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?!!!

California Dreaming

California’s tough gun laws scrutinized after San Bernardino shootings | McClatchy DC:

Officials have said that one of the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifles was altered to essentially function like an automatic weapon, while the other was changed to accommodate a high-capacity, 30-round magazine prohibited in California. Newsom said that briefings he has received suggest it is too early to pass judgment about the cache of weapons and ammunition and whether a particular law, or the various laws being contemplated, would apply. He is proposing a gun-control measure for next year’s ballot and said now is not the time to hold back in passing more “common sense” measures. “To the extent it would address the issues of San Bernardino, perhaps not,” Newsom said. “But would it have impacted (other) mass shootings in California? That’s an open-ended question for consideration.

How do you modify an AR15 action, which will accommodate a 10-round magazine, so that it will NOT accommodate a 30 round magazine? And what alterations are necessary so that a 30-round magazine can feed it?

(BTW, 30-round mags were notoriously prone to feeding problems, in my personal experience with the AR16.  We used 20-round magazines, and downloaded them so there were only 18 rounds actually loaded.   And even then we had to perform daily maintenance to ensure they fed reliably.   But I suppose there is a great difference between then and now.)

I lived in California for a while back in the 1970's, but I left when it was clear that the state was descending into a Hell On Earth and was no longer a fit residence for Americans.  (The crime rate was rising rapidly .... and that just among the elected politicians!)

Americans "Saddle Up"; White House Clueless

White House: No idea why Americans are buying so many guns - Washington Times:

“The more that we see this kind of violence on our streets, the more people go out and buy guns,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest. “That is both ironic and tragic.”
 The FBI conducted 185,345 firearms background checks on Black Friday, the most ever during a single day. The record number of gun sales came two weeks after the Islamic State’s terrorist attacks in Paris, but before the terrorist massacre in San Bernardino, California.
 Asked why he thinks so many Americans are buying guns, Mr. Earnest replied, “I don’t know, I really don’t.”

[emphasis added]

From here in this luxurious mansion on the shores of the Peaceful Ocean, it's difficult to decide whether the Presidents Press Secretary is just being disingenuous, or is he really that clueless.

I don't honestly think that even he is that out of touch with the American Temper.

This entire administration is so deeply into denial, when they look down they can't see past their own belt-line.  Which is just as well, for there is obviously nothing to see below the belt.

Speaking just for myself, I'm just a little bit tired of these elitist thugs telling us what we should and should not do.   I think if Americans are going out and buying a lot of guns, then even this Administration ought to figure out exactly what is wrong with Americans today.





... or something like that.

Talking Points.

WHEN DID WE GET TO THE POINT that we care what a bunch of East-Coast Media-whores think about the Second Amendment?

I do understand the relative importance of public figures like Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin making statements in support of the Second Amendment.

Truly, I do.

Hannity Exposes Obama's Secret Plan to Confiscate Guns - YouTube:

But it's all just "talking points" to them.

To me, it's a way of life.

It's MY way of life .. and they hold it in their un-calloused lily white hands.
These people who know that whatever happens, they will always be protected.  What do they know?

Talking Points.
That's all it is to me.  Talking points.  And I'm not listening.  I know what I know.

Media coverage, face time, they get in front of the most convenient camera and just let it flow.  Good for you ... absolutely meaningless to me.

I'm SO tired of all this business.  They said, we said, she/he said ... it comes to a point where we who are only members of "fly-over country" realize we are nothing more than pawns to the 'greater' political controversy.

I don't want to HEAR what Hannity thinks. I don't care any more what he thinks than what that crazy-eyed wench from California who "Mister and Missus America, turn them all in" thinks.

All of those public figures are just figure-heads.  They are not real people, to me.

I don't know these New York Cosmopolitans REALLY think.   Their opinions aren't worth a bucket of spit to me.

I want to know what the people I spend my weekends with ... what they think.  Because I have watched them fire HUNDREDS of Thousands of rounds "down-range" over the past 50 years, and none of them have ever pointed a gun at me.

Sure, they could threaten me with their guns and all their ammunition ... and zillions of East Coast folks are aghast (if they were paying attention) at the amazing concept that people who have live guns in their hands are not automatically transformed into homicidal maniacs.

What a concept!

So I have only one thing to say to all those frightened people who are unable to understand that folks who have guns are not a threat to them, or to anyone who isn't trying to impose their wills on them:

Just go away and don't bother me, 

I promise I won't shoot you, one way or the other.

(Even if you are all a bunch of Idiots!)

Why we can't trust the CDC with gun research

"Back In The Day", the Center for Disease Control had free reign to propagate the anti-gun political agenda of its employees.  And they did so, with a vengeance.

They decided that "Gun Violence" was a 'disease', rather than a Societal Ill, and the researchers at CDC were under no congressional constraints to limit their "findings" to the neutral scientific research techniques which we, the American Public who paid for their efforts, would have legitimately expected.

Instead, the researchers at CDC acted more like shills for gun-control groups, and skewed their 'research' results to meet their pre-determined bias.

After a while, Gun-rights people grew tired of paying for a governmental agency to undermine their constitutional rights, and so they began to complain to their congress-critters.

Said congress-critters understood where their campaign funding was coming from, and it wasn't a governmental agency which took money OUT of the never-ending public funds.  And so, they passed a law that said:

"Hey!  You guys are a one-note samba, and our tax-base isn't happy with That Thing That You Do!
We're not going to tell you to cut it out.   We're just going to tell you to do it on your own time.  We're not going to PAY you to undermine the constitution any more, 'cause the voters are pissed."

