Saturday, August 20, 2016

Tom Arnold's Gun Control Essay Presents a Passionate Argument

Tom Arnold's Gun Control Essay Presents a Passionate Argument | Hollywood Reporter:

 Because I've had personal demons, I worried about those who would come back as heroes to everyone but themselves, and now might find themselves alone, without their team, sitting in their basement with their drugs and their guns.
Tom, bless you for your concerns.  But I think that you might pay attention to the fact that since you are a "name", people will listen to your words.  Most of whom are not .. excuse the word .. suicidal.

That may be what you want ... not the suicides; the discretion.  But what happens is that a lot of perfectly sane people who own firearms might be tarred by the same brush.
(Sorry: feel remorse and consider suicide as a viable alternative to live.)

I know you're a big hollywood star, and I've seen both of your movies (one of them had AHNOLD in it, I can't recall the other movie right off-hand) and you were married to that revered woman celebrity ... the one with the mouth?  Yeah, that one.  Rosanne?  (Correct me if I'm wrong, sorry.)

Anyway, you might consider the effect your words have on the millions of people who are responsible gun owners.   Their experiences may not quite parallel yours:

My nephew Spencer was a sweet boy, but he was small, and I'm sure he was picked on. He was kicked out of the Army after attempting suicide. He was diagnosed as chronically depressed and unsafe around weapons. Yet he was able to get a concealed weapon permit from the state of Iowa and buy five guns. Like me, Spencer was a substance abuser. He refused my offer for help with that as well as his mental illness, so I was very concerned. Last fall, when I saw on Facebook that he had joined a crazy, racist, neo-Nazi (I'm Jewish, as is my mom) gun group and videotaped himself showing off, drunkenly shooting his assault rifle and calling President Obama the N-word, I headed to the airport to go see him.
Tom ... can I call you Tom?  I don't want to presume on you, but you're being quoted in the press as an expert on firearms, and I honestly regret your loss of a beloved nephew due to suicide.  I know that's hard to deal with; I've had friends and family who were also victims of firearms violence.

Well, actually, I'm thinking mostly about the 18 year old kid who was killed by a booby trap in VietNam, in 1969.  Not the same as suicide, I know, but the feeling of loss is almost comparable, except my kid died thinking he was fighting for his country, and your nephew (obviously closer, personally, to you than this kid in my platoon) was morbidly depressed because ... ah .. well, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure he was experiencing some tough-to-handle things, unlike my happy-go-lucky friend in ... you  know ... the army?

So just because I was in the army, and 'over there', doesn't mean that I don't feel your pain.  It's hard to lose a loved one, especially someone who was such a close relative as a nephew.

Anyway, even though my friend wasn't a substance abuser, he DID have firearms.  (Not that it did him much good, but that's another story.  I carried his M16 and his web gear back to base camp, after his body was picked up by the helicopter.)   I don't think we can label him an "expert on firearms", although he did carry an AR16 for the rest of his life.  Which ended at age 19.

I don't think my friend called the president an "n-word", but that was a different decade and a different president; Nixon?   Is that an "N-word"?  Whatever, my friend gave his life for his country, not for his president.

Sorry; it's been a lot of years, and sometimes I get confused about just which president sent us to the beautiful, balmy country of South Vietnam.  It was ONE of those guys, probably a fucking Republican (and you know how THEY are).

Or was it Kennedy?  Or Johnson.   Never mind, I kind of zone out from time to time.

Where was I?
Oh yeah, now I remember.

Tom, I'm sorry your nephew blew his brains out.  I've seen it, it's not a pretty sight.

So please accept my most sincere  ... um ... condolences for your personal loss.  Nobody should have to suffer as you obviously have, at the loss of your son.

Oh, no ... sorry .. NEPHEW!   (Knuckling my head, why can't I get that straight?)

Sorry for your lose Tom.  Truly.  People think that Celebrities shouldn't be like real people and feel pain at the loss of a loved one.

There is no shame in suicide.  Happens to the best of people.

Well, you already know that.

