In A Perfect World

The New England Journal of Medicine (*NEJM: in an article titled "Rooting Out Gun Violence") * is once again lamenting the terrible lack of cooperation on the part of gun-owners with the Health Issue improvements they have suggested.

*(H/T:  Ammoland,  Gunbloggers.com and The Gun Feed.com)

In A Perfect World --

Old people, women, even children would be protected from by vicious men who want to hurt us.

In A Perfect World, when we are assaulted by people who want to hurt us for the sheer joy of the pain, or for gain, or for fury unabated ... we would be able to summon help by pushing a button and rescuers would magically appear and save us from our tormentors.

This is not a perfect world, and the police ("To Protect And To Save") have no obligation to protect or to save us.  Nor have they the resources to do so, however much they would like to.

So we carry guns, because "Sam Colt Made All Men Equal".  And also mothers and fathers.

Here's how it sounds from the side of the fence:

Here we are again. Less than a year ago, an editorial in the Journal by Kassirer reexamined the massive public health problem of gun violence in the United States,1 and a Perspective article by Sacks, born of a personal tragedy, lamented the defunding of research on firearm-injury prevention.2 Kassirer called for electing “lawmakers at all levels of government with the courage to defy gun lobbyists,” so that essential regulatory changes can finally be enacted — as physicians, public health experts, and others have been recommending for decades. But in early December, the day after a young couple turned up at a holiday party in San Bernardino, California, with semiautomatic weapons and went on a shooting rampage, killing 14 people and injuring 21.

NEJM Translation:  We keep telling you that guns are bad, but you won't listen to us and ... see?  THIS is what happens when you don't listen to us!

I hate it when grown men whine, but it seems endemic in the academic community.  They have chosen a side, and they don't recognize the other side; which is those who feel themselves most vulnerable.

Here, they have decided that all guns are bad, so nobody should own guns.  Period.

They studiously ignore the fact that the reason why Americans refuse to give up their guns is that the criminals won't give up THEIR guns!   

It's not that we're unaware of the abuses of firearms ownership.

It's just that we, the law-abiding community, understand that if we are unable to defend ourselves, then nobody else is there to step up for us.

Certainly, there are no members of the Academic Community who are willing to commit to our personal defense; nobody blames them for that, it's a tough job and they are not qualified even if they would accept the onerous duty.

The Academics have the courage to (defend) ... research on firearm-injury prevention

but they don't have the ability to provide "firearm-injury prevention".   That's The Way Of The Academic.

They may bemoan the real-world ethics;  they may rail against the thick-headedness of the hoi polloi who insist on the right to defend themselves.  But they are unable or unwilling to provide and alternate solution which will comfort the man whose family has been taken from him during a home-invasion.

It's not a Perfect World.

I have no idea ....

... but on New Years Eve, it's refreshing to find a video which is not filled with explosions and drunken college students going OOOOOOOO WAAAAAAH!


COMTECH BOWIE KNIFE POWER PASSING - YouTube:
Published on Dec 26, 2013 James A. Keating demonstrates Comtech Bowie Knife Power Passing



I think it's great that they have those cool sunglasses on.  It adds an air of mystery.

Either that, or they're embarrassed to be seen in public without their spidey-mask on.

Insane Clown Posse Joke? Guns are not an individual right in Illinois?

Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HR0855:
Synopsis:

 As Introduced Urges the courts, especially the United States Supreme Court, to adhere to the clear wording of the Second Amendment being a right afforded to state-sponsored militias and not individuals.

This has been all over the gun blogger-net for the past couple of days.  Those fun-loving scamps in the Illinois Legislature (who always reminded me of the characters in M*A*S*H) have a new trick to play on their fellow citizens.

They are were going to abrogate U.S. Supreme Court decisions which have determined that firearms ownership is an individual right.

Which completely goes against both the HELLER and the MACDONALD decisions.

The smart money today is on failure of the bill, though, as rats supporters are abandoning the sinking ship movement.  Check out the history in the House (ref: link above):

• 11/06/15: Filed with the Clerk by Rep. Emanuel Chris Welch
• 11/09/15: Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Pamela Reaves-Harris
• 11/10/15: Referred to Rules Committee
• 11/10/15: Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Jaime M. Andrade, Jr.
• 12/29/15: Removed Co-Sponsor Rep. Jaime M. Andrade, Jr.
• 12/30/15: Removed Co-Sponsor Rep. Pamela Reaves-Harris

Need we mention that Welch (7th District) , Andrade (40th District), and Reaves-Harris (10th District) are all Democrats?   They were all "ME TOO!" when it looked like a good political move.

But apparently  the voters are not looking kindly on this abrogation of their civil rights.   Illinois is known as a "swing state", and the vote of the populace might go either way.

Also, the governor of Illinois, Bruce Rauner, is a Republican. He might have had a thing or two to say about this.

Chicago Pride!

Shootings -- Crime in Chicagoland -- chicagotribune.com:

Chicago Tribune Reports a banner year for shootings!
This year they reported a 14.84% INCREASE in the number of shooting victims in Chicago.

Jan. 1, 2015 - Dec 30, 2015

2,971 shooting victims

Jan. 1, 2014 - Dec 30, 2014

2,587 shooting victims

Chicago shooting victims Last updated Dec. 30, 2015 The map [see the link, above] shows where people were shot in Chicago, broken down by community area. Darker shades of blue indicate greater numbers of victims in those community areas. This data is compiled from reporting done by the Chicago Tribune Breaking News staff and is typically updated more than once per week. Therefore, the most recent shootings may not be displayed immediately.

If Chicago could report  that large an increase in productivity,it would be one of the most prosperous communities in the nation ... instead of the deadliest.

Just saying.

Gutting the Second Amendment: Fear and Loathing in Academia

There was a time, after I had graduated from high school, and after I had graduated from college, and after I had graduated from Viet Nam, when I was trying to decide what to do with the rest of my life.

I thought I would like to go back to school for an academic degree.  I thought perhaps I would like to teach, at a college level. I knew that I liked to teach.  I had the education, I had the experience, so perhaps I had something to offer to the next generation.

Seeking advice, I asked my Mom what she thought about it.

She said (not her exact words, although I present this as a quote:

"Well, Honey, you do what you think is best.  But when people ask me what my son is doing with his life, is it okay with you if I just tell them you're running a whore-house?"

