Please don't let the screen door hit you in the rear on your way out!

"IF TRUMP WINS THE ELECTION, I WILL LEAVE THE COUNTRY!"

(a list of Liberal Celebrities who think we care whether they stay or leave)

There are a plethora of other websites which have published lists of prospective "Ex Patriots", but they are largely redundant and this list seems to include most of them.

The funny thing (and I mean funny in the sense of 'amusing', not 'odd' is that there are no follow-up stories of "Celebrities Who Have Actually Left The Country Since Trump Won!"

These 23 Celebrities Said They'll Leave The Country If Trump Wins - Catherine Dunn:  *
   1, Jon Stewart 
   2. Chelsea Handler 
   3. Neve Campbell 
   4. Barry Diller 
   5. Lena Dunham 
   6. Keegan-Michael Key 
   7. Chlo Sevigny 
   8. Al Sharpton 
   9. Natasha Lyonne 
 10. Eddie Griffin. 
 11. Spike Lee
 12. Amber Rose   
 13. Samuel L. Jackson 
 14. Cher  
 15. George Lopez  
 16. Barbra Streisand 
 17. Raven-Symon
 18. Whoopi Goldberg  
 19. Omari Hardwick
 20. Miley Cyrus 
 21. Ruth Bader Ginsburg  
 22. Amy Schumer 
 23. Katie Hopkins

I recall a similar list when "W" won the presidency, and as far as I can tell nobody actually left then, either.

One funny thing about this list, is that I don't see Alec Baldwin on the list;
he was on the "George W. Bush Ex-patriot list"  back then.
He didn't leave either.   In fact, he disavowed the rumors!

I wonder how many of the current list of Bail-Out Big Names will follow in Baldwin's "Flunk-out Footsteps" this year?


* I make no claims to the veracity of the reporting.  In fact, I don't even know who half of these people ARE or why anyone cares whether they stay, or leave  (I recognize 11 names).
 But I do find it amusing that all of them are Democrats.   I don't recall any Republicans "threatening" to leave America if a Democrat was elected to the highest office in the land.   I may be mistaken, but I'm never wrong.

Also, it's interesting that the article cites "23 celebrities", but the LINK cites "10 celebrities".  My guess is that the list grew as other opportunists jumped on the non-committal Band Wagon.

Ultimate Benefits of TRUMP Election

My angst over the need to vote for Donald Trump (as the only alternative to "That Person") has been relieved.

Anything that pisses off the Liberal Left is worth the effort.

Michael Moore calls on Donald Trump to step down before joining protesters in New York | Daily Mail Online:

Film-maker Michael Moore has called on Donald Trump to step down as President-elect before he even takes office.

Leave it to the insufferable Michael Moore to provide perspective.

And that goes double for Amy Schumer!

The Democratic Party decided that there was no longer a threat to their re-election chances from the Second Amendment voters, so they went ahead and made that an important plank in their campaigns.

That didn't help them after all.

I think that this Day-By-Day cartoon said it best, though.

Coddling the Coeds?

Academia reacts to Trump election.   Students treated like kindergartners.

Universities offer Play-Doh, therapy dogs, coloring books, safe spaces for students hurt by election | EAGnews.org:

 “Today during my office hours, 4PM to 7PM, I will be bringing my personal coloring books, crayons, markers and colored pencils for anyone to use in order to de-stress and relax from the election results,” she posted to Facebook. “Please do not hesitate to reach for help, whether it is to me, the rest of the Community Advisor and Residential Life University Apartment staff, the Counseling Center, the Helping Center, your friends and family or your professors,” Elizabeth wrote. “None of you are alone.” At least one economics professor at Yale University is also taking it easy on students reeling from Clinton’s loss by making their mid-term exam optional, according to a copy of an email he sent to students that Yale Daily News editor Jon Victor posted to Twitter.

Wow.  A LOT of responses and questions offer themselves for examination.

(Facts about crayolas)

EXAMPLE: What kind of education are young adults receiving in University? That they can't be trusted to handle their own emotions?  That they might be emotionally 'wounded' because their preferred candidate didn't win?

EXAMPLE: What's with crayons, coloring books, etc.?  Are these students people who are trusted to vote in presidential elections?  Or are they intellectually (and emotionally) stunted MORONS who must be coddled to prevent damage to their vulnerable egos?   (That's the goal of the Liberals.)

EXAMPLE: Why has a University Professor a set of "... personal coloring books, crayons, markers and colored pencils ..." on hand for loan?
(One possible answer is that she is the infantile product of the same educational syllabus she is now offering to her students.   Another possible answer is that she is part of the Liberal goal of raising a generation of needy, easily led citizens.)