The CDC said:
"Oh, damn, we never had any idea that you would notice.  But .. okay, we'll be good boys and maybe sometime later the voters will fall back to sleep and we can go back to Business As usual.  Okay?"

Congress replied:
"Well, okay.  But next time, don't make damned fools of yourselves, okay?  It makes all of us in Congress look like .... well, never mind.  Just quit it!"

So the CDC quit publishing "Guns Are Bad" papers, because they weren't being paid to make up stories, and eventually they got back to Scarlet Fever and Rubella and (lately) even more horrendous diseases .. you know, things which have something obviously to do with DISEASE!

And all was well with the world.  The Center for Disease Control went back to researching actual .. you now .. DISEASE!  And the world was a kinder, gentler place.

Until Sandy Hook.

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult staff members.^[5][6] Prior to driving to the school, Lanza shot and killed his mother at their Newtown home.^[8][11][12] As first responders arrived at the scene, Lanza committed suicideby shooting himself in the head. 

And suddenly, all retrains were lifted and the United States Government (in the person of Our Dear Leader, Osama Obama) gave the CDC free rein to report anything they wanted, as long as it made private ownership of firearms look like the deranged meanderings of a homicidal maniac.

Year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it,” Obama said on Jan. 16.

For Our "Dear Leader" said: "Cry Havoc!  And Let Loose The Dogs Of War!

And that is why, Dear Children, the faithful researchers of the Center for Disease Control are once again allowed to interpret the Second Amendment as a "Disease".   That is why we may expect to receive increasingly strident warnings about the dangers of private firearms ownership in an "unprincipled"  field of controversy.   (Yes, that IS a link to a 2013 essay at REASON magazine entitled:

The Problem With the 'Public Health Research on Gun Violence' That Obama Wants You to Pay For

So.

The REASON why we can't trust the CDC with Gun Research is that they are not neutral, and just searching for the facts;   they Have An Agenda, and they're not afraid to use it!

Or, in other words, do they DO "... have a dog in this fight.....".

And why is the NRA being vilified for their opposition to CDC research on "The Gun Control Issue"?

Why we can't trust the CDC with gun research:

Let’s be clear, the National Rifle Association is not opposed to research that would encourage the safe and responsible use of firearms and reduce the numbers of firearm-related deaths. Safety has been at the core of the NRA’s mission since its inception. But that is not the goal of the gun control advocates who are behind the calls for CDC funding.

Mexico: "You call us dangerous?" America: "YES!"

Mexico to US after Oregon shootings: You call us dangerous? | Public Radio International:
October 02, 2015

Mexico. Many in that country think we in the US are just a little hypocritical. "They accuse us of being a violent little country, but look at them," says Alfredo Corchado, Mexican bureau chief for the Dallas Morning News. "This is just one more mass shooting by a lone gunmen." Corchado says the frequency of school shootings in the US does not happen in Mexico. "Here, you hear about the mass shootings of immigrants targeted by organized crime, or kids at a party in Ciudad Juarez who had the wrong information and targeted the wrong house. But nothing like a Sandy Hook or in this case, Oregon." Guns are extremely difficult to get legally in Mexico. Corchado says they require strict background checks that include mental health checks. "Mexico has one of the tightest gun control laws anywhere," he says. "But like a lot of laws in Mexico, it's meant to be broken or it's meant to be ignored."

Here are the raw statistics:

(Rough copy of table ... specifics compared directly over the fold.)

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year

Country	Total	Method of Calculation	Homicides	Suicides	Unintentional	Undetermined	Sources and notes

Mexico

11.17

(mixed years)

10.00 (2010)

0.69 (2001)

0.47 (2001)

0.01 (2001)

Guns in Mexico[42]

United States

10.5

(2013)

3.55 (2013)

6.70 (2013)

0.16 (2013)

0.09 (2013)

ACLU: Because We Can!

[Updated]* ACLU Opposes the No-Fly List, But Is Okay with Using It to Take People's Guns - Hit & Run : Reason.com:

The American Civil Liberties Union apparently hates guns more than it hates arbitrary government-enforced discrimination. Even though the ACLU opposes the no-fly list—and is suing the federal government for violating the due process rights of several people on it—the civil liberties advocacy group is theoretically okay with depriving people on the list of their gun rights.

Now, shoot yourself in the other foot.

Well, that's ... refreshing. Finally, someone speaks their truth about Gun Control

Finally, someone speaks the truth about Gun Control Advocacy.

It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them. | New Republic: BY PHOEBE MALTZ BOVY December 10, 2015

 Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.

(H/T: The Gun Feed)

Oh my!

I would suggest that Liberal Media has just discovered its new Darling .. except for the disclaimer at the end of the article:

Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a writer living in Toronto. She is writing a book with St. Martin’s Press about the idea of privilege (2017).
@tweetertation

Isn't that special.

University of Delaware Agrees to Pay for Ammunition for Student Gun Group | NBC 10 Philadelphia

University of Delaware Agrees to Pay for Ammunition for Student Gun Group | NBC 10 Philadelphia:

The University of Delaware is giving money to a Second Amendment student group for shooting practice ammunition. NBC10's Tim Furlong speaks to one of the founding members of the group as well as UDel students about the school's decision.

UD funds many student groups, and they were understandably nonplussed when a student gun group applied for university funding to support the chosen student activity .... shooting.

Although the U eventually determined that they had no legal justification for rejecting the application, they specified that they ammunition purchased with these University funds NOT be stored on campus!

The student who initiated the request has agreed to store the ammunition on his own non-campus housing location.

Film at 11.


(NOTE: okay, it's not "Campus Carry", but I didn't have a better label except for GOOD THINGS!)