Point well taken.  I got into computer systems analysis, and while I never thought I was leading an honest life, at least I could hold my head up among the relatives during the annual Summer Family Reunions.


Now I'm looking at an article in the New York Times titled "Guns and Racism" by Gary Guting.
 (H/T: David Codrea)

It starts out well:

Those of us in favor of stronger laws to abate gun violence mostly support our cause by arguing against the claims of the gun lobby (roughly, the N.R.A. and gun manufacturers). It should by now be obvious that this is a waste of time. The case for action is overwhelming, but there’s no chance of convincing the entrenched minority who are so personally (or financially) invested in gun ownership. Legislative efforts have failed because the opposition is more deeply committed — more energized, more organized, more persistent.

There are a few comments in this oh-so-fairly-reasoned article which I find disturbing.

Yes, those of us who are firm supporters of our Civil Rights are certainly "entrenched"; but it bothers me that the author suggests that we are minions of "the N.R.A. (sic) and gun manufacturers".

I'm not certain what incentives these nefarious groups are supposedly using to encourage firearms owners to support their evil actions, but I always thought that the NRA was an organization created by and for firearms owners .. and when the NRA doesn't speak for us, their membership plummets.

I don't particularly like the NRA .. I find them too liberal, usually; but I guess they have to tone down the rhetoric.  As far as the gun manufacturers .... when they don't do what we (firearms owners) want them to do, they lose business.

(There was a little contretemps with Smith &Wesson a few years ago, when they seemed to have kow-towed to gun-control influences; they lost a LOT of business from firearms owners over that one.  So it doesn't seem to me as if the firearms manufacturers are driving the Second Amendment dialogue in this country.)

So, who is driving the gun-owner rhetoric?  Certainly not the manufacturers!.  Might it be .. the gun owners?  Maybe the gun-owners are not puppets of industry or organizations, but are independently just really cranky people who don't want other people telling them that they are 'bad' because they stand up for their civil rights?


But wait!  There's more.

... the basic motivation of the pro-gun movement is freedom from government interference. They talk about guns for self-defense, but their core concern is their constitutional right to bear arms, which they see as the foundation of American freedom. The right to own a gun is, as the N.R.A. website puts it, “the right that protects all other rights.” Their galvanizing passion is a hatred of tyranny. Like many other powerful political movements, the gun lobby is driven by hatred of a fundamental evil that it sees as a threat to our way of life — an existential threat — quite apart from any specific local or occasional dangers.

It's so NICE to see that someone actually 'gets it', in the sense that ... firearms owners are not opposing gun-control measures out of 'fear', but out of a defense of the Constitution, civil liberties, and enumerated rights.

And yes, we do hate it when people tell us what to do.  Or not to do.  This is America, after all.

Then he goes and says something stupid; like playing the Racism Card:

But few of us actually see guns as existential threats to fundamental American values. In this, however, we are mistaken. Our permissive gun laws are a manifestation of racism, an evil that, in other contexts, most gun-control advocates see as a fundamental threat to American society.

Mr. Guting lives in Chicago, and his perception is:

I’m not particularly afraid, since — like most Chicagoans — I’m hardly ever where the violence occurs. There’s something to worry about only if you live in certain overwhelmingly black communities on the West and South sides of town. (The papers publish helpful maps showing how the killings are distributed.) These are where almost all the shootings occur, and the large majority of victims (and perpetrators) are black. 

[Mr. Guting decries the plight of Chicago's poor negro black, and avoids that part of town because (a) it's dangerous and (b) he can.  But he doesn't speak of his efforts to raise the socio-economic plight of the community.  Still, he feels free to criticize  the dreadful conditions in his community, which he attempts to alleviate by publishing an opinion article in the New York Times ... not the Chicago Trib!   He's not "part of the problem", but he still thinks it's a stinking rotten shame and it's not his fault even though he lives (and presumably votes) in the same city.  He's too proud to publish his criticism in the Chicago paper because, apparently, it's not a Chicago problem; it's an NRA problem.  Well, whatever ... it's not HIS problem!]

And that is the fault of Second Amendment defenders because ... what?


He goes on to decry the prevalence of gun violence in black parts of town.

The case for the racist effect of our permissive gun laws is especially powerful.  There’s no way of explaining away all these deaths as aberrations. If we fail to oppose with equal passion and vigor the relentless political pressure of (mostly white) gun advocates, we force a large number of black citizens to live with the constant threat of gun violence. We’re in effect letting the Second Amendment trump the Fourteenth Amendment, implicitly preferring the right of gun ownership to the right of black people to live free from fear.

I live in Oregon.  And this is MY fault?

Oh dear!
What is this "relentless political pressure of (mostly white) gun advocates" of which you speak?  Would it ... possibly ... be that we advocate for equal rights for all Americans, even if we (as you seem to imply) that 'some of us' seem to "force ... black citizens" to bear the onerous burden of living under their constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

Might part of the problem be that the EVIL Chicago Aldermen have decreed Chicago a city-wide Gun Free Zone, where honest citizens cannot defend themselves with the same (currently illegal) firearms that gang-bangers have?

[I know ... firearms ownership is strictly prohibited there ... which means that it is a GUN FREE ZONE to the criminals who have already demonstrated a total contempt for the Rule Of Law.   The only people who don't have guns are the law-abiding citizens.]

Isn't that a Chicago Gun Free Zones problem, and not an American Constitution problem?

What is the root cause of the "racist effect of our permissive gun laws"?

We ... legal firearms owners ... just want to protect our civil rights; rights which we support for ALL Americans. 

The NRA was started to counter the racist attitudes during post-civil war times, when "liberals" like you (Democrats) wanted to keep firearms out of the hands of black people.

Is it your contention, Mr. Guting, that Second Amendment Advocates are conspiring against black people?  Because that's the way it sounds, using your words.

"Permissive gun laws" are a reflection of the Constitutional rights of ALL Americans.  
What you consider "permissive", we consider "reasonable, common-sense gun rights".

NOBODY who cares about the Second Amendment would ever advocate any political stance which would undermine those rights; because if Black People can be denied their constitutional rights, then anybody would be threatened by the same kind of arbitrary infringement.