Healey’s Office Illustrates Lack of Firearms Knowledge - GOAL Blog

Healey’s Office Illustrates Lack of Firearms Knowledge - GOAL Blog:
(Massachusetts Attorney General Maura) Healey’s office continues attempt at re-writing law for MA Legislature via her “Enforcement Notice”. In the last 24 hours a new page has shown up on Attorney General Healey’s website, titled “Guns That Are Not Assault Weapons”.
 8/19 Update: The Q&A page has been updated again today, and incredibly, adds to the confusion and worse, adds new “enforcements”. Here are the questions, just added. We now know that the AG’s office has limited knowledge of both firearms and MA law pertaining to them.
(INFORMATIONAL LINK FROM THE BOSTON GLOBE, which is all for an "Assault weapons ban ... if they could just figure out that an "Assault Weapon" is.)

From the GLOBE article:
It’s no surprise the Orlando killer chose an AR-15 style assault rifle. It’s a weapon of war, originally created for combat, and designed to kill many people in a short amount of time with incredible accuracy. It’s in the same category as weapons chosen by killers in Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino. These are not weapons of self-defense. They are weapons used to commit mass murder. And they have no business being in civilian hands.
So Boston finally clicked that the rifle used in Orlando wasn't actually an "AR-15", but it was an "AR-15 style assault rifle".   Given that the AR-15 is the semi-automatic version of a rifle with a pitiful 5.56mm caliber bullet, and is not select fire (as is the M16) .. aka "Poodle Shooter", I suppose that it's perfectly reasonable that journalists who have never touched a firearm can reliably identify and define a "Weapon Used To Commit Mass Murder".

From OTHER MA websites:   Laura says: "I have not only the authority, but the responsibility, to enforce the law."

Some call her one thing; some call her another. Some say she's turning legal firearms owners into "felons in waiting" because of what some may consider her imposition of "Ex Post Facto" laws:

So if I am, what are you?

I'm just guessing here ... call me crazy ... but I have a .22 caliber rifle with a scope.  It's a semi-automatic tube-fed rifle, which holds 10 round in the tube.

Would it be ridiculous of me to think I own an "Assault Rifle"?

Yes, it would.

Is my .22 rifle a 'weapon of war'?

According to the Boston Globe ... yes, it is.  And I'm a "Gun Nut", a Neanderthal blow-back, a villain and a potential mass murderer: all for wanting to pay $200 for an "Assault Rifle"!

Okay, I over-paid, but it has a nice 4x scope, was in as-new condition, and I gave all of my other .22 rifles away to my kids ... my "Arsenal" (the coat closet in my front room) had a gap which needed to be filled.   Besides, I have two bricks of .22 LR ammo in my coat closet arsenal, and somebody needs to pay homage to my sagacity in finding and buying these blocks of "Kop Killer Bullets"! before BuyMart sold them to some more sanguine gun nut.
(If there are any hunters arsenal owners in this state who are more blood-thirsty than I.  Which I doubt, because although I haven't gone hunting since my Father died in 1994, I'm still sitting on the arsenal in my ... well, you know.   Coat closet.)
[Apologies for the digression, but you know I'm a gun owner and every time I start talking about GUNS and AMMO, I get this little tingle up my leg and ... uh ... you don't want to know. 'Kay?]

The Good News is that I don't live in Massachusetts (which state I can't even SPELL right!), because no matter what I do, no matter what I say, no matter what I own ... I'm wrong.

More than wrong.

I'm bad.

More than bad!  (What's more than bad?  I don't know, but if I own a firearm in Massachusetts, I'm really a horrible person.  Because I still cleave to my guns and my second amendment God.)

Okay, I'm done.  And I hope you ignore that "Thrill Up My Leg" moment.

I only have it when I think about B.O.
Me and Chris Matthews.  Y'know?

And yes, if you find this entire article to be "incomprehensible", you're not alone.
I don' understand it, either.

Welcome to Gun Control.

Is GOP PAYING this DEM to campaign for Trump?

A Hillary Clinton Loss Would Hobble Gun Reform, Says Connecticut Senator | TIME:
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy does not shy away from the fact that guns on are on the national ballot this November.“If Donald Trump wins, it will be a pretty dramatic setback,” says Murphy, who has emerged as the Democratic Party’s most vocal champion of new gun regulation. “Not just because how terrible he’ll be on the issue, but the fact that a presidential candidate who ran asking for a mandate on guns lost.”
It appears that Gun Rights have just topped the list of  campaign issues.

And I can't think of any single sentence which would more likely sway independent voters to join the TRUMP camp, than an outright confession that the Democratic candidate has the Constitution in her Front Sight.

Thank you, Senator Murphy, for turning the Presidential Campaign into a straight "Up or Down" vote.

