Two-Faced about Colorado Carry Bill, because USPSA!

I find myself ... to my amazement ... giving credence to  Liberal cautionary remarks.

Gun bill to allow "constitutional carry" passes GOP-led committee:

 “If you’re legally eligible to possess a firearm, you should be able to carry that weapon concealed for self-defense without begging for government’s permission,” said Sen. Tim Neville, R-Littleton, the bill’s sponsor. He called it “common-sense legislation.”
 Mary Parker of Ken Caryl, who has a concealed-carry permit, opposed the bill. She said there’s not enough training required now to carry a gun, and allowing untrained people to walk around armed won’t end well.

I've been training people for six years now, and I've never rejected anyone from my "INTRODUCTION TO USPSA" class FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT they are a total incompetent.

That's why I'm there; to teach the "incompetents" to become competent.

Having said that, I admit that I've passed too many "Total Incompetents" through the training regimen.  Usually, they're just unfamiliar with the concept of "drawing from a holster" and it's obvious that they will improve with experience... so we treat that First Match as a "Training Experience" and allow them to continue.

If they're "irredeemably totally incompetent", they usually figure it out for themselves and they don't show up for the monthly matches (unless they have elicited some private/personal training; not a common thing.)

OTHER THAN THAT:

I've said it before, I'll say it again, here and now:

SOME PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HANDLE A GUN!

What would we do without NewsWeek? (Think for ourselves?)

It's a wonderful thing to be a writer for NEWSWEEK:

When there's a Democratic administration, you get to write about a Saint; and when there's a Republican in the White House, you get to write about the asshole leading the country.

Either way, you have an eager readership just waiting to read (and agree with you) about whatever you have to say about the current administration!

Donald Trump’s Congressional Lackeys Are Threatening Washington D.C.’s Gun Laws:

 Now proven largely correct, I’m willing to bet there’s one consequence to Donald Trump’s presidency that didn’t occur to you: For the first time in 40 years, due to the Republican Congress emboldened by a new president, guns might return to the streets of our nation’s capital en masse, no longer subject to the controls that have kept gun violence in check for decades.

This is just one example about the opinions propounded in SlewsWeek;
The current administration is "permitting" Americans in DC to exercise their constitutional rights ... and it is A Bad Thing!

DC is "no longer subject to the controls that have kept gun violence in check for decades.

Yeah, right.

The District of Columbia has been among the top fifteen most lawless (in terms of "Gun Violence") cities in America for decades, but NewsWeek Magazine typifies it as a city which has kept " gun violence in check for decades."

This has been a town (?) which has been (in 13th place in the nation along with its sister city, Baltimore, in 4th place) so lawless that criminals, crooks, gang-bangers and other Bad Guys have been moving from Chicago (18th place) to the DC area just because they know they are less likely to be prosecuted for "gun violence" .. because DC wants so badly to maintain its (unlikely) image as a "violence free" place to live.

If it wasn't for all the armed body-guards protecting elected officials, there would be NO protection for "The Average Joe".  All you have to do in DC to protect yourself is to have a half-dozen suits forming a protective circle around you; everyone else is assumed to be without protection, because NO GUNS ALLOWED!

The rest of the citizens have been advised to carry a five-dollar bill in their wallet, no credit cards, and to meekly "give it up" when confronted by muggers.

Where is the outrage?

Who can carry a gun?  (Nobody, except armed, licensed "Security Guards" ... which the Average citizen cannot afford!)

Gun Control sucks.  It keeps the criminals .. muggers, gang-bangers, etc. ... well armed and everyone else (who can't afford a hired bodyguard) without defense.   Unless, of course, they're willing to "carry" even though it's a violation of the law, or perhaps if they are "privileged" to carry a firearm .. which means very few without  "Political Influence".

Here's how you can get a Concealed Carry License in the District of Columbia:

The District of Columbia is a "May Issue" entity: you must have a permit to carry a firearm, but permits are rarely issued.