EXAMPLE:  This "Institution of Higher Learning" is making an exception to the academic rigor by making a mid-term exam 'optional'?   What kind of lesson that THAT teach our children?  That if they're having a bad day, they can opt out of their obligations?   That their education track isn't a matter of intellectual and academic rigor, but how they "feel" today?   Or is it that our children are being carefully programmed to follow the advice of their political heroes, who cleave to the Liberal mantra of  We will tell you how to think, how to talk, and how to vote"?

I don't know about you, but I've had a few bad days and on more than one of them I would have liked to have my Captain say: "Sergeant Geek, I see you're having a bad day.  Why don't you just stay in camp today and we'll let the platoon get along without you.  Whaddya say, is that a good idea?"

Um ... no.   I have responsiblities, and people who depend on me, and a family whose respect and cherish. I was taught that when you accept a job you keep at it until the job is done.

University students have probably graduated from 'Chores' ("Timmy, don't forget to empty the trash baskets today!") to "Obligations"  ("Timmy, we are proud to co-sign that Guaranteed Student Loan for your college education, but please understand that we don't have the money to pay for it if you default!").

But apparently, College Students have not been encouraged to move on up to RESPONSIBILITY!

EXAMPLE:

("Timmy, you sluggard, we can't pay for your tuition next year and you've been too busy indulging your ANGST over an election to keep up your grades!  You know, you're carrying a D- in Basket Weaving 101 and a C- in "Tin Smashing 050"?   I'm sorry, but either you spend the summer working for tuition ... and take a job during the academic year .. or your college education is OVER!  And by the way; we've rented your room to a nice veteran who is working two jobs and carrying an 18-credit curriculem.   We're thinking of adopting him."  Have a nice day, and get a job!)

Timmy Doesn't Get It!:

It may not be his fault that he has been coddled all his life, but Timmy fails to appreciate that his job during his 'University Years" is to learn to think.   He might get some perspective from his "Introduction to Western Civilization" class, but the academics are justs background.   It's good to know what "Occam's Razor" and 'Antidisestablishmentarianism" mean ... if he intends to be able to carry on a conversation with educated folks.

Shallow

Kim Kardashian attempts to get Kendall Jenner to support gun control | Daily Mail Online:

 Even before she became a victim of gun violence herself, this reality star was using her voice to do something about the problem - but not all her sister's believed in speaking out. Kim Kardashian encouraged her sisters Kendall Jenner and Khloe to stand up against gun violence.
In a new sneak peek of Keeping Up With Kardashians, the 36-year-old star speaks of her passion for with an organization promoting gun control, but her younger sister Kendall is too fearful of the repercussions of throwing her support behind such a cause.

Don't fret yourself.   We don't care what you think.
We're just mildly surprised that you think you think.

Why I Voted for Hillary Clinton - The Truth About Guns

Why I Voted for Hillary Clinton - The Truth About Guns:

,,, which candidate would make me the most money? On a macro level, Hillary Clinton was the obvious choice. She might be more corrupt than a floppy disk in a magnet factory, but she’s a known quantity.  She would have kept the stock market happy and my retirement account growing —

This November 09, 2016 article by a writer who identifies himself as "Firearms Concierge" just gained much rancor from the gun community by describing the self-centered reasons for his Clinton Vote.

Personally, I'm not sure if this is a gag or whether the author is really that mercenary.

But one thing is quite certain; he got 300 comments on his article in 48 hours.   If his intention was to graphically demonstrate how many people will read one article and react by writing a comment, he has achieved his goal.

There are some links which purport to identify the writer by his real name, but I'm not about to reveal it here.

Who knows?   Someday I might get so desperate for fame and fortune that I will write a similarly attention-getting article.   Anonymity is not such a bad thing when you swim in the internet slime.

Five Reasons an Australian-Style Gun Ban Would Tank in America

Five Reasons an Australian-Style Gun Ban Would Tank in America: In a recently released video from Prager U,  Fordham University professor at law Nicholas Johnson shares the truth about common sense gun control, gun buybacks and assault weapons.

Actually, this is a reasonable evaluation of the reasons WHY gun bans wouldn't work ... here.

Which is not to say that some asshole won't try it anyway.

Here are the five reasons (but to see the video anyway ... okay?)