Randomly Hitten

Those of my friends who wish to contact me directly, the email address for this blog is:

AMERICAN BY CHOICE: "Gun Control Does Not Work"

Gun Control --  Dissenting opinion:

Gun Violence is not an endemic issue in America.
(NOTE that much of the text here is taken from the video, and may not have been transcribed in perfect accordance to the original context.)

("Hensen Enge"?)

My name is is Henson Ong  (Waterbury Resident) .. forgive me, English is not my first language.

You probably already know this, but some may be unclear

Contrary to what one may hear from time to time, the Second Amendment did not create the right of the people to keep and bear arms; neither the government nor even the founders bestowed it upon us. The 2nd Amendment’s inclusion in the U.S. Constitution merely recognized the preexisting, unalienable human right to arms and self-defense already possessed by every responsible human being. It was and is component to natural rights, as the only tangible means to ensure and preserve them.  
 As students of history know, there was great disagreement between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists on the point of specifically articulating individual rights in the Constitution. The Federalists held that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the people and the several states hold any powers the Constitution do not prescribe and enumerate specifically for the federal government. The Anti-Federalists believed that without the specification of certain rights, the federal government would tread and infringe upon individual rights despite the explicit and general reservations and segregated powers already described in the Constitution. 
 Turns out, both sides were wrong.

I disagree.

Both sides were right.

Brooklyn, you can't afford this

Failed Technology 

This is just one more example of how liberals use false hopes and wishful thinking to undermine the ability of Americans to defend themselves, their families, and their home.  And their sole purpose is to make us LESS safe.

Brooklyn kicks off $1 million smart gun design competition (VIDEO):
Adams says the competition has already brainstormed three areas of interest in personalized handguns: a smart phone app to find lost or stolen guns, firearms with fingerprint biometrics and RFID technology such as a ring worn by the user. But he cautioned these initial ideas are just the tip of the iceberg. “Embracing other concepts such as microstamping* and other technologies that are out there, we can create an environment where gun ownership will not be trampled on but the rights of people living in a society free from gun violence will be preserved and protected,” said Adams.
If the "Smart Gun" concept gains credence in America, soon it will be difficult to find a firearm which will be useful in protecting yourself.  You would have to find a "used gun" for protection,  because the 'new guns' are not reliable enough to serve the purpose for which they are intended.

"Smart Gun" Technology:
There are two ways that Smart Guns prevent unauthorized users from using your gun against yourself:

  1. Have the gun keyed to the proximity of an RFD device (a ring, a bracelet);
  2. Have the gun keyed to your personal fingerprints.
Antigunners like to say that it's foolish to use a gun to protect yourself/home/family, because they will just take your gun away and shoot you with it.  (The worst of this verminous pack direct their 'bad advice' against Women, because they think that Women are more susceptible to violence, and more likely to yield their gun to an aggressor.)

If they can take away your gun, they can also take away your ring, your bracelet, or other device and use THAT to take your gun away and shoot you with it.

This is even worse.

I'm a concealed carry permit holder, and I go to the Sheriff's office every few years to renew my permit.  They always take finger prints.  What's the first thing they do?  They have you wipe your hands so that sweat, body oils, and debris does not mar the perfection of the impression.

So if you have to use your finger-print protected Smart Gun before defending your home, are you going to wipe your hands?

Of course not.  And you'll be sweaty, your hands will be oily, maybe there is lint from your flannel pajamas ... your fingerprints when you are in an emergency situation may not match the prints you 'registered' on your Smart Gun when you set it up.

So your Smart Gun may not function for you, when you need it.  
This is the same thing as having "no defense at all", because ... you haven't!

But wait!  There's MORE!

"... a smart phone app to find lost or stolen guns ...:"

Gee, how does that work?

You would need an identifier to cull your Smart Gun ID   (an RFID TAG) out of the hundreds in your area, and of course you would have already registered that ID with your local police department because it's THEIR job to find stolen property.   Right?

Which implies that they will ALWAYS know where your firearm is.

This is just like the failed effort to implant RFD devices under the skin of people; except that this will only identify Americans who have guns.

There are some issues with tagging firearms (or people) with RFD tags.

If your personal privacy is important to you, RFID tagging might not be an option which appeals to you.


Any alteration to the original design may render your firearm less than perfectly functional.

There are many uses for a firearm, and one of them is for home/property/personal defense.
Which implies (strongly!) that your firearm should be always and immediately available in an emergency, and there should be no alterations to the basic design which may impede it's ability to function as designed.