In Washington, D.C., all firearms must be registered with the police, by the terms of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.
The same law also prohibited the possession of handguns, even in private citizens' own homes, unless they were registered before 1976. However, the handgun ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, and therefore D.C.'s ban on handguns was unconstitutional.^[9] 

In a word:   NO!   "They cannot keep you from owning a firearm!"

SSA and Public Financing of "Those Who Will Not Work"

A recent kerflufle regarding 'senior citizens" and "anti-gun groups" highlights the extremes to which gun control people will go to define Constitutional rights to ... as many firearms owners as possible.

(See the bottom of this post for details.)

The Social Security Administration (SSA) took aim at senior citizens who find it more convenient to find an advocate to handle their Social Security payments/obligations, than to sort through the confusing myriad of laws.

SSA (a federal agency) proposed that anyone who authorized an "advocate" to guide their fiduciary rights was obviously "mentally deficient", and therefore should not be "allowed" to possess a firearm, on the grounds that they are among the "Non Compos Mentis":  ("not of sound mind; mentally incapable of managing one's affairs.) 

Why the SSA should make this leap of logic is unclear.

Or is it?

Their mandate is to insure that workers who have contributed to FICA deductions from their paychecks (involuntary contribution to both Social Security and Medicare) for all of their working rights, should in post-retirement years be entitled to those benefits.

Why would they want to do that?  Inquiring Federal Minds want to know, because it's not in their Best Interests


The Answer is:  It's The Feds!
One guess is that, since SSA (and Medicare) payments have willy-nilly been entered into a "Slush Fund" status (from which various federal agencies have not been restricted from plundering at will to support other 'social benefits'), the Feds have recently realized that they have inadequate funds to pay the earned social obligations to the Baby Boomers who are now retiring in record numbers.

It stands to reason that the Feds are unwilling to search for the money which has been funded by these programs to repay the original investors.

Unfortunately, The Feds have been "robbing Peter to pay Paul" for so long, that Peter is beginning to wonder how the United States government intends to repay the stolen funds.

All of the Government Programs stem from the same source; the elected members of the U.S. Government, and their method of meeting the fiduciary obligations which they have arbitrarily forced upon us.

We're paying illegal aliens, people who refuse to work, and other neer-do-wells who will re-elect irresponsible politicians to office over and again just so they can be the happy recipients of a mutual admiration society;  

"you pay us to vote for you, and in return we will not question how you manage the funds into which nobody expects us to contribute".

Now that the Federal Government finds itself in a bind  between tax-payers and tax-delinquents, they have some difficult decisions to make.
Shakespeare, in his famous soliloquy from Hamlet wonders:

To be, or not to be, that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,And by opposing end them: to die, to sleepNo more; and by a sleep, to say we endthe heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocksthat Flesh is heir to?

Unfortunately, that is a question which the Ruling Democrats have for too long found themselves unwilling to face.   They rely on the votes of those-who-get, rather than those-who-give.

That's about to change;  we hope!

 We Hope that Donald Trump knows more about Finances than Politics.

 We Hope that a new administration will pay less attention to the 'needs' of "Those Who Will Not Work", and more intention to those who contribute to the welfare our our Country.

 We Hope that Federal Funding will be directed more to creation of lesser-skill-level jobs (yes, computers are undermining our society, and we need to find a way to balance technology and society) or to training entry-level job applicants to a useful service industry\
(like that's going to happen, but hope springs eternal, etc.)

We don't expect that our hopes will be answered, which is probably why we keep electing the same losers to represent us in D.C. 


THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST:

NRA and Republicans find unlikely ally on rollback of gun control rule: science | US news | The Guardian:

The Social Security Administration would ultimately receive more than 90,000 comments on its proposed rule for doing this – meaning that more people wrote in to protest against the measure than the number of people who would ultimately be affected. Supporters of the Obama rule said it focused on a relatively narrow group of extremely impaired people. “This rule only impacts people who have been determined to be so severely disabled through a mental disorder that they can do no sort of gainful activity. They can’t hold a job even part time. Their mental disability is so severe that the Social Security Administration has determined that funds cannot be paid directly to them,” said Lindsay Nichols, a staff attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

"Mentally Impaired" Recipients of Social Security?

