Bernie Speaks ... and shoots himself in the foot

ENDO (Everyday No Days Off) posted a video of Bernie Sanders talking about gun control.

I won't deprive the original poster the traffic, but I'm pretty sure that many readers will find the comments of Mr. Sanders .... interesting.

I recently posted a comment on Ms. Clinton's efforts to "out-Bernie Bernie" on the gun control issue.
My point there was that Hillarious was being absurdly obvious about the extremes to which she will willing to go to garner the Presidential nomination.

Apparently, Bernie's staff people have been talking to Hill's staff people, and the have agreed to present the same (or similar) political plank:

Guns are bad. Really bad. Awful, in fact.  And we should be, like, thinking they are bad.

Somebody should do something about the gun-badness in America today.  I'm The One!

Go, watch, it's better theater than M*A*S*H!

ATF accepts responsibility: Well, THAT's a first!

Fast & Furious guns tracked to police killings, 'El Chapo' hideout, ATF confirms | Fox News Latino:

“[The ATF] and the [Justice] Department deeply regret that firearms associated with Operation Fast and Furious have been used by criminals in the commission of violent crimes, particularly crimes resulting the death of civilians and law enforcement officers," assistant attorney general Peter Kadzik said in a Tuesday letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa and House Oversight and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz of Utah, according to USA Today. The letter continued: “ATF accepts full responsibility for the flawed execution of Fast and Furious, and will continue to support Mexican law enforcement in efforts to recover and identify associated firearms."

Perhaps there's hope for truth, justice and the American way ... after all.

Maybe.
If other governmental departments follow the new meme.

Which we doubt.

Advice to new Competitors

Don't go buy a bunch of stuff before your first IDPA or USPSA match | Triangle Tactical:

Oh, internet. You so special. I’ve seen a bunch of people recommending new shooters who are interested, but haven’t shot their first match yet go buy a bunch of gear before they’re first match. What a lie. Just go shoot your first match, you probably have a “good enough” holster, and if not I bet you can borrow one.

Good advice, and I entirely support the premise.

I've been training new USPSA shooters for 6 -7 years, and I've seen a lot of shooters who were initially enthusiastic about competition ... but soon tired of it.

A REAL-LIFE CASE IN POINT:

Mr. and Mrs. "X" came to te class and seemed to do just fine, except that Mrs. X couldn't seem to keep her finger off the trigger when reloading during a match.  She came back for a 'refresher' class, then went to a match and still was Disqualified at the next match.  They never came back. Pity; they both had potential but were discouraged.

 In the meantime, they spent about $1,000 on new equipment; belts, holsters, etc.

Often people go through the class just to compare their skills with others; other people value the training for safety purposes (although my home club offers other classes to develop those skills).

But these people had sometimes spent hundreds of dollars on equipment which was specifically designed and marketed for competition purposes, even though they would have done as well with the generic gear they had at the first class.

At least 50% of the people who take the training never even attend the FIRST match, let alone work past a DQ and keep coming back until they have demonstrated the level of proficiency which they wish to attain.

I ALWAYS caution New Shooters to NOT spend money on new equipment until they have experienced at LEAST one match. Their perceptions may change as they get more experience.

EXPECTATIONS NOT MET:

The Line in the Sand

If there was ever any doubt that Hillary Clinton will make "Gun Control" a major issue in her presidential campaign, this article should disprove it:

Clinton: 'Nothing is more powerful than the gun lobby’ | TheHill:
(March 14, 2016)

 Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton on Monday said enacting tighter firearms regulations requires overwhelming voter support, given the strength of gun lobbyists.

“Nothing is more powerful than the gun lobby,” she told host Chris Matthews during an MSNBC town hall in Springfield, Ill. "This is an issue I am so profoundly disturbed about. We have to take on the gun lobby. The gun lobby really intimidates elected officials. We have got to make this a voting issue.”