Assuming you're the guy who knocks on the door of Americans, and your job is to take their guns:

1. "America would never support a nationwide gun ban. Even if you set aside the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects our God-given right to self defense by guaranteeing our right to keep and bear arms, conservative states (like Texas) would stand up and fight such a broad infringement."  Translation: do you REALLY think you can knock on my door and convince me into giving up my guns?
2. Focussing on “scary guns” or an assault weapons ban does little to curb gun violence. 80% of gun crimes are committed using handguns: Translation: When you knock on a door to tell the resident that "all guns are bad, and you find yourself cross-eyed looking down the barrel of a loaded gun, will you quickly decide that "NOT ALLl guns are bad".  What is the next words that come out of your mouth?  Would it be: "Never mind ... goodbye!" ?
3. Focussing on “scary guns” or an assault weapons ban does little to curb gun violence. 80% of gun crimes are committed using handguns.  Translation: that gun in your nose is terribly disconcerting; is that a 'scary gun'?  Yes, it is.
4. Gun confiscation never works as expected. Typically, only one third of citizens will obey this restrictive gun control initiative. Studies show that once guns are banned legally, they quickly turn up in the black market. Making background checks, universal or otherwise, grossly. Translation: the chances that 2 of the 3 doors you knock on will be answered by a man with a gun.  Are you sure you really want to knock on that door ... personally?
5. Currently, it is estimated there are 325 million (or more) firearms in the United States, making us the country to have amassed this impressive level of gun ownership. Therefore, it’s statistically impossible for any gun control model to able to be effective. Translation: How many doors can you knock on per day, knowing that you'll have a pistol poked up your snout at nine out of the ten doors you knock on before you realize there has GOT to be a better way to earn twelve dollars an hour?
6. If supply controls are the answer, gun control advocates need to outline the supply-side policies they propose will end gun violence while substantiating how the policy will also allow lawful gun owners to keep firearms. But that gun control logic just doesn’t add up – and they end up blaming the gun lobby, which is, ironically, comprised of law-abiding citizens who oppose gun control. Translation: how comfortable are you knocking on doors to tell the residents to 'give up their guns', and how many days are you willing to face armed resistance before you got back to your old job of selling Fuller Brushes?  And before you go, perhaps you might agree that "gun owners do NOT need to outline their supply-side policies"?  Of course you will!

Chelsea Handler and Barbara Boxer get all weepy over Hillary didn't get elected!!!

The Day After with Sen. Barbara Boxer | Chelsea | Netflix - YouTube:

Published on Nov 10, 2016 Now that the election results are in, Chelsea turns to her friend Senator Barbara Boxer to help make sense of it all and find out where we go from here.

Actually, that was the best thing that could happen for America, so if these girls can't handle the emotions of losing ... maybe that only makes it more clear that we don't want these people in charge.

I don't want leaders who are so driven by their emotions and their personal angst ... because their job is to take care of their constituents.

This is too personal, too emotional, and insufficiently professional.

And what's this business about bitching about the Electoral College system?
Sounds like losers to me.

Al Gore much?

OMG .. we're so much better off with Barbara Boxer not being part of our leadership!

About the time when I almost murdered my father

I've talked about this before.

It's a personal experience which has haunted me for over 50 years, and I offer it again today because maybe it will stop someone from almost making the mistake which I almost made.

We were hunting jack-rabbits, and the day was done.   It was hot, we were tired and thirsty, and probably just a little bit less that at our very best.

We were unloading our rifles before getting in to truck to go home.   I was 13 years old/

After we slipped through the barbed-wire fence in the sagebrush country in Umatilla County, I started to open the bolt of my .257 Roberts when my junior high school teacher "Mr. Bowles" cautioned me:

"You're pointing your gun at you dad's legs; if that goes off you could kill him" he said.

I never liked Mr. Bowles.  But he was right, so I pointed the rifle away from them and clicked off the safety so I could open the bolt and unload the rifle.

After over a half-century, I'm not sure whether it happened when I clicked off the safety, or when I unlocked the bolt.

The resounding BOOM startled all of us ... not the least me, because I swear I hadn't put my finger on the trigger.  I must have, at some point, because the rifle discharged.  Was it the fault of the gun?  Was there a flaw in its construction?  I never knew, nor would I ever.   The important thing was that the gun went off and drilled a 55 grain .25 caliber bullet into the ground ....   not into the thigh of my father.

The lesson I learned that day was that the rule of gun safety "Never point a gun at something you don't intend to destroy" was an absolute, not 'just a good idea'.

It doesn't matter whether you do or don't pull the trigger.  Strange stuff happens, as it happened to me that day, and I never even bothered to thank Mr. Bowles for saving my father's life.

I never liked Mr. Bowles, anyway.

And he never went hunting with me again.

And I never blamed him.

Recoil Magazine, the HK MP7A1 - Soldier Systems Daily

You Can't Run From The Internet - Recoil Magazine, the HK MP7A1, and the Second Amendment - Soldier Systems Daily:

... something happened over the weekend. The much anticipated issue number 4 was released last week. It featured an article on the HK MP7A1. In the article Editor Jerry Tsai said (emphasis added by me)

   “Like we mentioned before, the MP7A1 is unavailable to civilians and for good reason. We all know that’s technology no civies should ever get to lay their hands on. This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting applications to speak of. It is made to put down scumbags, and that’s it. Mike Cabrera of Heckler & Koch Law Enforcement Sales and veteran law enforcement officer with SWAT unit experience points out that this is a gun that you do not want in the wrong, slimy hands.”

