical philosophy of American troops for a half of a century. 

(Not that it has not been essentially effective; just "making a Loud Noise" and "Returning Fire" has been the most effective tactic of American Infantry for decades; it gives our Infantry something to do, and sometimes actually does succeed in suppressing enemy fire ... if only because they like to see us waste ammunition!)

It's usually better to drive away the guy who wants you to die NOW, than to hit him!
Which leads us to the concept of "Defensive Fire"; which is best defined as "whatever it takes to not get shot, as long as it keeps him from shooting at you ... rather than to shoot the other guy".
Why?

Paperwork.

Psoriasis

I recently ran across a blog article in which the author complained about suffering from Psoriasis.

This is a skin ailment which is typified by open sores, itching and burning, and often pustules.   Nobody seems to know where it comes from, or whether it can be transmitted from one person to another.  Nobody knows where it comes from, nobody knows where it goes.  Nobody knows why it happens.

I've suffered from this for years ... literally ... and I finally found a treatment which has been effective for me.   Perhaps not to "cure" it, but at least how to "control" it .. to the point where it might seem to lapse into a non-active skin affliction.

I don't know hoe to stop it, but I've found ways to ameliorate the symptoms (pustules, open sores, etc.)

If this is your primary medical issue, please note that the frequent (regular) application of MS217 (a 3% coal tar based formula) in shampoo form has proven effective in my specific case.  It's a "medicated conditioning shampoo", which I have found effective in topical application in my daily shower.

My problem was that I not only had scaling and itching on my scalp, but I also had experienced pustules on my hands and fingers.  (I know, it's disgusting to even talk about.)

Once I began to use this topical ointment during my daily shower, massaging it in my hair ... it also eventually eliminated the pustules on my hands.

This is not the kind of topic which people commonly discuss online ... but when you have this dermal issue it quickly becomes the most important issue in your life.  Well .. not always, but for people who don't face life-threatening issues on a daily basis, it eventually becomes the issue with which you must deal "daily".

No, I'm not being paid for my comments; I don't care about the sales figures for a non-pharmaceutical topical treatment.  I only know how very debilitating it can be when your skin turns into pustular sores and you can't even comb your hair without wincing.

It's a rare disease, and most people are blessed by having lesser issues (such as "dandruff") to deal with.  It doesn't begin to challenge diabetes, beri-beri, and other diseases which are directly associated with life-threatening conditions.

All I can say is that I'm delighted to finally have found a cure treatemt for a disease which is annoying, humiliating (premature balding), and quite uncomfortable.

Ninety-nine percent of readers will have no idea what I'm talking about, and will dismiss it as .. well, NIMBY  (Not In My Back Yard).

But for the one percent of people who MIGHT do an Internet search and find this article .. I hope that they will try it out; it may not work for you, but I'm so relieved that this is not my most common daily concern (I THINK I've finally cured myself, but I'll keep on with weekly treatments)  ... I can only point my fellow sufferers of a painful and debilitating disease to what may be a cure.

(that link may be important to you if you suffer from this disease)

NOTE:  Not sure:  I will continue to treat my scalp on a regular basis.  I don't know if I'm actually "cured", or if the treatments only alleviate the progress of the disease.


But whatever happens, just a simple relief from the symptoms of scalp disease may be ... if not a cure .., at least a way to alleviate the most discomfortable symptoms of this annoying disease.

Oh, and as far as I can tell, physical contact with sufferers is not the primary source of scalp disease.

Thursday, May 02, 2019

Southern Border Alerts: "Why So Lying?"

Recent events have shown that people lie to enter the U.S. across our southern borders.

No surprise here, but the extent of dishonesty seems to be ramping up to become a major problem.
Homeland Security to test DNA of families at border in cases of suspected fraud - Nick Miroff: WASHINGTON - Homeland Security officials said Wednesday they will start an "unprecedented" pilot program to test the DNA of families arriving at the U.S. border as soon as next week, calling the measure an investigative tool to root out fraudulent cases of migrants traveling with children who are not their own.
[emphasis added]

Coyotes?