Clinton has never been shy about her enmity toward the Civil and Constitutional rights of law-abiding American citizens' right to keep and bear arms;  witness her avocation of the "Australian Solution" (confiscation of all civilian-owned arms).

But now she has dropped the white gloves of diplomacy and displayed the iron hand with which she plans to rule American citizens upon the advent of her Presidency.

She not only advocates the confiscation of guns as a 'side issue', but will make it a talking point ... a political plank in her campaign ... to define privately owned firearms as an issue which she will use against her opponents (notably Bernie Sanders, who she considers 'soft on gun control issues') to gain high office.

We are not unaccustomed to Presidential candidates making extravagent claims on issues which their opponents (in both primary and final elections) have previously stated a position.   But I think this statement is more than a campaign talking point.

Given the Oval Office, Hillary would make Diane Feinstein's "Mr and Mrs America, Turn 'em all in" quote look like a gentle pat on the fanny of a recalcitrant two-year-old child.   (Which is apparently how Mrs. Clinton views her constituents; misguided children who don't know what's good for them.)

This statement is more than an election gimmick, or a platform plank.  It's a promise.

And although we all know that the Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton is a liar and she learned it from her husband (who got away with murder during his presidency ... a figure of speech; Vince Foster was a suicide and they had nothing to do with it),  here she has made the first promise of her campaign which she intends to fulfill if elected.

You Can't Fix "Evil"

In our nation's misguided (read: failed) attempt to "Fix" the problem of Violence in America, our leadership has invariably resorted to the only measure available to them:   they impose more and increasingly draconian "laws" which only affect honest, law-abiding gun owners.

Why?

Because it's cheaper than doing "The Hard Thing", which is to address the societal ills which lead to acts of violence  by the most resource-poor citizens in the country.

People who take an "assault weapon" into a shopping mall with the intent to kill strangers are ... a phenomenon which can be predicted.  And they are a problem.

But we have other problems which are more important, and more wide-reaching in terms of the effect they have on our country.

What Liberals Can Learn From the N.R.A.

What Liberals Can Learn From the N.R.A. - The New York Times:
(March 11, 2015)

VILIFYING the National Rifle Association’s tactics has long been standard practice among liberals. ... Rather than demonize the N.R.A.’s strategies, liberals should emulate them. The organization is, after all, the most effective civil rights group in the United States today.  

This may be the first time that Liberals have been able to put aside their hatred of the NRA and take a close and careful look at just WHY this bunch of "Tiny-Dick 'publicans" have managed to make their message heard .... and their power respected.

RTWT

California funds negative reporting on firearms ownership

In Lieu Of Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research, California State Senator Looks Local - Generation Progress:

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) was, years ago, deprived of federal funding because their research had historically emphasized the negative impact of personal firearms ownership without acknowledging any positive benefit.   In a word, it was biased and not scientifically ethical.

But one state senator from California is trying to change that. California State Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) introduced the California Firearm Violence Research Act, SB1006, which, though it wouldn’t restore funding to the CDC, would establish a research center to study firearm violence in California. The center, which would be part of the University of California system, would take an interdisciplinary approach to examining gun violence prevention, including analyzing risk factors, societal consequences, prevention, and treatment. “The [polarized] discussion is not productive in my view,” Wolk told Generation Progress. “There are people who think guns should be banned and melted down, and there are others who believe there should be no restrictions at all and no control whatsoever. Most people are in the middle on this one, and I’m one of them. I would like to know what policies would be most effective in reducing the incidents of death and injury.”

(emphasis added)
["TREATMENT?"  Does this study propose to 'treat' firearms as an Epidemic?  That's the approach which lead to the defunding of  the CDC project!]

Everyone would prefer to find a means to "(reduce) the incidents of death and injury" due to firearms.

California is certainly welcome to fund its own research on Gun Violence.
But be advised that there are no constraints on how they interpret the data they gather.  In fact, there are no rules about how they either word their questionaires, how they gather data, or how they interpret the data after it has been reaped.