We know how to use guns safely and effectively:

  • We've practiced with our defensive firearms until they seem like an extension of our hand; our thumb and fingers automatically access slide, safety, hammer and trigger without conscious thought;
  • All members of our household have been trained until their usage is familiar; if you can't get to your gun, someone else will;
  • Children have been acclimatized to firearms, and know not to touch them without permission except in an emergency;
  • A firearm which is so shrouded in artificial 'safety mechanisms' to the point where it is essentially useless in an emergency, is nothing better than a large rock with which to batter an aggressor.
That's not defense; that's desperation, and doomed to failure.


I'm not sure how that bit of failed technology crept into the original quote, but it's a signature which deserves to be stamped out (sorry) immediately.

Microstamping is a theoretical technology which purportedly embosses some unique identification code upon the base of a cartridge when it is fired.  The breech of the gun is 'stamped' or 'embossed' with an unique identifying code, hopefully to be stamped on the base of a cartridge upon firing, and which can (according to theory) be read under a microstamp to identify the firearm from which the cartridge has been fired.

This has been touted as a 'crime-stopping' technology, and has as yet not been proven to be reliable ... or effective, useful, or feasible.  However, it would add so much expense to the process of mass-producing firearms that it would triple (at least) the cost of a firearm.

If you're interested in the many ways that Microstamping of ammunition is Not A Good Idea, you can go to my home page and type "MICROSTAMPING" into the search box on the top left hand corner of the page.  There about 10,000 words debunking the concept there.  Have fun!

Friday, August 19, 2016

Glock Quality

BREAKING: Glock 17M Recalled By Police Department - The Firearm Blog:
It looks like the new Glock 17M pistols are already experiencing some teething problems with the design changes. There are reports that Indianapolis Metro Police Department has halted issuing the new duty pistol due to problems during dry fire training. The recall comes after the pistols were supposed to be issued on July 31st, but delayed till August 15th due to unknown problems.
It seems as if the slides fall off:
  "... that the slides were falling off during dry fire training... "
(Especially disconcerting if you're a LEO and this is your new issue weapon.)

 And the Indy Police discovered this "Teething Problems"during "Dry Fire Training"?

I've got a couple of questions about this.  But I'm a 1911 guy, so naturally I'm biased (full disclosure) against other designs.   My questions are:

  • GLOCK can fix this within two weeks?   A basic design flaw?
  • Shouldn't this have been obvious during prototype testing?
  • Glock Engineers DO test prototypes before beginning a production run, don't they?
  • Did Glock "rush to production" before the new design was tested, just to fill an early order?

Borepatch: Curmudgeons of the World, unite!

Borepatch: Curmudgeons of the World, unite!

Too short to really be a story that one can reference, so I'll just leave you with this WONDERFUL  epigram, and hope that someone has the common courtesy to perform the same service upon my demise:

Thursday, August 18, 2016

My Daughter’s Teacher Did Her Hair! Who does she think she is?

It Happened To Me: My Daughter’s Teacher Did Her Hair | MadameNoire:

Thursday afternoon, like every day I went to pick up my daughter from her school playground. As she ran toward me, all I could do was mouth to myself was, WTF!? Seeing my reaction her teacher scurred behind her, quickly offering an exonerating explanation as to why my daughter didn’t look the way she did only a few hours earlier. “I did her hair, I hope you don’t mind?! She said she was hot.” I was furious. My blood was boiling, and there were no nice words I could find. I offered a limp smile, and could barely utter, “it’s fine.” I was fuming. My daughter’s hair had been brushed, with whose brush? I couldn’t tell you, parted, and braided in plaits, and embellished with rubber bands and barrettes, out of the teachers own supply.


I can't comment on this article without I check my "White Privilege" to perform a kind service for a child who as been left in my care by a mother who just hasn't the time to tend to her own daughter.

Bummer, Dudette.  And I suspect that this was a bogus story, because .. WTF???

If not ... I was once married to a woman who was quick to take offense.
It had a "Bad Ending"!



"Your 2nd Amendment is Outdated!" - YouTube: Published on Feb 21, 2014 The next time someone tries to tell you that, tell them this ;) Visit Facebook page!:

Oh, watch it anyway.  Cute girl/valley-girl voice.   Worth a couple of minutes of your time.

Besides, you might just enjoy her efforts to make a 'failing' political point.

(Let me know if you do.)