Some might ask, what’s wrong with that? Well, that argument is exactly the argument that anti-gunners use to attempt to legislate away our Constitutionally granted gun rights. “No sporting purpose” Remember those words. You’ll see them again and again from the anti-gun crowd. 

For them to come from someone who makes a living in the firearms industry is like a slap in the face. Doesn’t he realize he legitimizes that notion by publishing it? The printed word has power. It will be used to support one agenda or another. The controversy surrounding the article kicked off Friday evening on Recoil’s Facebook page. There were hundreds upon hundreds  a few  posts discussing the issue and Jerry Tsai even weighed in with this lame “apology” on the thread that originated the controversy (go back to the earliest comments).

I'M NOT CURRENT ON THE DIALOGUE ...
.. but it seems to me that the original article took a sharp turn to the left with an inadvertent comment about " ... this is a gun that you do not want in the wrong, slimy hands.”

This is a slap in the face of responsible, private firearms owners.

Right?

Um ... well ... perhaps not.

MP7 | Compact, lightweight and 4.6 times more effective

The MP7 represents a new generation of enhanced-performance submachine guns that bridge the gap between assault rifles and conventional submachine guns. Developed as a genuine personal defense weapon, it far exceeds the NATO requirements profile.
The MP7 is extremely compact, lightweight, can be used in very confined spaces, and is practically recoil-free. It can be carried continuously, making it the ideal personal weapon for the soldier of today. Those who carry it will be suitably armed for the broadest range of operations.
Comparing the calibres, the penetration and terminal effects of the 4.6 mm x 30 cartridge are several times those of the standardised 9 mm x 19 cartridge. By way of illustration: The new high-performance calibre penetrates the NATO CRISAT TARGET (1.6 mm titanium and 20 layers of kevlar) even at 200 m. One fundamental requirement: At the same time, the risk of overpenetration is reduced to a minimum. 

In short, the MP7 is, indeed, a 'submachine gun".  Which is to say, it is a fully automatic (minor-power) truncated-chassis rifle firing a pistol-caliber cartridge (4.6 mm).  Or single-shot selective.


It's A Small Round With A Big Punch!


Most of us in the United States have become accustomed to the concept that submachine guns are not currently among our purchasing option; sans 'special licensing'.  As such, we are perhaps disappointed that they are not available for private ownership.

{this particular gun is not cited in the "list of submachine guns" found on wikipedea}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submachine_guns

I'm not convinced that the controversy described on SoldierSystems is really applicable to most of us. Submachine guns have been controlled since 1939, and I couldn't afford one, anyway!

I have fired a variety of hand-held fully automatic/pistol caliber rifles (aka: "Sub-Machine Guns").

Also, the bipod- or tripod-mounted varieties:  The M60 (7.62mm) and the M1 (.50 caliber) fully automatic machine guns ... which experiences are not here applicable.

(This includes the dumb-ass M16 they tried to give me in the army: I traded it in on an M79 Grenade launcher .. if you're going to be issued an 'area weapon', it's good to know that before you go into combat!)

 I'm aware that fully-automatic weapons are innately inaccurate difficult to control (except in the case of the M60 and M1 when  mounted on attached bipod or tripod) unless they are in the hands of someone who has taken the time, and made the effort, to become conversant with the idiosyncrasies of the sub-gun genre.   Yes, they tend to move the muzzle (point of impact) "High and To The Right" during extended firing.   The best results I've had with the genre is to impose trigger control to generate 3-to-5 round bursts; the shorter the better.

Unless you're trying to flock-shoot a mess of pigeons, the untrained and inexperienced sub-gun shooter would probably be better served with a revolver;  at least he would know his limitations, be unlikely to engage a mass of targets, and he would be rewarded with a significant 'lag time' between shots to reposition his point-of-aim.

(Can you tell that I'm not a great fan of submachine guns?)

Ultimately, the gun is designed for purposes that a pistol is not designed for.  Light and compact, 20 rounds capacity,

And if the video is a reliable testimony, it works very well in single-shot mode!

11:11

11:11

Eleven-Eleven.

It means something.

It's a DATE!

02:23:45 means something, too.

It's my birthday.

Other than that .... I can recall other significant dates and times.

Remember when 01:23:45 @ 06/07/89 was significant?

I remember that day.    It was when I was working as an analyst for Freightliner Corporation, and we though this was ... eerie!

We all took a moment of silence at that moment.

Then we went back to work.

Because earning a living was IS much more significant.

If you're superstitious, knock yourself out today.

If you're practical ... what are you doing reading this tripe?
Get back to work and earn your day's pay!