California has so politicized their attitude toward Second Amendment Issues, we can expect that the conclusions they reach will be interpreted so that the question of civilian firearms ownership will be as completely negative as they can make it.

California, and other states, will then use this 'study' to justify whatever extreme constraint on the Second Amendment they feel they can get away with.

The folks who initiate, fund, guide, administer and interpret the data gathered in this 'study' (read: "Necklace Party") do not have your constitutional rights in mind.  Instead, they are agenda driven and no data which supports your right to own and carry a firearm will see the light of day; or, if it is accidentally included in the results, will misinterpreted, misconstrued, or ignored (deleted?).

We should be prepared for the shit-storm of controversy which will be the consequence of this skewed study.  When the results are published, you should rigorously examine the parameters of the study ... what questions are asked of whom, how they are worded, and the multiple-choice questions that are asked.  Be critical, because we know before it starts that there is only one conclusion acceptable to those who have paid for the study.

Especially California State Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis)  who seems to be spearheading the effort.
(WHY is she adamantly behind the study?  We can only assume that she has her own political agenda ... which will only accept 'results' which support her personal opinion.)

Note that Senator Wolk's most recent legislative efforts include ...

SJR 1 - Gun Violence Prevention: Urges the President and Congress to develop a comprehensive federal approach to reducing and preventing gun violence by placing assault weapons and high-capacity assault magazines under the scope of the National Firearms Act, and require a universal background check for all transfers of firearms.  SJR 1 also urges the President to take steps to ensure all states and federal agencies are reporting all necessary records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. (Chapter 83) - See more at: http://sd03.senate.ca.gov/legislation/2013-2014#sthash.wtYPrjl5.dpuf

(emphasis added)

She has identified herself, by her legislative efforts, as an anti-gun proponent,   This fact establishes that her agenda includes undermining the Second Amendment Rights of California gun owners.

Do not assume that she will allow any 'research results' to be publicly aired if they do not support her personal convictions.

Democrats: "Our History"

Democrats.org:

For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers' rights, and women's rights. We are the party of Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, FDR, and the countless everyday Americans who work each day to build a more perfect union. Take a look at some of our accomplishments, and you'll see why we're proud to be Democrats.

Yeah, right.

In the 1930s, Americans turned to Democrats and elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt to end the Great Depression. President Roosevelt offered Americans a New Deal that put people back to work, stabilized farm prices, and brought electricity to rural homes and communities. Under President Roosevelt, Social Security established a promise that lasts to this day: growing old would never again mean growing poor.

Today, Social Security is broken; funding is not protected and old people living on their Social Security are poor.  Trust me on this; I've been trying to live on SS for the last few years.   My saving account nest-egg has been severely depleted.

And after President Kennedy's assassination, Americans looked to President Lyndon Johnson, who offered a new vision of a Great Society and signed into law the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

Now Americans who have spend their entire careers paying for Social Security are still being taxed to support people who have never found a reason to hold down a job as long as the government will pay them for not working.

President Johnson's enactment of Medicare was a watershed moment in America's history that redefined our country's commitment to our seniors—offering a new promise that all Americans have the right to a healthy retirement.

Medicare pays for ... some things.  Need an ambulance?  Costs more.  (Thousands more!)  Need pharmaceuticals?  Costs more.  A LOT more!  So Johnson created enough "social programs" to undermine the economy, but never managed to back up his "Great Society" with a renewable source of income.   The end result is a medical support program with more holes than Swiss Cheese, but with the aroma of Limburger.

Plus that whole Viet Nam thing..
 (oh, BTW; thanks for the all-expenses paid tour of South East Asia, JFK and Lyndon; I had a couple of friends who got the Red Carpet Casket tour package on the way home .. in front of their survivors).