Tea for Two: Republican Congressional Conversation

Congressman Russell and Congressman Gowdy Clear-up Firearm Misconceptions - YouTube: Published on Jul 6, 2016 Discussion with Congressman Trey Gowdy on Firearm Facts during Oversight and Government Reform Hearing on Firearm Inventory and Control Practices. 

 Foreigners already may not purchase a firearm in the United States. There is no "Gun-Show Loophole" because ALL licensed firearm sales require a NICS background check. We know NICS background checks (established in 1998) are working because, in 2014, there were 8,124 homicides due to firearms. This is a 9% decline in gun murders since 2010. This also represents a 20% decline in gun murders since 2005, and a 50% decline in gun murders since 1995. Of the 8,124 murders with firearms in 2014,only 248 were with rifles of ANY kind. To put that in perspective, 435 people were murdered in 2014 with clubs and hammers and 660 were murdered in 2014 with hands, fists, or feet.

(The above is a quote, including an opinion.)

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

That IS a pistol in my pocket, AND I'm happy to see you

Court: Man wrongfully terminated for having gun in vehicle at work:
A unanimous three-judge panel found on Monday that a Mississippi man could sue his former employer after being fired for keeping a gun in a locked vehicle on the job site.
A man whose employer discovered that he had a (legal) firearm in his parked car while at work has sued, and won, in protest for illegally being fired 'for cause'.

The court accepted that he had a gun in his car, but that wasn't grounds for termination.  
The Corporate Policy was illegal ... not the gun in the car.

I just love a story with a happy ending.

(Thanks to Mae West for a great line.)

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Adoption. It's a beautiful thing

Simone Biles Was Adopted by Grandparents Ron And Nellie | The Daily Caller:

Ron and Nellie Biles adopted Simone and her sister in 2001 after they spent time in foster care becasue (sic) their biological mother — Ron’s daughter — struggled with drug and alcohol abuse.

During coverage of the Summer Olympics in Rio, Al Trautwig referred to Ron and Nellie as Simone’s grandparents.  When a viewer criticized him for doing so, Trautwig defended his decision and said, “They may be mom and dad but they are NOT her parents.”

When she was asked about what Trautwig said, Biles had a simple response.
“I personally don’t have a comment,” “My parents are my parents and that’s it.”
I never heard of Simone Biles before today, and I haven't been following the Olympics.

But I'm personally pleased to learn that another "wanted child" has no doubts about whose child she is.

 I have two nieces who may not have been born into the family, but they most certainly ARE family.  They are my nieces, they call their parents MOM and DAD.   They call me "Uncle".
I call them loved.   My sixteen grand-nieces and grand-nephews are my family, too, including a few (of recent years) "great-grands".  And yes, I lose count, but they forgive me.

Their family is the people who raised them, who cherish them, and who stand up for them in the bad times and applaud them in the good times.   Their family will rush them to the hospital when they break an arm, and comfort them when they are ill, and are firm-but-gentle when they do wrong, and pay all the bills no matter what.   What else would a parent do? (Everything!)

I know a lot of people who were raised by their "birth parents" and didn't benefit from the support and guidance which these ladies have received ... and I'm speaking of my nieces and Simone Biles.

When people* correct someone about whose child they are, because of an accident of birth, it merely reveals that they don't really understand people.

Adopted children have a special blessing;  they know for their whole lives that they were really, truly wanted.  

How many of the rest of us can make that claim?

*(The guy was probably a Democrat).


David Clarke, Milwaukee sheriff: 'Progressive left has put my citizens in harm's way' - Washington Times: By Jessica Chasmar - The Washington Times - Monday, August 15, 2016
Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke on Monday blamed “the policies of liberal Democrats” for riots over the weekend that left several officers injured and multiple businesses burned in the city’s north side. “The Milwaukee riots should be the last time the policies of liberal Democrats are held up as anything other than misery-inducing, divisive, exploitative and racist manipulation of the urban populations. Unfortunately, they won’t,” Sheriff Clarke wrote in an op-ed for The Hill.
Meet my write-in vote for the presidential election.   David Clarke.

He's not as smart as Trump/Clinton, he's honest, he's pro-Constitution,  and he understands Liberals.