It seems to me, Mr. Guting, that you are the racist in the wood pile.   You are the one who has raised the proposition that one racial group would be accorded, and another denied, their rights.

The Second Amendment doesn't work that way.

Americans don't work that way.

Well .. perhaps a few pie-in-the-sky Academics have their heads so firmly entrenched in their nether regions that they don't know what the meaning of the words  "Will Not Be Infringed" is.  It applies to everybody, equally, without regard to race, creed or religion.

The rest of us are QUITE clear in our understanding that the Constitution of the United States of America is NOT a "living document", which might be subject to various and changeable interpretations based on YOUR crappy attitude.

Sir.

Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. His new book, “What Philosophy Can Do” (W. W. Norton) offers essays, expanded from his Stone columns, on politics, science, religion, education and art.

Assault Weapons Ban of 2015

I just scanned the proposed Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, and someone went to a lot of trouble to put it together.

They must be feeling pretty smug about having avoided the pitfalls which made the last Assault Weapons Bans of the past patently unworkable.

Still, they persist in worrying about such things as "Barrel Shrouds" ... and I ask you why that cosmetic feature would turn a rifle into an Assault Weapon.  (NB:  That 1903A3 Springfield rifle has limited capacity, does not feed from a detachable magazine, but might conceivably be considered an "Assault Weapon" since there is a piece of wood the wraps around the barrel.)

Question: The bill includes an extensive list of "exempt" make and model of existing rifles.  So what happens next year when a major manufacturer creates a new model of an existing "exempt" rifle?  Do they have to add a rider to the law, if enacted?   That seems cumbersome to me.

Oh, and they have another 'cute trick'

Text - H.R.4269 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress: If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

Well, at least the admit to the mere possibility that they may be fallible.

Still, I think the whole thing infringes upon my Second Amendment Rights, and while I try to keep this a Family Friendly resource, I can only reach this conclusion.

Fuck you, Congress, you parsimonious pandering plethora of Political Pansies.

What's the worst that can happen?..

Nobody needs to carry a firearm in America, because the police are there to protect you.
If you are in fear, just call a policeman.   They are professionals; they are qualified to evaluate the situation and provide an appropriate response.

If you have a gun, you'll probably just make matters worse.  You might shoot an innocent bystander!

Besides, what's the worst that can happen?

Warning: Video contains very disturbing scenes of violence.  Should not be considered safe for work.  Do not play this video if children or other Liberals are in the room.

We now return you to ....

Christmas is over.  Is it okay to revert to the normal state of irreverence now?

There are two things that I don't understand, but I'm willing to accept:

1. Electricity
2. Religion

I know when I flip that light switch, the lights will brighten up the un-vacuumed corners of my hovel.  Which isn't always what I want to see, but I'm willing to accept the bad with the good.

And I know that when I pray to God ... I don't see the light.   But I know he's there anyway, because the bible tells me so.

Also, because God has this very weird sense of humor, as evidenced by a lot of embarrassing personal incidents in my life which I have absolutely NO intention  to discuss!

But the thing about Christmas is that people say and do a lot of irreverent things, and there is no news reports that they were struck by a bolt of lightening for doing so.  Therefore, I think maybe I can get away with showing a few of the videos other people have made.

Delaware Violence: NY Times disappointed in CDC reporting

Delaware has a problem with "Violence" which is among the greatest in America.   That much we can say.

So Delaware asked the Center for Disease Control to research the problem; which the CDC did.

But the New York Times (and people in Delaware) are disappointed that the CDC report covered 'violence in Delaware' rather than "GUN Violence in Delaware'.

NPR said the things that Delaware wanted to say, but the CDC couldn't report that information directly.

The New York Times: (note: unable to append the NYT video interview because of proprietary constraints it isn't available on YouTube) covered the CDC report, but focused  on the disappointment that: ",.. (u)nfortunately they [the CDC] feel like they can only talk about part of the problem, they can’t talk about the gun part of the problem... ”
[emphasis added]

The Wilmington research [by the CDC] sidestepped the funding restrictions, because it was a response to a request and because “it doesn’t focus as much on the issue of guns themselves; it really focuses on these other risk factors and ways to intervene,” said. Dr. Linda Degutis, the former director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the C.D.C. She added that it was frustrating to be unable to do an extensive study on gun violence while she was there.
 David Hemenway, a director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said that could be a shortcoming of an effort to look at gun violence. “Unfortunately they feel like they can only talk about part of the problem, they can’t talk about the gun part of the problem,” Dr. Hemenway said, adding, “Looking at the supply side — how do they get these destructive weapons?”
 Questions remain about whether the focus on risk factors before a shooting amounts to profiling people who have not committed a crime, and how exactly to coordinate data, social, health and educational services that could help intervene. Still, public health experts say it is a methodically sound and instructive study, if limited. “If there were adequate funding on firearm-related research, there would have been papers out on this a decade ago, not just in Wilmington, but in many other large cities,” Dr. Miller said.

Shouldn't any report on "Violence" consider all forms of Violence?  Unfortunately, too often news-source reporting will focus on "gun violence" rather than 'all violence'.

Unless you are the 800 pound Gorilla in the story .... the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
And then ... you are congressionaly BARRED from glamorizing Gun Violence

The CDC has found itself constrained from researching/reporting strictly on "Gun Violence" because for a time their research on that subject was unbalanced; they spent their efforts on the negative aspects of firearms ownership while ignoring the positive aspects.  Specifically, they declined to report on the lives saved by individuals who were able to defend themselves, their families, their homes and their possessions because they had legal access to firearms.

Darwinian Solutions

Sweet Suffering Jehovah, has it been only one day since I posted this article about people pointing toy guns at people carrying real guns?

Now we hear that "merry pranksters" are similarly risking their lives with "toy" bombs:

No, The Fake-bomb Tossing Jalal Brothers Didn't Get Shot:

Videos from three Arab-Australian brothers have been shared everywhere on social media in recent days as they’ve turned fears of terrorism into fodder for pranks.  They dress up in “traditional” Arab dress, walk up on unsuspecting citizens, and throw backpack “bombs” at random citizens before running away, capturing the victim’s desperate attempts at escaping on hidden cameras.

Apparently there is even a sham element where one or more of these fun-loving adolescents (?) is reported to have been shot during such an ill-considered act of sophomoric japery.