When people present themselves for immigration, they usually come either in singles, or as families.  If the "head of the family" meets the criteria for immigration, it's assumed that the rest of his/her family equally qualified (for whatever reasons the head can prove at border checkpoints).

As a general rule, it's easier for a "family" to receive permission to immigrate to the United States than for a "single male".  

(For example, a single male may have "business" reasons to emigrate, while a family is more likely to have "social", "Economic" and/or "Survival" issues which might be alleviated by leaving a lawless environment.)

DNA TESTING: HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE?

If you watch enough "cop shows", you may assume that a match between a sample and a "standard" can be accomplished in a relatively short time.  Other sources suggest that it is a very long process.

One source says:
For a standard test (testing one possible father with one child) a highly-accredited lab should return DNA paternity test results in 1-2 business days once all samples are received. While the best DNA labs can provide results in 1-2 days, others can take 3-12 weeks or even longer, and for a higher price!May 22, 2018

Another source says:
(two to three business weeks)

https://dnacenter.com/blog/long-take-get-dna-paternity-test-results/


SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION but the answer is it takes more than a day and may takes weeks ... because it's not a simple "GO/NO GO" process.   Also, it requires a fairly sophisticated laboratory with special equipment (or so I've been lead to believe) and in the end it requires ...  "interpretation".

First Conclusion:  When the Southern Border Patrol needs to rely on DNA testing to determine whether all members of a "family" are truly close-relations, it's not a minor matter.  And it's not fast, and it's not cheap.

Second Conclusion: DNA matching is probably the last resource for the Border Patrol, and not the least expensive, when they're trying to prove that one person is a genetic member of another person's family.

Third Conclusion:  That I have entirely too much "Free Time" on my hands

Eric Swalwell touts gun-control reform

I think there's something basically wrong with a politician (especially a proposed candidate for the presidency) who espouses an infringement on our essential liberties.
Eric Swalwell touts gun-control reform in North Liberty – The Daily Iowan: NORTH LIBERTY — U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., rounded out his first visit to Iowa since announcing his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president with a house party event in North Liberty, where he called for a ban and buy back policy for assault rifles.
Well, he's a Californian, so we cannot fault him for being true to his Democratic principles of his culture and his party (Democratic).

Still, he's an American first, and one would hope that he is cognizant of the ...nuances .. of the Constitution of the United States. 

As in: "Shall Not Be Infringed".

I'm not picking on this candidate in particular, except that he has recently made public his disdain for the Constitutional rights which we all enjoy ... so far.

You want to conduct a "buy back campaign" for "assault rifles"?  (One wonders how he defines them.)  Fine.  As long as it's voluntary, rather than mandatory.

But we all know that he's just one more Democrat who thinks that if he has the power to enact laws which affect every citizen in America, he will do so with absolutely NO regard for the Constitution.

I'm disinclined to address his thoughts on non-constitutional rights such as "abortion" or "illegal immigrants" or "Water Rights in Parched Counties" (speaking off the top of my head); but when he openly espouses denying the rights of citizens to Constitutionally protected rights (aka: Second Amendment"), he self-identifies himself as someone who has no respect for his fellow citizens.

It seems redundant for me to encourage Californians to denounce him for his WRONG political philosophy; but those who are eligible to vote for a candidate in California might wonder what OTHER rights he is willing to throw under the political bus in furtherance of his candidacy.

A "Buy-Back" policy?  That leaves it up to the individual firearms owner whether to yield his liberties to the state;

But a "BAN"?   That moves into the area where citizens of The State (here .. the Nation) have no alternative other than to yield to political pressure and conduct themselves according to a dictator who would undermine your RIGHTS ... whether or not you value them.

First a gun ban; what's next?  Would a Swalwell presidency require us to (for example)  present National Identity Cards when crossing state lines?

Who knows?  A President who feels comfortable with undermining one Constitutional right could conceivably segue to denying any other Constitutional right.