CA Prop 63: Treat a Civil Right as a Public Health Problem

Inland Empire Doctors Treat a Civil Right as a Public Health Problem: 

(by Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership [DRGO]  member T. Wheeler) November 09, 2016

Inland Empire Doctors Treat a Civil Right as a Public Health Problem

Posted on November 9, 2016 by AmmolandDRGO Editor: Dr. Wheeler, a San Bernardino County Medical Society member for 35 years, received a member satisfaction survey. This letter to Society president Michael Sequeira, MD resulted.

Read more: https://drgo.us/?p=4482#ixzz4PgnUAv4f
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Proposition 63 will turn a huge fraction of California’s 8 to 12 million gun owners into criminals with the stroke of a pen. Many who don’t follow politics closely will not even be aware of their new status as criminals, because most people quite reasonably believe that crime laws are intended to catch and punish real criminals—those who rob, rape, steal, and murder—and not everyday citizens merely exercising their civil right to own a firearm.  

 Proposition 63 will create several new crimes, including possession of firearms and even simply parts of firearms that have until now been deemed legal by our legislature. Millions of Californians have owned these firearms for years.
Why does the San Bernardino County Medical Society believe they now deserve prison time, the destruction of their lives and the suffering of their families? The good people that the San Bernardino County Medical Society wants to see prosecuted include people we work with every day—nurses, students, even our fellow physicians. 

 I wonder if the leaders of our Society grasp that they are supporting the criminalization of many of our patients who own firearms. Our law enforcement leaders understand the injustice being done to millions of innocent Californians by out-of-control politicians in Sacramento.  

No less than the sheriffs of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties oppose further gun control laws, including specifically Proposition 63. The growing list of California law enforcement agencies opposing Proposition 63 includes the California State Sheriff’s Association, California Police Chiefs Association, Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, and many others.

 I can’t conceive of a San Bernardino County Medical Society that would support a law making it illegal for African Americans to vote. The notion that our Society would eagerly urge a statewide confiscation of Bibles from devout Christians under pain of prosecution is equally abhorrent. But what the San Bernardino County Medical Society has done with its support of Proposition 63 is precisely the same kind of oppression.

Dr. Timothy Wheeler has been writing about 2nd Amendment rights on the "Doctors for Preservation of Gun Rights (DRGO) website for several years.  Many doctors protest 2nd amendment rights because, as they say; "we have to treat the victims of Firearms Violence".

(Which is a reasonable protest, but nobody mentions that many of the firearms victims they treat did not have the opportunity to defend themselves against violent felons because the victims were not armed.)

Dr. Wheeler is no less experienced, but he recognizes that firearms may also be used to protect the innocent ... which not all of his colleagues notice.

The DRGO website is one which I frequently visit, because it provides insights to firearms violence which are not commonly found ... well, any other place on the Internet.
________________________________________________

Proposition 63: Mother Jones Loves It!

The Most Annoying Anti-Gun Commercial EVER!

"California voters approve gun control measure Proposition 63" - Google Trending News

Watch it here!

(if you dare!!!!!)

Hey, don't blame me!   I left after the first ten seconds!

‘Not my president’

Yeah, I get it.

‘Not my president’: Thousands protest Trump in rallies across the U.S. - The Washington Post:

Nationwide demonstrations against the election of Donald Trump spilled into a second night Thursday with thousands of protesters surrounding his buildings in New York and Chicago ......
 “Not my president,” chanted some of the protesters, while others waved signs with the same message.

I felt much the same way when Obama was elected.

I would certainly be feeling that way had Hillary been elected!   I may not have rioted in the streets; but again, maybe I would have, except I'm a bit old for that.

And it's past my bed time.

I don't blame people for being disappointed about their preferred candidate not getting elected.

Actually, the guy I voted for won and I'm not feeling all that sanguine about it myself.

But after eight years of "The Most Transparent Presidency" provide by Barack "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" Obama, I needed a change.

I was ready for a candidate who was not a professional liar politician.   And Hideous Hillary wasn't any kind of a change.  Besides, she's the one who thought that "The Australian Solution" to gun control (total confiscation) was "something worth looking into".

And there was that one word which cost her the election:
 "You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables."

In the words of John Wayne: "No man likes to be called high smelling and low down".

So, screw you Hillary Rodham Clinton.

You got what you deserved; which is nothin'!

(Did you notice that my angst about choosing the least-bad candidate is in the process of being resolved?  I'm still not sure about Trump, but I'm damn certain that I would have voted for Soupy Sales before I voted for another darn Clinton,)

Rachael Maddow bemoans Donald Trump’s US election success

US ELECTION: MSNBC host bemoans Donald Trump’s US election success | World | News | Daily Express:

“ You're Awake. You’re not having a terrible, terrible dream. Also you’re not dead and you haven’t gone to hell. “This is your life now, this is our election now, this is us, this is our country – it’s real.”