These heckle-and-jeckle idiots have so far got away with their shenanigans in Australia because that country's citizens has been emasculated disarmed by their government.

But even if there is little danger of being shot, some people won't tolerate rude behavior.

Seattle Follow-up

Comments are often the most interesting things that happen on this blog.

In reference to the Article:
Seattle, the big target isn't the people who cause the problem

There was an especially interesting aside from ARCHER:

Archer said...

Besides which, the Seattle Times gets it wrong in their title line: It’s common sense for Seattle to tax gun sales to study violence

The money isn't going to "study violence". It's going into "'gun violence' prevention programs". There's a subtle difference.

It's been known for years that "'gun violence' prevention programs" are a euphemism for "gun control" programs and groups. The "tax" basically forces lawful gun owners to fund the demise of their own rights.

December 21, 2015 2:21 PM

Well, we knew that already.  But it's nice that somebody came out and SAID it!

Should toy guns be illegal?

Man with toy gun killed by Baltimore cop. Should toy guns be illegal? ( video) - CSMonitor.com:

An off-duty Baltimore policeman on Saturday shot and killed a man he says appeared to be holding him at gunpoint in the suburbs of Linthicum Heights. But when Anne Arudnel County detectives surveyed the crime scene, they realized the would-be robber was wielding a toy gun.
Amid national debate over US gun laws, some think banning fake guns is a no-brainer.
By Story Hinckley, Staff DECEMBER 21, 2015  

I agree, I think banning fake guns is is a no-brainer.
As in: anyone who thinks banning fake guns has no brain cells worth preserving.

Don't blame the "gun"; blame the actors who precipitate the tragedy.  (Often the person who gave a kid a realistic-looking toy gun.  See below.)

We read a couple of stories a year about someone getting shot (usually by a police officer) because they are brandishing a toy gun.   Sometimes that is a tool which a person is using to commit a crime, as in this case.

Sometimes it is a toy which a child waves at a policeman, thinking it a harmless joke; it never is.  
It's too often a tragedy:

See: Tamir Rice
See: Andy Lopez

In the child's case, they needed to be taught by their parent, guardian, responsible adult or that weird 'uncle' who shows up to talk to mamma .... that it is never a good idea to threaten someone with a toy, even as a joke.   That's Lesson Number One in Responsible Gun Ownership (and if you don't think kids learn how to be responsible when they get their first toy gun, you are part of the problem.)

In the case of a hold-up, life is like a box of chawk-uh-lahts; you never know what you're going to get when you're trying to strong-arm an armed cop ... or citizen.

Why would a hold-up man (or boy) try to rob a stranger using a toy gun?  

Because:

• he's very new to the game and can't afford a real gun; 
• or because he keeps buying dope with the money he's stolen before and forgets to buy a gun;
• or because he's trying to avoid being charged with Armed Robbery in case he gets busted;
• or because he is desperate;
• or because he doesn't REALLY want to shoot someone, and figures the worst that can happen is he gets the crap beat out of him:
• or because he is stupid.  (Well, that much is reliably assumable, right from the get-go!)

He probably doesn't expect to get shot.

(Which right there, in four words, is the best argument for Concealed Carry Laws As An Aid To Social Respect.)

The thing is, the cop doesn't know it's a toy.  He has to assume it's a real gun, and he's about to get shot.  It's that thing about decision-making, judgement, confusion, Situational Awareness and Rule Number One (see below).

What the hell is "Safe Hollow Ammunition"?

I just found this .... curious .... terminology in a Daily Caller article (see below) by reputable author Alan Korwin (see citation below).

It is an interesting article, and starts by examining the basis of the theme (KORWIN: America’s Real Gun Problem - The Gun Myths | The Daily Caller:) with a comprehensive enumeration and discussion.   Overall, a pithy and entertaining essay.

Toward the end of the article, I ran into this paragraph:

The Off-Duty Officer Myth: Off duty or retired LEOs, if given national freedom to carry, particularly outside their jurisdiction, will mistakenly shoot innocent civilians and cost cities billions in liability. Proven false. When the LEOSA act passed in 2004, after multiple failed attempts, every honorable former and current peace officer gained the ability to carry discreetly nationwide (a precursor for the public’s similar right,which hasn’t yet materialized). Further law was needed to let officers carry safe hollow ammunition, to which some jurisdictions ignorantly raised objections

I admit, I'm not any kind of authority.  I'm 70 years old, got my first rifle at age 10, killed my first deer at 13, my first antelope at 18, etc.  Platoon Sgt in Vietnam.  And yeah, competition shooter for over 50 years blogging here for 7 years this month.   But I have never heard the term SAFE HOLLOW AMMUNITION.

I first thought thought it might be a simple un-noticed typographical error; but the phrase "safe HOLLOW" instead of "HOLLOW-POINT" threw me.   How could that slip through the final draft of a professional writer?

I goggled the term, received links to the same article at FIVE different websites (one of which was a broken link) and checked the comments; nobody else seems to have been confused enough to follow up on the terminology.

So here I am at the court of public opinion, requesting assistance from the greater experiential database of my mulliions (sic) of dedicated readers.

What the HELL is SAFE HOLLOW AMMUNITION?????

Alan Korwin is the author of 14 books, 10 of them on gun law. His book After You Shoot examines ways to lower your risks after a self-defense shooting. He has been invited twice to observe oral argument in gun cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. Reach him at GunLaws.com, where he is the publisher of Bloomfield Press.

SpaceX Rocket Destroyed on Way to Space Station

I was born in 1945.

I grew up listening to "Space Rangers"  (who flew the space skies in the rocket ship "Polaris")  on the radio.

Who knew that, in my lifetime, headline stories such as this would become so common-place that they would receive so little attention?

SpaceX Rocket Destroyed on Way to Space Station, Cargo Lost | Inc.com:

An unmanned SpaceX rocket carrying supplies to the International Space Station broke apart Sunday shortly after liftoff. It was a severe blow to NASA, the third cargo mission to fail in eight months. The accident happened about 2  minutes into the flight from Cape Canaveral, Florida. A billowing white cloud emerged in the sky, growing bigger and bigger, then fiery plumes shot out. Pieces of the rocket could be seen falling into the Atlantic like a fireworks display gone wrong. More than 5,200 pounds of space station cargo were on board, including the first docking port designed for future commercial crew capsules, a new spacesuit and a water filtration system.