Five Months Ago; Loretta Lynch; Oregon, political

Loretta Lynch Bails On Oregon Gun Forum, Chaos Erupts When Fast and Furious Mentioned (VIDEO):
US Attorney General Loretta Lynch was scheduled to appear at a Portland Police gang task force meeting, but no-showed after learning that folks from Don’t Shoot Portland planned on attending and possibly protesting. In lieu of Ms. Lynch, the moderator at the regularly held meeting used a big easel to jot down concerns and comments from the community to take to Lynch. But the moderator only wanted to hear from certain organizations and agencies, and refused to call on anyone else. Finally, after Penny Okamoto, of Ceasefire Oregon, gave a monologue about wanting stricter oversight of federally licensed gun dealers, one man in the crowd piped up about Operation Fast and Furious, and the event went downhill from there, as the central planners didn’t want to hear it, and soon the entire forum was shut down.

She got OWNED!

Interesting Video.

Oh, THIS is frightening to the Firearns Industry!

One wonders how many Gay People cleave to the "Buy A Gun Every Month" mantra?

Gun Makers must be quaking in their booties.

I wonder if they understand that firearms manufacturer are legally NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for the (mis-) usage of their product after they have been sold?

Gays Against Guns: civil disobedience campaign to target gun companies | US news | The Guardian: Hundreds of gay activists will begin a campaign of civil disobedience and direct action against gun companies and their supporters on Monday, to demand an end to the epidemic of gun violence blighting the US. Members of Gays Against Guns, a group formed in the wake of the massacre of 49 people at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando earlier this summer, said they would “no longer stand by and watch the gun industry profit from death”. Organizers of the collective, which has more than 300 members in New York and chapters in nine other cities across the country, said they were prepared to break the law and get arrested in their fight against gun manufacturers, their shareholders, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its corporate backers.

Trump Asks Gun Owners to .. do WHAT?

Trump ignites new firestorm: Gun backers might stop Clinton | WRIC: WILMINGTON, N.C. (AP) Donald Trump ignited a fresh political firestorm Tuesday by declaring gun rights supporters might still find a way to stop Hillary Clinton, even if she should defeat him and then name anti-gun Supreme Court justices. Democrats pounced, accusing him of openly encouraging violence against his opponent.
Last time I payed any attention to TRUMP, he was candidly coyly blatantly insultingly assuming that gun owners would resort to physical violence to stop HILLARY.   That statement alone came as close to losing him the gun-owners vote as anything he could have said.

He doesn't seem to have learned from the experience.

Responsible gun owners will probably vote for Trump 'anyway', but we will surely be holding our noses when we vote.

I cannot remember, in the fifty years of voting for or against presidential candidates, when we have had such odious choices,

It's the same thing as having no choices at all.

PS:  My first Presidential Election, I voted against Nixon.   He won.  In fact, I've never voted for an elected president.  Maybe I should vote for Hillary?

No, that would break the jinx.

The Tyranny of the Majority

Liberal States (including every state on the West coast ... sadly, including my home state of Oregon) consist of a plethora of Liberal voters, because so many of us/them exist on the Public Dole.   Voters who are dependent on The State for the food they eat will bow down to whatever they think The State wants them to vote.

Which means that, in true evidence of "The Tyrany of the Majority", most voters in these states will vote in favor of whatever inane bills which appear on the ballot.

They will vote in favor of this:
Gun control goes on the ballot | TheHill:
Stymied on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures, supporters of stricter gun control measures are taking their cause to the ballot box. Voters in four states will decide ballot measures relating to gun control this November.
In Maine and Nevada, voters will decide whether to expand background check requirements to include private gun sales.
 In Washington, voters will decide whether to take guns out of the hands of people who are subject to extreme risk protection orders, which include restraining orders and people at risk of suicide.

 And in California, voters will decide whether to ban the possession of large-capacity magazines.
The California measure, Proposition 63, would also require individuals to pass a background check before purchasing ammunition.
Those of us who do not live in major population centers (Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane,  San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego) will probably vote against these unconsitituion bills.

We are out-numbered three to one, and so we will lose our rights to perform perfectly lawful transactions without intrusive governmental interference.

It will be a sad day in American History, when the Federal Oligarchy can rule by fiat.

Monday, August 15, 2016

Hey! Who are you calling crazy?

This guy says he's officially crazy, but he still managed to buy, be trained in the use of, and carry a firearm.(H/T: GUNFEED)

I'm not sure he's more emotional than the guy's I've seen at a match, throwing their magazines downrange because they're disappointed at their performance; but if he says he's a lunatic, I'm willing to take his word for it.

But ..... interesting.