Thank you, Rachael Maddow.

Way to celebrate the democratic process.

If I Could Turn Back Time/triggers

At the risk of repeating myself, I love it when Liberal Sore-Losers threaten to leave America.  I'm rather hoping that they will give up their American citizenship.

Enough American "popular" (ie: well-known, or 'notorious') public figures have threatened to do so in a moment of pique.

But the very sad fact is, when push comes to shove, we can't get rid of them!




Many entertainers are people whose artistic performances I enjoy, but I think their politics are wrong-minded.  More importantly, they are so full of themselves that they think the American public actually cares whether they stay or go!

I understand that it takes a strong ego to choose the life of an actor, a singer, or a politician.

Speaking as The Average Joe, I could not weather the approbation which would (rightfully) aimed at me if I chose to run for public office,  or to perform on stage.   I think highly of myself, but I recognize my flaws; for example, I'm far too modest, even though I am very nearly the very model of the modern major general.




But I was born here, I'll die here, and no matter what our political climate may be from one decade to the next ... I've BEEN in other countries.  They suck.

America is the land of my birth.   I fought for her.  I'm just the average Joe, but this is a good place.

More Post-Election thoughts

I said earlier that I've not had a good history of voting for winners.   Probably, that's because I tend to overthink my votes.

And while I have this sneaky little feeling that someone should congratulate me because someone I voted for actually won an election ... I'm wondering if it's okay to take the clothes-pin off my nose, yet.

As Rudyard Kipling may have said (but probably didn't): "I seen my duty, and I done it!"
Trump may be many things, but he's not subject to subpoena for past indiscretions which compromised American security.  Which his opponent still has to face.

(I'm still loving the "If he gets elected, we're all going to jail!" quote.   I don't believe it was a Hillary quote; the sources are dubious.  But I like it because this is the candidate I voted AGAINST.  Much as everyone else who voted for Trump, I suppose.)

And many readers may share my feelings of wanting to take a lot of showers, because Hillary Clinton was probably the only candidate in America who might make Donald Trump seem to be a preferable viable alternative for the highest office in the land.

BY THE WAY ... much was made in the last week of the campaign that Trump is/was/has been an odious candidate because of his philandering ways.  Considering Ex-president William Jefferson Clinton's history of Roving Eye and Wandering Hands (etc.), it seems that The Other Party tended not to make it as much an issue as it might have been, except for the very latest days in the campaign.

So ... yes, Trump was, and is, an odious candidate.

But we find ourselves in post election bluesville with two final thoughts:

1. Yes, he is a jerk but he's OUR jerk
2. He's Not Hillary

One thing is certain: if you don't vote, you can't complain about the people you might have voted for, or the people you might have voted against.   It's too late to vote now, but the next time we might see more people coming to the polls who usually think that their vote doesn't matter.

Donald Trump Will Be The Death Of The Second Amendment

Bob Owens at Bearing Arms warns us (too little, too late) that Trump is a RINO who probably not  support the the Second Amendment:

Donald Trump Will Be The Death Of The Second Amendment:
(Posted at 2:13 pm on February 15, 2016 by Bob Owens)

 Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz on Sunday said primary rival Donald Trump will erase the Second Amendment if he is elected. “And if Donald Trump becomes president, the Second Amendment will be written out of the Constitution, because it is abundantly clear that Donald Trump is not a conservative,” Cruz said on ABC’s “This Week.” Trump has regularly insisted on the campaign trail that he is in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. Cruz also said Trump would not “invest the [political] capital to confirm a conservative” nominee on the court. I have bad news for supporters of Mr. Trump; every bit of evidence that we have about Donald Trump’s political core suggests that Senator Cruz is probably correct. Trump’s personal history shows that he is, at best, a “Republican in Name Only,” (RINO), who has changed his party affiliation at least five times.

All of this may be true, and Trump may stab Second Amendment supporters in the back, as Owes warns.

But I'm not convinced.   I don't think that Trump has erasure of the 2nd Amendment on his agenda.
Whether he has its support in mind, we have yet to learn.

On the other hand ... what were our alternatives?

Hillary?  She categorically stated that one of her first actions as President would be to gut the Second Amendment.

If Trump is the president (which he is), and his worst action would be to not actively support the 2nd Amendment (counter to his campaign promises), then we are faced with a president which does NOT live up to his promises.   But he is  not yet an avowed antithetical foe of the constitution.

Considering the paltry alternatives, a lackadaisical president seems preferable to an ambitious president with an agenda.

I don't like the prospect of being a casualty to a President who doesn't much care about the Constitution; but I find it vaguely preferable to being dead-center on Hillary's campaign promises.