Life is worth the living, because you can never guess what's going to happen tomorrow ... which has become today.

Congress passed a new budget

Nancy Pelosi is happy with the budget.

Anything that Nancy likes ... frightens me.

OH ... and Congress-critter Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a frightening representative!

Tip of the Ice Berg

Open letter to the City of Seattle, Washington:

Dear Seattle;

(Image courtesy of CNS NEWS)

It’s common sense for Seattle to tax gun sales to study violence | The Seattle Times:

Washington’s law prohibits the regulation of firearms by local governments, but Seattle is within its authority to impose fees to pay for a public-health crisis caused by gun violence. A $25 tax on each firearm sold within the city is reasonable, as is a 2-cent- or 5-cent-per-round tax for various types of ammunition. The city is so serious about tackling this problem, it plans to pay for research and prevention even if the court sides with the gun-rights coalition. But the city shouldn’t have to. If Seattle gets this right, other cities should also pitch in to solve this public-health crisis.

(All emphasis added by me)

Reasonable.  By your standards, perhaps.
Unconstitutional, by the Second Amendment.


When your article inserts the word "but ...", it's a tacit acknowledgement that you're advocating a measure which undermines the civil rights of your readership.  And you know it.  You just think that your readers are so stupid, or so already-in-your-court, that you can say ANYTHING and your readers will accept it.   Because they trust you.

You are trading in the trust of your customers, undermining their rights, and you have such disdain for them that you assume they won't notice your goal ... which is to serve them up for the dinner which is your political masters.

There is nothing new in your plan to impose "reasonable, common sense measures"
(BZZZT! Bullshit Alert!) for benign administrative purposes.

New York Senator  Daniel Patrick Moynihan had the same idea in 1993 when he proposed a 10,000% tax on ammunition.

November 04, 1993|By John Fairhall | John Fairhall,Washington BureauWASHINGTON -- Demanding action to stop the country's epidemic of violence, a powerful Senate chairman declared yesterday that his panel would make handgun control an integral part of health care reform by drastically increasing the tax on bullets.
Finance Committee Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan said the panel would build into health reform legislation such a huge increase in ammunition taxes that the most destructive types of bullets would effectively be taxed "out of existence."
The New York Democrat introduced a measure yesterday -- which he would incorporate into a health care reform bill later on -- that would impose a 100-fold increase in the tax on certain bullets and a 50 percent tax on all other handgun ammunition, with the exception of .22 caliber rimfire bullets used in target shooting. The current tax is 11 percent of the manufacturers' ammunition price.


His legislation also would slap a $10,000 "occupational tax" on manufacturers and importers of handgun ammunition.

But Moynihan, then, was more honest than Seattle is now:

• Mr. Moynihan said he believed the new taxes could raise as much as $1 billion. The current federal tax on ammunition, combined with federal taxes on handguns, shotguns and rifles, generated $143 million in 1992, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

• But the senator said his major goal was not to raise revenue but to tax "out of existence" ammunition "which has the sole purpose destroying bodies."

... while you, Seattle, dodge the issue by suggesting that "... it's common sense to tax gun sales ..." for whatever transparent excuse you choose to employ.

In truth, Seattle Times, and Seattle Washington, you just want to tax ammunition (and firearms .. both of which are legal products) "out of existence".

This proposition for a tax on the Second Amendment is like putting a frog in a crock-pot; if the water is initially only 'warm', the frog won't notice that sooner or later it's being boiled.

Why do you advocate this?
Because you can!

Is it any wonder that Americans have increasingly demonstrated that they no longer trust their government, but fear it?  This happens when the Government which they have elected has turned against the best interests of their constituents ... or should we say "Subjects"? ... to further a Political Goal?

America has a "Masculinity Problem"? Who knew?

America’s gun problem has everything to do with America’s masculinity problem - Quartz:

And for many men today, it’s an identity in particular need of cementing. In this May 2015 op-ed for The Los Angeles Times, sociologist Jennifer Carlson argues that men are clinging to guns as a way to address a broad range of social insecurities. Author of a book on the social practice of gun-carrying in America, Carlson found that gun owners often characterized their fathers’ generation as an era when men had important roles to play as providers and breadwinners.

I'm not sure of the definition of ".. a Masculinity Problem".  It sounds to me like the definition of "Assault Rifle".  It's left up to the people who care what either is, to define it.

Me?  I've been shooting for fun and competition for sixty years now, and I still don't know what an Assault Rifle is.  (I may or may not have carried one in Viet Nam .. if you consider an M70 Grenade Launcher an "Assault Rifle".)

Frankly, I don't give a damn.

I don't currently own a magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle unless you include the nifty little gizmo which takes the 1911 lower and allows me to shoot .45acp through a carbine.  So maybe that's an Assault Rifle .. except I always thought that the term "Rifle" included a rifle-caliber cartridge.

But what do I know?

And what do "they" know, the fine folks at "QUARTZ"  (see the link at the top of the page).

Masculinity?  I've always been a string-bean ... tall and skinny.  Except now I've got this pot belly that suggests if I quit eating past and drinking cheap Canadian whisky, I could get back to my preferred weight of "under 220 pounds".

Oh, and nobody has bothered to define the term "Gun Problem", either.

It's like the old joke:
"Drinking Problem?  I drink, I get drunk, I fall down and go to sleep.  No problem!"

Oh .. wait!  I'm getting a vibe from Moms Demanding Attention.

I see ... that means that people with guns are shooting people who don't have guns.


Well, that's not a problem.
Except for the people who don't have guns.

I'm not going to suggest a solution for them; it's a free country, and you're all adults, so you can decide for yourself what you should do if you fear that someone would shoot you with a gun.

As for "masculinity problems" ... I don't know what to say about that, except that I assume that the category of "men" includes the presence of a penis.

No, I wouldn't know how to advise men on what to do with their guns.   And I neither know, nor care, nor WANT to know what their "masculinity problem" might be.

America!   It's time to Man Up!

QUARTZ says so, so it must be true.

Oh yeah?

"This is America ... this CAN'T happen here!"

Lest we forget.