Just saying.


Sunday, April 14, 2019

A Canadian "Wake Up" Moment?

If you want to reduce crime, the (Toronto, Canada) police argue that spending the money on traditional police services would be more effective than spending in on banning guns.
Toronto Police Association says that national handgun ban won't stop criminals 
There's no way in my world or any world I know that this would have an impact on somebody who’s going to go out and buy an illegal gun and use it to kill another person or shoot another person,” Mike McCormack, the president of the Toronto Police Association, said Friday.
GOMEZNSA says:April 12, 2019 at 7:20 PMGee, it ‘almost’ sounds like they have realized that criminals don’t obey laws!
I could not have said it better myself!

Warrant-less searches exception

Bearing in mind that I recently posted a screed against "warrent-less" searches, I now admit that I once permitted such a search.

It happened about 30 years ago, when I was living in a rented house in the vicinity of Portland, Oregon.

It happened on an autumn night, about 8:30 pm, when I heard a knock on my door.   Not expecting any visitors, I looked through the peephole in my front door  and I saw two uniformed police officers ... one who was standing far away, and partially obscured by the garage which projected past the front porch.

(I highly advise that every exterior door have a peep-hole!)

Since I saw only uniformed officers, I carefully asked (without opening the door) "who are you and what do you want?"

The nearest officer replied: "... (name of town) Police; we received a report that you are holding a young girl here against her will.  We want to come in."

Well, that was interesting.   So I replied: "Okay, give me 30 seconds please".

Then I went back to my sofa and hid the pistol I was holding behind a cushion.

Then I opened the door, and asked who told them that story? 

"Sorry, we cannot reveal the name of the complainant.  May we come in and look for the girl"?

Having been informed that they were only looking for another person, I stood back and allowed them to enter.   I informed them that I was the only one in the house.

Both officers had their hands on their holstered pistols.   I stood back and kept my hands in plain sight.  One officer stayed near me at the front-door alcove while the other officer moved though the front room, into the dining room and kitchen, then, moved down the hallway to look through the bathroom, and both bedrooms.

I yelled out to him "The last door on the left leads to the garage, feel free to walk through it; the light switch is on the right as you enter the garage".
I heard him open that door, and waited while he looked through it.  My car was parked in the garage, but he never asked for the keys to search the car.  But I heard him calling out for "anyone there?"

I kept my hands in plain sight of the officer standing by the front door, didn't put my hands in my pockets, and remained silent.

After a few minutes, the other officer returned to the front room and reported that he didn't find anyone else in the house.

They thanked me for my courtesy, and left.

Guns, Guns, Guns ... but no Captive Princess
At the time I had a very large glass-fronted  gun cabinet (hand-crafted in Blond "Birds Eye" Maple by my father as a Christmas gift a few years ago) displaying several rifles and shotguns in the locked but glass-fronted doors.  There were many handguns in the locked drawers below the rifles.  The officer searching the house never mentioned them to me, and I did not bother trying to carry on a further conversation with the officer who had remained with me in the entryway.

Apparently, they were not concerned by the obvious fact that I was a conspicuous firearms owner.   Since Oregon is a "Free State", there were no silly laws requiring that firearms be registered (nor are any such unconstitutional obscenities allowed today).

After they left, with appropriate apologies, I breathed a sigh of relief .. and a silent prayer of thankfulness that I lived in the Free State of Oregon.

In many other states, the officers might have expressed their disappointment by harassing me about the firearms I owned.
They could have asked me to provide proof of ownership about the guns.
They could have asked to see my Firearms ownership License and checked to see if all firearms were registered and whether I had kept all such licences and registrations current. 
They could have searched my house for non-displayed firearms, and called back to their office and checked to see if I had other firearms which were not registered, or whether all registrations were current.

But they (and I'm proud to announce that they were members of the Hillsboro, Oregon Police Department) stuck to their primary duty, and only checked to see if I had a kidnapped girl held captive, and when they were satisfied that I was the only person on the premises, they returned to their primary duty and went on to pursue other leads.

