Saturday, September 24, 2016

It depends on what your definition of "ISIS", is ...

Them Clinton folks, they always got a little bit of twist in everything they say.

Clinton: Americans need to be as scared of gun violence as they are terrorism | Washington Examiner:
 Hillary Clinton believes Americans need to be as worried about gun violence as they are about terrorism. "[I]t's not only terrorists we need to be worried about," Clinton said in an interview published Thursday afternoon by AARP. The Democratic nominee's remarks came as she explained she has a plan to combat both terrorism as well as the broader issue of gun violence in the US ....
Seems to me, you get rid of the 'terrorists', you got no problems with "gun violence".

I don't think that's what she's saying:  She doesn't care about terrorists so much as getting rid of  private ownership of firearms.  After all ... this is the Politician who says:
 "We Cannot End Terrorism Without Gun Control!"

So ... if I understand correctly, everyone who owns a gun is a terrorist, in her personal lexicon.
That makes me feel so much more confident in her determination to abide by the terms of her Oath of Office, should she be elected POTUS:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I have reservations about her veracity if she should be diligent in protecting the Constitution; she has never made that a priority in her office as a Senator.

BTW:  This is one of the reasons why I never accepted my many 'invitations' to join the American Association of Retired People: They're great on 'benefits', but they don't give a shit about the Constitution.

I'd rather starve than live under Hillary.

Which may happen.

Cans of food gratefully accepted.

Friday, September 23, 2016

HilllaryMail ... It's The Law, Stupid!

18 U.S. Code  2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute:
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. 
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V,  552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,  330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Question: Does this apply only to documents delivered via the U.S. Mail?
Does EMAIL carry the same penalty?

Or does Hilary, in her office of Secretary of State, qualify under the definition " ... in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States...."?

One cannot help but wonder if this Federal Code would apply to a candidate for the office of (or sitting) POTUS.

Just asking.  Nothing to see here ... Move Along!

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Why? Fear!

It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them. | New Republic:

On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what’s feasible keeps what needs to happen—no more guns—from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically,  if it’s to be reckoned with.
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).
Phoebe (did you notice that she is living in Canada?) is only one of many folks who allow their timidity to overwhelm their good sense.

They (Phoebe and her kin) think that banning guns would stop gun violence, which is usually perpetrated by criminals who are often violating the law by the mere possession of a firearm and compounded by the criminal acts they perform.

They don't stop to consider that firearms are often used to stop crime, or to protect self, family, home.  All they see is the downside of firearms, never the benefits.

I think that these radicals are afraid of firearms.  Well ... I'm quit certain of that.


The reason is because they are unfamiliar with firearms ownership, and they project themselves into a place where they see that they might have a gun and they might then be unable to control their inner violence.

No, no, I see you shaking your head.  I'm sincere; I believe that they are unable to conceive of themselves being a responsible firearms owner.   Yes, I think they're dumb-asses.  No, I don't think they have a legitimate authority to criticize people who are responsible gun owners.

Okay, let's see a show of hands:  How many of you readers are gun owners who have discharged your firearm within the city limits, outside of a legal shooting range?

Okay, of those of you who are left, how many discharged your firearm within city limits OTHER than in defense of self, family, property?

Oh.  MUCH smaller response quota.

How many of those left have been incarcerated for breaking the law because of this discharge?
(I suspect the response quota is now ZERO, because you're not allowed to respond to blogs from within your jail cell. Which is probably where you should be.)

RESPONSIBLE Firearms Ownership:

Anti-gunners (people opposed to the Second Amendment) tend to be emotionally involved in The Movement.  They think that nobody should be trusted with a gun, because they don't think they can be trusted with a gun.   They judge others by themselves, and the rest of us appear lacking in judgement because THEY don't trust themselves.

It's that old meme, supported by such 'trusted' sources as the New York Times in their December 4, 2015 opinion article "End The Gun Epidemic In America" where the editors opine that

"It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency."
That Grand Old Lady, NYT, suggests:
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

Certain Kinds of Weapons/Certain Kinds of Ammunition

We wonder, as we should, what the word "Certain" defines.  And we wonder more who defines it, and why, and what their imperatives must be.

The NYT article 'certainly' avoids being specific, so if you agree with their philosophy, should we likewise agree with the particulars ... particularly when they are so careful to avoid being specific?

This is the kind of opposition that legal, responsible gun owners face; a huge megalopolous newspaper has made a decision about a constitutional issue, and they certainly have the subscriptions to persuade a bunch of readers in a state where firearms are almost totally BANNED.

As Ned Pepper said in the movie: "That's Bold Talk from a One-Eyed Fat Man!" (*See Below)

But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, as Ned Pepper discovered to his disappointment, just challenging The Law isn't the same thing as obviating The Law.   The thing about Laws is, the folks who enact them generally understand that a certain degree of specificity is required.  Otherwise, the first wise guy who runs up against it hires a lawyer who (in turn) destroys a poorly written law, and his client goes free.

Which is the sort of thing which gun owners usually like, and the folks who fear gun owners don't like.

Let's get back to that part about:
... yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

In the first place, those of my "fellow citizens" whom I count as 'friends' are not willing to trust their lives to "a policeman on every corner"; they carry their own protection, and are prepared to defend themselves against the plethora of neer-do-wells who would do them harm.  As do I.  In the state where I live, a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) is not difficult to acquire .. it's a "Shall Issue" state; and they have availed themselves of the legalities.

In the second place, anyone who is not prepared to defend himself is assuming the "Cop On Every Corner" defense, which is ridiculous.  The police can't be everywhere, and to believe otherwise is to expose yourself as a victim to every nut-job in the neighborhood.  That's just stupid.

And in the third place ... well. there is no 'third place'; if you don't care enough about your own life to defend it in this era of global terrorism (which can strike anywhere), then you probably don't carry a jack and a spare tire in the trunk of your automobile, either.  Dumbshit!

Getting back to the quote above, I don't consider it an act of concern "for the good of (my) fellow citizens" to give up my weapon(s).

Those folks back East, who remark nonchalantly about the Second Amendment as if it were an inconsequential option, are far too trusting in their Police Departments for my taste.  I've seen the cops in my little college town, and they are fat, dumb and happy.   They don't expect things to 'go wrong' .. instantly, without warning, and fatally.

 See Florida, and California, and El Salvador.
(By the way, these are 'places' where Gun Control is often The Law Of The Land)

And while I'm not a 'one-eyed fat man', I admit to being outspoken on the issue of self-defense.
BOTH my eyes are functional.