The link below connects to a series of videos relating specifically to the ARBITRARY and UNILATERAL ...  and ILLEGAL confiscation of private firearms during the Hurricane Katrina situation.

It has been ten years now, and sometimes we tend to forget that when  men with guns come breaking down your front door, all of our  determination to resist  assumes an entirely different perspective.



Proof of the Government Disarming Law Abiding Citizens | Prepping - Homesteading and Prepping - Doomsday Preppers

Seattle The Big Target isn't the people who cause the problem

It’s common sense for Seattle to tax gun sales to study violence | The Seattle Times:

 In the absence of federal action to limit firearms-related violence, Seattle is one of a few local governments looking at creative solutions to do so. 

Oh!  So .. everything that follows this introductory phrase in the Seattle Times in intended to reinforce the original thesis?  Follow along and see how well that works our.

 But its latest effort to curb a public-health crisis that costs lives and money is threatened by a gun-rights coalition that includes the National Rifle Association. 

Wow!
Faster than a Speeding bullet, the emphasis shifts from "limit firearms-related violence" to MONEY!
Maybe the emphasis should be pointed toward the people who keep getting shot?

 On Friday, a King County Superior Court judge will consider that group’s request for an injunction against the city’s gun-and-ammunition sales tax, which is set to take effect in January. 

Yes, the entire reason for taxing ammunition is NOT to "limit firearms-related violence". but to impose a new (arbitrary) sales tax in a state which already has 10% of it's consumer goods prices going to the State instead of the Producer of said goods.

The judge ought to see that this revenue serves a crucial purpose and does not stop gun enthusiasts from legally obtaining firearms. 

No .. "The Judge" ought to see that this is a punitive tax which is specifically directed at the small percent of the populace who have chosen to take the Constitution at it word .. and will hereby be punished for their audacity:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

"Infringed".  Curious word.  Does that include "Shall Not Be Taxed"?  (As in, for instance, a Poll Tax which has been ruled unconstitutional.)

 The revenue collected on sales of guns and ammunition would fund research through the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, in addition to prevention and education programs. A groundbreaking 2014 study funded by the city showed that patients admitted to hospitals statewide for gunshot wounds are 30 times more likely to return with another firearm injury compared to people hospitalized for other reasons. 

Oh, you get a lot of repeat business in the hospitals?  Doesn't that make you wonder why the same people keep getting shot?  And by the way ...

How about this?
the same folks keep getting shot?  Maybe hospitals should quit treating return gang-bangers on the grounds that they're just asking for it!

"..we will fix your owiee this time, but don't come back; change your life style, Dude, because you're obviously asking for it!"

All of the above has absolutely no bearing on the Constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment; however, it does fill wasted space when the originators of this dumb-shit regulation are asked "why would you do this, and who would it benefit"? Nobody has a lot of sympathy for the gang-bangers who are responsible for the "gun violence", so why not direct your punitive actions toward them?

Oh, and by the way .. Gang Bangers don't frequent the same markets as do law-abiding citizens; your precious tax won't do a damn thing to the price they pay for stolen firearms.

Actually, one would think that a tax on firearms and/or ammunition would at least be directed toward a benefit for law-abiding firearms owners and ammunition buyers.   But NO!  There is no benefit here .. it's just another sleazy Poll Tax!

 Absurdly, the NRA has fought since 1996 to ban federal funding for gun-violence research — as if arming ourselves with factual information is a bad thing. The court should reject the arguments of parties asking for the injunction, including gun sellers, the NRA, the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

No, the court should direct their punitive actions toward the repeat felons who are driving the "shot while being a bad boy" statistics up ... not the honest citizens who don't engage in this kind of nefarious activity.   The NRA doesn't represent gang-bangers; it represents law-abiding citizens.

You folks just don't seem to understand the difference between the two markets; one legal, the other based on activities which are already illegal.

I don't know about you, but I'm completely fed up with trying to balance gang activity with legal firearms ownership, and the state knows where the problem lies .. but won't "fix it".

Two percent of the population is responsible for 99 percent of the firearms violence, and what does the state do?

They penalize the  law-abiding 98 percent of the population.

That's because the state knows that if they impose laws on the law-abiding, there's going to be some feedback .. but they can ignore that because legal gun-owners aren't going to shoot everybody in Tacoma.  So it's safe for the legislators to be stupid.

No, this new legislative action won't reduce the amount of firearms violence, but if there's a law .. well, nobody expects the criminals to obey the law ... but it looks good on their resume.  And besides, it won't really change anything, will it?  So it's easy to pass a law; it's just not going to make a difference except to penalize law-abiding citizens.  And you don't give a damn about them.

Why SHOULDN'T the NRA be opposed to gun violence research?  You folks have the numbers, but you are ignoring them.  The problem isn't with NRA members, but with career criminals, and you know it.

Any statistics you evolve will ignore the problem and focus on the people who have nothing to hide.

The PROBLEM isn't with the NRA folks, and it isn't even the fault of the gang-bangers.

The PROBLEM is that the state of Washington can't manage the law-ignoring people who generate all the gun-violence statistics, so they point the finger at the people who have guns .. but don't break the law.

Because they are the Big Target, and easy to hit.

And they don't shoot back.

You people make me sick.
No wonder I don't trust politicians ... .they don't trust ME!

Background Checks on Ammunition Purchases?

Really?

People are now seriously considering background checks on ammunition purchases?
(H/T: Joe H. referring to California law .. which might be imposed by other states.)

I'm not certain how, exactly, this would lead to a safer community in America.

Most likely, this is a punitive measure which is designed solely to make everyday life more difficult for those of us who choose to celebrate our freedom as guaranteed under the Constitution.

We get a lot of that.

This is a transparent copy of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's attempt in 1999 to impose a 1000% tax on amunition, [sp] for similar and obvious reasons.

But in actuality, this is a much more insidious attack on your Second Amendment Freedoms.

Scenario "A":
You do nothing in protest, but meekly accept the new way to make it more difficult for you to buy ammunition.

The consequence is that the people who sell ammunition are legally required to perform background checks ... with no consequence other than the vendors have to spend more time to transact a sale.  The best you can do is to either buy your ammunition online, reload your own ammunition as much as possible, or buy your ammunition in bulk to mitigate the impact on the merchants.