I never learned whether they found the girl.

But if I had never allowed a warrantless search of my home, who knows what suspicions would have resulted in further harassment by LEOs who were not convinced of the original unwarranted charges of kidnapping and suspicion of such heinous crimes on my behalf.

I hope they did find the girl and I hope that it was only a false report; I never was told, either, whether they found that the story of a missing girl was a fraud, or who reported my name, or why.

There are times when Citizens are obliged to concede our rights, in order to "do right" for the benefit of others.

It's not about "ME"; it's about "all of us".




Saturday, April 13, 2019

Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks

The President has instituted a plan to ensure that American defense systems are able to protect themselves against EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse ) attacks.

President Trump Signs Executive Order for Resilience Against Electromagnetic Pulses | Department of Energy
WASHINGTON, D.C. - On March 26, 2019, President Trump signed an Executive Order (E.O.) establishing the first ever comprehensive whole-of-government policy to build resilience and protect against electromagnetic pulses, or EMPs – temporary electromagnetic signals that can disrupt, degrade, and damage technology and critical infrastructure systems across large areas.


This may bode well for the nation, because the alternative defence is to "... use fiberoptic cable which would be unaffected by EMP".

But for the rest of us, who depend upon copper cables to power our homes and our automobiles, the consequences may well mean that we have no access to convenient transportation (cars, trains, airplanes) and communication over systems which are primarily dependent on copper cables ... which are VERY vulnerable.   

National security systems may survive, but the systems which we use in our personal lives may not.

You may not be able to communicate by any electromagnetic means (internet, telephone, etc.) which transmit signals via copper wires.  You can't drive your car, because the circuits are burned out.  

Some say that if the circuit is not in use when the EMP occurs, the system may survive.   Some say that is an oversimplification of the effects of an EMP.

I don't claim to be an authority on EMP ... its cause nor its effects ... but this is a possibility which we should be aware of.   Not that there is anything we can do about it.  (Personally, I'm thinking about buying a wood-stove and a dog-sled; which would be helpful until the refrigerator stops working.  I could always eat the dogs, cooked over the wood stove.)

No, I'm not serious about that.   There is absolutely nothing which the private citizen could do to ameliorate the effects of EMP over much of America.  Any country which depends on electricity to power their homes above a barely subsistence level is vulnerable.   The cost of lives, and the attempt to re-channel national resources to support a newly defined primitive life-style is beyond imagination.

In the words of some long-dead pundant from decades past:
"there's no use worrying, nothing's going to work out all right".
It gives me a queasy feeling to realize that everything which supports our lives depends on the competence of politicians who are elected by the majority of people who are accustomed to living on the Governmental Dole.

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

How to respond when the Police want to search your premises.

All that follows may not be applicable in your state; you would be well-advised to consult a lawyer who is familiar with the laws of your state, and familiarize yourself with the applicable laws in your state.  I am not a lawyer, and what I have to say here may not be applicable in your state.


In a situation where the police want to search your property, and they have not acquired a warrant to do so ... you may not have a legal obligation to allow them to search your property.

This is what may be known as an Illegal Entry; or it may be a "No-Knock Warrant".  in the case where Police are permitted by local laws to enter your property for the purpose of executing a search with or without your permission.  

(Confusing?  YES!)

Evidence discovered via a warrantless search, MAY BE defensible in court.
If the searchers discover something which they subsequently present in a court of law as "evidence", it might legally be held against you, regardless of the circumstances .. if you gave permission to  allow them the search.

Any arrest based on a warrantless (or otherwise not-legal) search may be defensible.  You may not be able to defend yourself in court against an illegal search, if you permit it at the time.  Demonstrating that the search was not grounded by a warrant may not be sufficient defense to require the court to ignore the evidence discovered there-in.   If you have uttered words which might be considered as "consenting" to the search, any evidence found during the search may be used against you.