In 1992, after 12 years of Republican presidents, record budget deficits, and high unemployment, Americans turned to Democrats once again and elected Bill Clinton to get America moving again. President Clinton balanced the budget, helped the economy add 23 million new jobs, and oversaw the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in history.

And he did NOT have sex with 'that woman'.  Everything else in that statement is puffery.  His greatest accomplishment is NAFTA.  For what that's worth.

And in 2008, Americans turned to Democrats and elected President Obama to reverse our country's slide into the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression and undo eight years of policies that favored the few over the many.

uh .. yeah.  And he instituted the largest raid in American history on the country's economy, with a budget of multiple TRILLIONS of dollars, with no plan to pay the bills.  Guess who is going to pay the bill?  That's right ... the 50% of Americans who are still working ... and paying higher taxes than ever.  But of course, it would be a Base Canard to call Our President a "Socialist".

Oh, and the next Fiscally Responsible (read: "Republican", but I repeat myself) President, who will HAVE to pay the bills.  In the meantime potential workers are being economically encouraged NOT to work, or to save; so, look forward to another Economic Depression, folks.

Under President Obama's direction and congressional Democrats' leadership, we've reformed a health care system that was broken and extended health insurance to 32 million Americans.

No, it's still "broken", but  it's "Borrowing" from Peter to pay Paul, and it has been stretched to the breaking point.

Our only hope as a 'prosperous nation' is to elect a president who has a realistic understanding of the word "Prosperity".  Which means, among other things, not to tax those few Americans who still work for a living to support the huge numbers who are comfortable with living on the dole.

Do I think Obama is the greatest living president?

I put him somewhere below George Walker Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush.   Even though the father (read my lips; no new taxes) was a total failure as a leader.

(Are there any other living Republican Presidents?  Did I miss someone?)

"They" have plans for us ....

Gun ownership and social gun culture -- Kalesan et al. -- Injury Prevention:
 Published Online First 29 June 2015
Abstract: 

We assessed gun ownership rates in 2013 across the USA and the association between exposure to a social gun culture and gun ownership. We used data from a nationally representative sample of 4000 US adults, from 50 states and District of Columbia, aged >18 years to assess gun ownership and social gun culture performed in October 2013. 

State-level firearm policy information was obtained from the Brady Law Center and Injury Prevention and Control Center.

One-third of Americans reported owning a gun, ranging from 5.2% in Delaware to 61.7% in Alaska. Gun ownership was 2.25-times greater among those reporting social gun culture (PR=2.25, 95% CI 2.02 to 2.52) than those who did not.

In conclusion, we found strong association between social gun culture and gun ownership. Gun cultures may need to be considered for public health strategies that aim to change gun ownership in the USA.

(Correspondence to Dr Bindu Kalesan, Department of Epidemiology, Mailman 

School of Public Health, Columbia University)

________________________________________

YOU WILL NOTE that this article has little to say about the positive benefits of firearms ownership; it's tacitly assumed that there are no benefits, only negative consequences

The conclusion,, that there is a need to "... change gun ownership in the USA" is also a basic assumption.

The change?  To eliminate gun ownership in the USA.

There's just this one little drawback to their diabolical plan to emasculate America:

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns

GEEK LAW #1: Any statement citing Brady as a reference source is assumed to be unscientific, unsound, and incorrect.

Doctor to Doctor: Guns are Icky and may cause you to shoot yourself

Physicians: 'Get Rid of Those Guns':
(September 03, 2015)

Doctor, use your brain. Do not make it easy to shoot yourself in the brain, like my own Sacramento surgeon did. Get rid of those damn guns from your house, car, and office. They are much more likely to kill you or your family than they are to protect you.

Doctor George D. Lundberg advises his colleagues to resist the lure of the Evil Gun, because they may tempt an otherwise sane professional to commit suicide.

I should go to my own physician and inquire as to whether there is a cure for Hoplophobia.   Maybe there's a tiny little pill that ... oh, wait!

Carter's Little Liver Pills

That should do it.