Scenario "B":
In protest, you buy your ammunition in the smallest lots possible, to tax the resources.

The consequence is that the vendors quickly realize that the returns from a single sale are beyond their capabilities, and they discontinue sales of ammunition.

This overloads the process which was originally intended to vet people who are trying to buy firearms legally.

THAT scenario is what the authors of this bill are looking for.

"They" don't care if you are an honest citizen.

The intent of the bill is not to insure that terrorists cannot buy ammunition which they will use to kill Americans;   the intent is to insure that NOBODY will be able to purchase ammunition for any purpose, legal or otherwise.

Ode to Borepatch

Borepatch: Go now - coolest Google doodle EVER:

For those of you who might miss this doodle, here's the Ode To Joy, done as only the Japanese can (yes, it's true, with a chorus of 10,000!).  Thanks, Ludwig.  And thanks, Google.  For a little while, you weren't evil.

A link, to a link, to a link.

I've never listened to the entire ODE TO JOY ... this made my day.

Thanks, Dude!

(PS: the Beethoven link in Google is gone, but Ludwig Reigns!)

-------

ahhhh .. that brought tears to my eyes.

Now here's something which also brings tears to my eyes. but for a different reason;
How did a jidhadi murder pass the vetting process to enter the United States under a K-visa program?

http://www.weerdworld.com/2015/terror-watch-list-is-crap/

Yes, another 3rd person link.  I do so enjoy gunbloggers.com which brings all the most interesting stuff together under one roof.

Rule by Edict

This Lame Duck President, who flaunts his "pen and a cell phone", will impose his personal agenda upon the law-abiding citizens of this country before the end of his term in office.

And it will be unconstitutional.

And because the American public are as sickened by continued armed assaults on the innocent, we will let him get away with it ... even though nothing he can say or do will stop public massacres.

We have watched him apologize before the American People for his inability to stop public assaults on us all, and I understand his frustration.

He is tired.   He sincerely wants to stop the murders and the killings.

I don't blame him a bit.  Yet.

My fear is that he will impose upon us, by Presidential Findings  (call them 'decrees' or 'edicts'), some draconian laws fiat which will undermine our constitutional rights, but will have absolutely no effect on the continued depredations on the innocent by people who are consumed by their own evil intentions.

He is running out of time.  And he is running out of options.
To preserve his place in history, President Obama MUST do "something".

His choices are limited ... he has no GOOD choices, and so he will choose the 'least bad' of the BAD choices available to him.  In his desperation, he will do more harm than good on the honest people of America.

That's the problem with career politicians: they choose to pass laws to correct societal ills for which there are no good solutions.  In the end, he will  compromise our Civil Rights for the sake of an attempt to provide security to a nation at war (however 'undeclared' this war may be).

It will not have the effect he hopes; instead, it will finally tear this nation apart.

Well, we've weathered the storm of presidents who didn't share our particular political views before, and it appears that we will do so again.   Like it or not ... DEMOCRACY!  WHAT A CONCEPT!

God bless you, Mister President.  I don't love your politics, but hey! This is America!
We'll maybe do better with the next President (although I doubt it; I haven't voted for a presidential candidate who actually won for quite a while).

Last words:

This is not going to look good on your resume.

Congress retains ban on CDC promoting gun control

House Dems lose fight to nix gun research ban in budget | TheHill:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has come up empty in her efforts to eliminate a budget rider that has halted nearly all government research into gun violence for 17 years.

That "budget rider" was known as the Dickey Amendment, which I discussed a few days ago in an article titled "Why We Can't Trust The CDC With Gun Research".

Here's some more information on the Dickey Amendment:

[...] The 1993 NEJM article received considerable media attention, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by campaigning for the elimination of the center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”  Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury.

Given that the Rabid AntiGunRights .... uh .... Congresscritter Nancy Pelosi refused to draw a line in the sand over this issue, it appears that even she acknowledges there is some truth to the original claim that the CDC has proven it can't be trusted to be neutral on the subject of Gun Control.

Who you gonna trust?

PEW: Americans Trust GOP Over Democrats On Guns, Terrorism, Economy - Breitbart:

According to PEW, the public supports Republicans on guns by a margin of 43 percent to 37 percent.
Regarding the “terror threat,” the public sides with Republicans over Democrats 46 percent to 34 percent.
On the economy they side with Republicans by a margin of 42 percent to 37 percent. The public supports Republicans over Democrats by a slimmer margin on Immigration, 42 percent to 40 percent, but it is one more area where the American public looks to them instead of to Democrats.

Personally, I don't trust any of the lying scoundrels.

The article did, however, provide a nice blurb which essentially defines the difference between conservative and liberal ideology:

Republicans reacted to the San Bernardino terror attacks by focusing on border security and mental health, whereas Democrats reacted by wanting to expand gun control and introducing a ban on the manufacture of AR-15s and related weapons.

See details in "Breaking News" below the fold:

The Hatred from the Ignorant Left

Markley’s Law, ignorance, hate, and violence | The View From North Central Idaho:

  Somehow I don’t think this is the most effective way to convince people of their righteous. It just makes people laugh.

Idaho Joe gets a lot of trash mail.  I know he doesn't encourage it .. it just happens.  But he's right; the clueless have a way of shooting themselves in the foot, and somehow it never seems to occur to them that other people will read their vitriol and judge them by it.

Either that, or they just don't care.

The very INTERESTING thing is the assumptions they make about firearms owners.

"Show Me Your Papers!"

The Sunshine State is getting tough on crime ... by requiring those scary Concealed Weapons carriers to have their permits and ID ready for inspection.

A new proposal requiring concealed carry permit holders to carry their concealed weapons permits and state they're carrying a concealed weapon if approached by a first responder is being introduced in time for the 2016 legislative session.

Why?   Well, because they are liable for a $1000 find if they don't.

But wait, there's more:

The legislation would revoke permit holders’ licenses if they violated the law a second time and failed to show proper identification for their permits. 

This is much akin to the ill-fated "don't drive over 55" thingie we suffered through back when my kids were tots.

As we said way back then:  "It's Not A Good Idea; It's Just The Law!"