Perhaps we'll see that a President with no agenda is preferable to a President with a vindictive attitude toward the gun owners.

When the choices are this vague, a lack of intention to do harm is marginally preferable to an intention to kick ass.


Which leads us to Field Marshal Helmut Von Moltke's Four Types of Military Leaders:

In the mid-1800s a Prussian Field Marshal named Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke developed a means to evaluate his officers.

Smart & Lazy – I make them my Commanders because they make the right thing happen but find the easiest way to accomplish the mission. Smart & Energetic – I make them my General Staff Officers because they make intelligent plans that make the right things happen. Dumb & Lazy – There are menial tasks that require an officer to perform that they can accomplish and they follow orders without causing much harm. Dumb & Energetic – These are dangerous and must be eliminated. They cause things to happen but the wrong things so cause trouble.

In the case of Trump, we find a leader who is Smart and Energetic; not perhaps the best leader, but at least not dangerous.

Hillary, however much she may consider herself smart, is actually dumb.  But energetic?
Oh, yeah!

See the matrix .. that's a dangerous combination.

As a nation, we are fortunate that we avoided this.  we've already seen the consequences of a Commander in Chief who is dumb and energetic ... wasn't eight years of Obama enough to teach us?

(Apparently it was, else we would have elected another Obama for another eight years of bad timing and worse choices;  after all, she WAS 'in the room' when our Ambassador in Benghazi phoned begging for support when he was under attack, and she DID decide that her best option was to sit on her thumb!)

Today, the "Least Worst" candidate won

Today, Donald Trump was voted the less despicable candidate for the Presidency of the most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Arming Europe: United States Army

The biggest ammo shipment in 20 years arrives in Germany | Article | The United States Army:

NORDENHAM, Germany -

The largest single Army-run shipment of ammunition to Europe in more than two decades, more than 600 shipping containers worth, arrived in Germany Oct. 29. The Army and Air Force ammunition arrived at the port in Nordenham, Germany, where it was loaded onto trains and shipped to Miesau Army Depot, Germany, for storage and distribution. "The shipment by itself is special because it's over 620 containers," said Lt. Col. Brad Culligan, commander, 838th Transportation Battalion, Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command. "We continue to build up the presence in Europe. This will help with reassuring our allies, along with the common defense of Europe if needed."

SCOPE:
This is an interesting announcement.  Because ....

Standard dry shipping containers are 8 feet wide and 8.5 feet high, with a length of 20 or 40 feet.

Assuming each container is of the 'smallest' (20') length, then 620 containers lined up end to end will occupy a length of 12,400 feet .. or well over two miles.

Each "small"  container has a volume of about 1760 cubic feet.  
(8' x 8.5' x20')
For comparison, the front room of my apartment is smaller than 20'x 20' x 10'' or 4000 cubic feet.   Two containers of ammunition would fill my living room without room to turn around.

Two miles of ammunition.
That's a lot of "reassurance" to our allies ... and an impressive supplement to "the common defense of Europe".
If needed.

Somebody is gearing up for a war in Europe.

I hate elections

No, really.    In my whole life, I can't think of one national candidate that I voted for, who won.

With one exception.

Trying to break this horrible jinx, I tried to outfox it one year by voting for the candidate I most definitely did NOT want to win.

That's how Bill Clinton got elected President.

This year, I have the election returns playing on the radio in the Front Room.

I'm upstairs in the Hell Room (you know, the cluttered room with the desktop computer in it) where I can hear enough to know they're still talking about politics, but I can't make out what they say.

(Helpful Hint:  I've discovered that playing music helps.  I recommend Rolling Stones' "Hot Rocks" album: "I Can't Get No Satisfaction!")

Apparently, though, I'm not the only one who is mad as hell and just can't take it anymore:

How to Relieve Your Election Night Anxiety - Bloomberg View:

So it’s about to be over. Congratulations to all of us for surviving a truly terrible presidential campaign. Some of the terribleness was on the stump, but a lot it was generated by the all-politics-all-the-time news media and social networks. If, like many of us, you’re worn out by the whole thing, I would propose an innovative response: Don’t watch the election returns come in. Spend tonight doing something more useful.

Best idea I've heard all day!

Except for this one:

(display borrowed from gunowners.org)

Is this "data" protected by the First Amendment or the Second Amendment?

Defense Distributed, of 3D-Printed Gun Fame, Requests Rehearing on Denial of Its Injunction Against the State Department for Crushing Its Free Speech Rights - Hit&Run : Reason.com:

 In September ..., a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion to enjoin the State Department from censoring the American organization Defense Distributed. The Department back in 2013 threatened them with prosecution for hosting computer files that instruct 3D printers to make a plastic pistol, one the company calls "The Liberator." Defense Distributed have since then complied with the department's demand.