I have a mental disorder. This is what happened when I tried to buy a gun.:
My brain is a massive ocean of too much information. Without my medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, it’s easy for me to get lost in the undertow. No matter how hard I try to fight the current, I still get overwhelmed and distracted by every strange texture I feel beneath my feet. This never goes away.

Fortunately for me, he lives on the 'other side' of the continent.

In Massachuttes?

Not Your Father's Idaho

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” 

That link (above) is SO 1999!

It's now 2016, and the current version is:

"Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled rapists ..."

At the risk of being considered a "something-ist", I think that America needs to be just a little bit more particular about the "huddled masses" we welcome here.

5-year-old victim's father watched the video:

The case, which has largely been ignored or dismissed by the mainstream media, has created a political firestorm as pro- and anti-immigration proponents have clashed about the assault in an election year where the candidacy of Republican nominee Donald Trump has brought immigration and refugee issues to the forefront of national political discussion. Although the establishment press has given little time to the story that does not fit the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s narrative on refugees and immigration, the story has caused a stir on right-leaning media through the work of activists like Pamela Geller.
What they are talking about is a five year old girl (FIVE YEARS OLD!) who was sexually assaulted by a group of adolescent boys.  The parents of the girl ... at least the father .. was "treated" to a video of the attack.

Yes, the boys recorded the attack, and showed it around.  Sweet.

The parents of the girl were 'encouraged' to not report the assault.  Because they all came from a 'rape culture', you see, and so it's not really that unusual much of a "big deal".

Stranahan: “The refugee family was trying to stop you from calling the police?”
Victim’s Father: “Yes. They were pleading with us, saying everything was okay, they did nothing wrong, you know – ‘No police! No police!’ – because they did not speak… they speak Arabic, so they had very few words that they can actually…”

Personally, I think that the boys who were involved in the attack (no matter how tangentially) should be forcibly returned to the country of their origin.
Their parents as well should be deported, because somehow they had failed to teach their children that Rape Is Wrong!

(Who knows what other dicta of a civilized society they do not understand?)

I know not what the culture is in their home country, but I refuse to allow them to import their sick cultural 'norms' into my homeland.   I have children, and grandchildren here. They deserve to live under the cultural norms of my country; which do not include a casual acceptance of rape.

These are not Americans, they never will be, because it's obvious that they just ... don't ... GET IT!
Give me your tired, your homeless, your huddled masses yearning to be free.
That dictum of the Statue of Liberty implies nothing about accepting "cultural norms" which are anethema to civilization, and America.

This is America.

We deal in lead.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Hey Man, why you burnin' this here gas station?

I always wondered why people rioted and burned places up.

Then I found the perfectly good reason for burning up your neighborhood,
“It’s sad, because you know, this is what happens, you know, because they’re not helping the black community,” the man said. “Like, you know, rich people, they got all this money and they not, like, trying to give us none.”

I was sort of hoping that he could help me understand how burning up a gas station might lead to economic fulfillment.

Those rich people?  All that money?  They're not giving to give me none, either.

Maybe I should go burn up the gas station in my neighborhood.
Yeah, that'll do it.  Those rich people are sure to give me money for doing that.

Because, you know, they got privilege and all like that.

But they're not, like,  trying to help the white community.

NRA ad falsely quotes Clinton

NRA ad falsely says Clinton 'doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self-defense' | PolitiFact North Carolina:

NRA ad falsely says Clinton 'doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self-defense'
Actually, that's not a false premise.

It may not be an accurate quote.

However, the facts are that when Clinton was questioned about the "Australian Solution", her reply  "that's something we should look into".

The "Australian solution" was that private citizens had few options available if they wanted to keep a firearm in their home for self defense ... or for most other options.

The "Australian Solution" banned and confiscated guns.

This is a 'fact' which Politifact politely ignored, when the ignored Hillary's comment that that's
"..worthy of looking into".

What Clinton is very careful NOT to say is "That's something that is not on the board in my administration".

If she meant, it, she would have said it.

I doubt if anyone failed to understand what she was saying.

Protection of the Second Amendment Rights of Americans is not only NOT on her list of priorities, but the infringment of the constitition is a HIGH priority to her.   She sees no reason why the Consititution should direct her decisions, should she be elected to the office of President.

That may work for the trusting souls who think that the Democratic Party can do no wrong, but it has a negative effect on those of us who don't trust candidates of EITHER party to "Do The Right Thing" when it comes to protecting our constitutional rights.