Well, it's not a law yet; it's just a bill.  A proposal.   A Clay Pigeon at a Trap Range, just waiting for someone to shoot it down:

 HB 935, sponsored by Rep. Gwyndolen Clarke-Reed, D-Deerfield Beach, would make it mandatory for licensed concealed carry permit holders to keep their licenses on hand along with valid identification when possessing a firearm.

Show of hands: is anybody surprised that this "Feel-Good" bill has been sponsored by a Democrat?

Anybody?

There's really no justification for this bill.  You go out jogging and you don't have your wallet with you but you DO have your pistol, that just shows you have your priorities right.

 Word is there's not a lot of support for this one, but the thing that Politicians and Mangy Mutts have in common is that they have to lick a crotch now and then just to remind folks that they love you so much they'll do anything to please you.

Even if it's something you really wish they would stop doing.  Yech!

Secondary Sexual Characteristics of the AR15.

The Washington Post offers a tidy little exposition on why it's impossible to implement "Common Sense Gun Laws" in the presence of a Gun Culture which gives Gun Grabbers what they want .....  and then laughs in their face!


Ex-ATF Agent: America is only pretending to regulate lethal firearms. - The Washington Post:
December 08, 2015

In 1994, the federal assault weapons ban outlawed a host of firearms by make and model, including the popular Colt AR-15 and several “AK” style rifles. More broadly, the law also prohibited the manufacture and sale of any semi-automatic rifle that could accept a detachable ammunition magazine (for quicker reloading), and had two or more external features such as a folding stock (to make a gun more compact), pistol grips and barrel shrouds (to help steady one’s aim) and a flash suppressor (to hide a shooter’s position).\

Let me see:
Banned features of "EEVIL ASSAULT WEAPONS INCLUDE:

1. Detachable magazine
2. Folding Stock
3. Pistol Grips
4. Barrel Shrouds
5. Flash Suppressor
6. The NAME of the popular rifle

Remember this list; there will be a test at the end of the class!

The 1994 gun ban "outlawed" firearms which were never identified as a major player in gun violence, and defined those firearms by cosmetic features.   None of which features made the firearms any more "deadly" than a Winchester Model 70 .. which was available in much more "deadly" calibers than .223.

So, okay ... anything that was on an AR15 and was not on a Model 70 was 'removed' from the AR15 by the manufacturers (except the ability to accept an external magazine).

But the gun-grabbers were shocked ... SHOCKED! ... that the deadly AR15 could be reconfigured to meet the standards which they had arbitrarily opposed ... and could be made "legal"!

 How did the gun industry respond? With cosmetic fixes. Colt renamed the AR-15 the “Sporter,” stripped off its flash suppressor and bayonet lug and modified the magazine. Other manufacturers and importers took similar measures, renaming guns and making minor tweaks. Everyone was pleased. For liberals, the law’s passage was a victory. 

What got lost in the orgy of self-congratulation, though, was the purpose of the ban.

No, what got lost was:

1. The NAME of the popular rifle
2. Flash Suppressor
3. Bayonet lug
4. Folding Stock (an option)
5. Barrel Shrouds (not there in the first place)

Okay, so five out of the six "Bad Rifle" thingies had been changed.

Hard to change the 'magazine', since it was not a part of the original rifle; and any rifle which can accept a 5-round detachable magazine can probably accept a 30-round magazine (which is a "secondary market" item anyway).

Honestly, if these people are going to condemn a legal product based on cosmetic issues, how can they complain when manufacturers voluntarily comply by responding with cosmetic fixes?

[face palm]

I'm so embarrassed that the firearms industry couldn't read the minds of the gun grabbers.  

The manufacturers couldn't intuit that it wasn't the 'secondary sexual characteristics' (akin to mammary glands, shapely legs and curvaceous hips on a female human) which outraged the priggish Gun Grabbers. 

Could it be that the Gun Grabbers didn't truly object to the 'secondary sexual characteristics'

Don't tell me they objected to the entire concept of a semi-automatic, rifle-caliber firearm being available on the Free Market!

Because that would be ... just wrong.

Yes, we do want to take your guns. All of them.

Effective Gun Control - A National Semi-Auto Ban:

Daily KOS offers a ... Draconian ... solution to The Gun Problem.   Example given:

Act IV: Disarm the local cops. Either return them to revolvers and possibly shotguns, or transition to disarmed local policing. That precludes raiding the police station for weapons. Serious incident? The State Police can render tactical aid if needed. State police can be armed with appropriate levels of modern weaponry to end any threat to law and order. That's how it's done in Europe, a closely supervised select few have serious weaponry at-hand.

There's a technical term for a nation state where only the 'elite police' are "allowed" to have firearms.

It's called "A Police State".

Daily Kos, calling for The Nazi-fication of America

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!!!

I’m a Responsible Gun Owner? Seriously? - The New York Times:

 Austin, Tex. — “WHAT are you doing?” 

 I had just shot a gun for the first time. The instructor was yelling at me because he couldn’t understand how a 22-year-old missed a target some four feet tall and two feet wide, standing only nine feet away. But he was completely at ease when, 10 minutes later, he certified me for a concealed handgun license application.

I'M WITH THE AUTHOR on this point;
Anyone who is firing a handgun for the first time has no business being 'certified' for a CHL.
Especially after only 10 minutes of familiarization.
Most especially when he can't hit a near-target at ALL, let alone "reliably".

For the debate, I wanted to be able to ask questions about the licensing system. To prepare, I decided to go through the licensing process, even though, technically speaking, I should have had weapons training before I applied. Knowing nothing about guns, I was supposed to fail. But I passed on the first try.

I cannot believe that any responsible firearms instructor, especially one who was responsible for CHL certification, would 'pass' a total incompetent.

Which leads me to believe that this entire story was a made-up effort by the egregiously liberal NYT to posit a "Worst Case Scenario" in support of their own political (Liberal, Anti-Gun) goals.

I'm not sure that this 'story' falls under the motto: "All The News That's Fit To Print".
 First The Old Grey Lady puts an opinion article on the front page, now it prints an obvious lie on the opinion page?  Why don't they just move the comics section (all of it, not just "Shoe") to the Opinion Page.

Oh, wait.  They wouldn't print SHOE ... too conservative.


So the NYT Editorial Staff is now publishing fairy tales on their opinion page?
I must ask the editors ...

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!!!