The issue has to do with distribution of data files which provide specifications to construct a firearm ... or more specifically, it's components.

To the best of my knowledge, 'data' is not a weapon.  That the data might be plans to build a pistol is immaterial.
(Although I'm not a lawyer, that doesn't mean I don't understand that "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of the Press" extends to the distribution of technical data; patents notwithstanding.  You can get specifications of any patented object via a request to the U.S. Patent office.)

One would think that the State Department conflates 3D printing with a manual on how to build an atomic bomb.

Okay, that sounds silly.  But apparently that is the thinking over in the Swamps of D.C.

If you wish to construct an atom bomb, I can understand that Foggy Bottom would be interested.  Probably even 'concerned'.

 (Photo: Defense Distributed)

A cheezy looking pistol?  Not so much.

First they came for the Glocks ...

Attorney General Maura Healey's investigation into Glock guns gets green light to continue | masslive.com:

A judge is allowing Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to continue her investigation into the gun manufacturer Glock.

 (from the comments section on the original article):

Get ready to turn in your Glocks folks... it is just around the corner!
Glad I have a Sig!

COMMENTS ARE INTERESTING THINGS: I didn't much care for that one.

Read "First They Came For The Socialists",   (Or Communists.   Or Glocks.)

First they came for the CommunistsAnd I did not speak outBecause I was not a CommunistThen they came for the SocialistsAnd I did not speak outBecause I was not a SocialistThen they came for the trade unionistsAnd I did not speak outBecause I was not a trade unionistThen they came for the JewsAnd I did not speak outBecause I was not a JewThen they came for meAnd there was no one leftTo speak out for me -

The Second Amendment protects ownership of ALL arms .. if we wish to live in a 'free state'.

 "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."


BUT IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT A REAL COMMENT LOOKS LIKE:

SgtLincolnOsiris says:November 7, 2016 at 09:16Statistics are like bikinis. What they show is interesting, but its what they cover up that you really care about.

• Chris in SC says:

  November 7, 2016 at 18:39

  You, sir, have won the internet today. Well played.

Baby Steps

Maine Ballot Initiative Requires Background Check to Borrow Gun for Hunting - Breitbart:

The Maine ballot initiative labeled Question 3 requires individuals to go through background checks before borrowing a gun from a friend for the purposes of hunting.

See, this is because if your friend is a felon and you don't know it, this law would make sure that before you lend him a hunting rifle so he can go hunting with you,  you can ... uh ...

I'm not sure.

Personally, I've never gone hunting with anyone I didn't know well enough that I believed it was safe to .. you know ... trust him with a loaded firearm?

I've never knowingly gone hunting with a felon.   Obviously, Maine thinks that anyone who wants to go hunting is an idiot.

But ... MAINE?
Really?

What I HAVE known  is that sometimes you get in the woods before you realize that there is a functional problem with your rifle.  Rare, but it happens.

(Once a friend brought the 'wrong ammunition' which didn't work in his rifle; I had a backup-rifle and ammunition, and he took home a fine 3-point buck that year.   His wife invited me to dinner the next month ... tender eating, and I was glad I was able to help out.)

So WHY does Maine think this is A Good Idea?

It is not because they think you are an idiot, or because they think your friends are felons.
It's not just because of "Gun Control".

It's because of "CONTROL".  This is another of those niggling 'baby steps' that Gun Control Fanatics "Advocates" take take to subtly undermine your (and my) Constitutional Rights.

They just cannot believe, let alone accept, that The Common Man has sufficient reasoning ability to judge the value of his friends.   They, and they alone, have the power to judge whether you are making the right decisions in your daily life.

I don't know anything about the politics in Maine, but I would be willing to bet my next two months Social Security checks against your weekly paycheck that every legislator in Maine who voted for this inane restriction has a "D" after his or her name.

The Camel's Nose Is Under Your Tent:

Control of your ability to judge whether your friends should handle a firearm is just the tip of their agenda.  Eventually, they want to control your rights to make every life decision.

But for the same reason that the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone which protects every other Constitutional Right, these yahoos attack it first.

And that's what they are doing,

They don't have to win every question, but citizens DO .. because when WE lose a talking point, we will never get it back.  They have the power to attack our rights; we only have the vote in response.

They don't expect this to pass, but they plant the proposal to position themselves for the next egregious imposition on your rights.

Every time you don't vote, someone undermines your life style.

VOTE!

Who are you calling an Old Joke?

He:  Hypothetically speaking, would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
She: Well, that's a lot of money.  Probably.
He:  Here's a dollar.  Will you sleep with me?
She: Of course not!   What kind of woman do you think I am?
He:  We've already established that.   What we're doing now is merely haggling over money.