I'm not a member of the bar, so you should seek legal counsel if you find yourself in this kind of quandary; but I encourage you to defend yourself against any charges based upon "questionable evidence" discovered during a search which is not specifically named in a  legal warrant which purports to justify a search of your home and/or property.

Rule #1: Admit NOTHING. It's better to remain silent, and be considered a fool, than to speak and prove to be a fool.

Rule #2: Never agree to a warrantless search.   The first words out of your mouth should be "Show Me Your Warrant".  If the would-be searchers cannot present a warrant, the search is not legal.  Evidence found in an illegal search may not be used in evidence against you in court ... but don't count on it.  Note carefully the conditions and terms of the warrant; it should include the areas to be searched, and the objects for which they are searching.  If they are looking for guns, and happen to notice a sword in a closet ... the sword may not be a significant finding, or anything found in the closet may not be subject to confiscation.   But if they are looking for "weapons", it may be taken in evidence.

Rule #3: The next words you speak (and the last words) should be: "I need to have my lawyer present before I answer any questions or consent to a search".

Rule #4: Heed Your Lawyer! Nobody else: and certainly do not heed the advice of anyone who has the power to arrest you.

There are defenses: in some states, if you do not consent to a search of your privately owned property, under certain circumstances evidence found may not be admissible in a court of law.   Again, you will probably need to present the search warrant (if one is offered) to you attorney to ensure that your rights have not been  violated by a too-exuberant exercise of search which are not permitted under the terms of the search warrant. 

The terms of a search warrant should include the areas to be searched, and the objects for which the searchers expect to find.  Which is not to say that if the searchers are looking for machine guns and the find illicit drugs, they must overlook the drugs, but that confuses the mission and may sometimes obviate their findings.  (If the police are looking for machine guns and find an ounce of drugs in a pill-box ... the machine guns could not be expected to be found in a pill-box, and so the finding of a pill-box of drugs may not be the result of a "legal search".   But don't count on it!)

This commentary is much too short to completely address the issues involved in Constitutional law, and it is not intended to be definitive.  If you have issues which are not addressed here, you are invited to raise them with the expectation that they MAY be discussed in subsequent issues.

Sunday, April 07, 2019

IF POLICE COME FOR YOUR GUNS

IF POLICE COME FOR YOUR GUNS: DO NOT RESIST, COOPERATE, sort it out in the courts. It is the law. Yes, the very same legal system who ordered the firearms confiscation. If not resisting and cooperating is in your opinion “dropping to your knees, and handing them over” that would be your opinion.

I'm not sure what the law is ... which is one of the reasons why this "law enforcement" thingie is so confusing .. is that police need to be specific about what they are searching for .. and they need to have a warrant  (a legal document) specifying they are searching for ...

search warrant of a private home

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-the-police-search-your-house-without-a-warrant

Essentially, if the police want to search your home, they must have a warrant signed by a judge.  If it is not signed by a judge, it is not a legal warrant.  That's the first hurdle they must surmount.

Then, there's the Constitution of the United States of America ..

Thursday, March 28, 2019

Comman Takem

Joel's Gulch is a refreshing counterpoint to the "we don't wanna confiscate, we just wanna alleviate the menace" crowd:

Nyet, Tovarich. | The Ultimate Answer to Kings:
This isn’t frickin’ New Zealand, Bernie. This is America. We’re descended from bootleggers, smugglers and gun-toting traitors, and before you got hold of the college campuses we wrote songs about it. Not everybody here went to college, Bernie, and not everybody who goes to college buys the bullshit. Do you really think this is going to end well?
Not to gild the Lilly, but I'm glad that bold 2nd Amendment supporters such as Joel are providing the erudite (and common-sensical) counterpoint to the smooth talkers who would cheerfully take your guns ... if they can only find someone to do the dirty work for them.

Make no mistake.  The smooth talkers would will confiscate all firearms in America if they thought they can get away with it.  (Not to mention finding enough Law Enforcement Officers willing to do the job ... all both of them.)

Oh ... LEOS actually aren't anti-Second Amendment.