Unless I read this wrong, the authors of this article consider that anyone who willing accepts a firearm in his/her home (let along WILLFULLY DESIRING to own a firearm) ... must be crazy.


NRA and Republicans find unlikely ally on rollback of gun control rule: science | US news | The Guardian:

For once, science is on the side of the National Rifle Association and Donald Trump, according to prominent experts on mental health and violence. 

(Reluctantly stated?)

 A cohort of researchers and civil rights advocates say congressional Republicans were right to roll back an Obama-era rule that would have barred certain mentally impaired recipients of social security benefits from owning guns. The Obama rule “is fundamentally not a rational policy”, said Paul Appelbaum, a psychiatrist who directs the law, ethics and psychiatry division at Columbia University. “It’s not a rule that would be very likely to make us safer.”

The "Obama-era rule" cited, but not defined, is that a retired person ("recipient of social security benefits") who chooses to have a third-party negotiate his/her retirement benefits package under the American Social Security Laws",  may (should?) be arbitrarily defined as "Mentally Defective" .

("Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.")

The policy, finalized in the last weeks of the Obama administration, would have disqualified from gun ownership an estimated 75,000 people who have mental illnesses or disabilities and are assigned a representative to manage their social security benefits. The people targeted by the rule “are not a particularly high-risk group for violent behavior”, Appelbaum said.

First Point:  These people are usually those who have sufficient mental capacity to decide (for their own reasons!) that they choose not to manage their own benefits package negotiations.   Which is not unreasonable, because the federal rules are sometimes contradictory and often obtuse.   It seems only reasonable that individuals may decide to appoint a judiciary arbitrator ... and it's constitutionally supported.

Second Point:  Why in the WORLD would the Social Security Administration make such an arbitrary ruling, entirely unsupported by other rules of law (or the Constitution!) which effects only retirees?

Third Point:  If a person is sufficiently 'in his right mind' to appoint a designee (much akin to an "Attorney of Record" or a "Trustee"), why would that appointment be an ipso facto argument that the person is incapable of handling his/her own legal affairs?

It seems reasonable to assume that the SSA is voluntarily accepting the general Rule of Federal Government, which is to deem anyone who applies for Federal benefits as a total fucking loser and may safely be treated with disdain, if not disrespect.  (That also includes the collateral assumption that the person in question is not a present or past Federal Employee, which of course automatically elevates said person to the Intelligentsia!)

This leads directly to the argument that anyone who trusts his government deserves exactly that he gets ... which is at best "poor service" and a least disdain, insult, embarrassment and intimidation.

That's what Government is good for, and nothing better.

Trust me: I was a Federal Employee for two years; the only redeeming factor for my service was that the people I "serviced" were entitled to shoot back at me.   And they did .. if poorly, with great enthusiasm!

I never really blamed them for that; it seemed like a reasonable response then, and it still does.

READING! (Col. Jeff Cooper, et al: Shit You Need To Know!)

SayUncle: They see me patrollin’. They hatin’:

just about every writhing related to handguns today, can directly be traced to Jeff Cooper.

It doesn't happen often, but every now and then some KnowzNothing has a bad thing to say about The Colonel.

SayUncle is far too wise to "go there", and he realizes the great benefits that Col. Jeff Cooper has lent to such competitive entities as USPSA/IPSC and similar activities.

But not everyone has such good sense.

I have a lot of opinions, and as a personal favor I'll spare you the recitation.  If you haven't  even read, let alone OWN, Cooper's "Gargantuan Gun Gossip",  *(both ONE and Two, let alone THREE)* you don't know shit.

Cooper's great about providing you all the SHIT you need to know about guns, gun safety, and the gun community/milieu.

And I use the term "shit" advisedly, because there's a shit-load of stuff about the gun culture that you can't get without either (A) spending thirty years in the culture, or (B) reading Cooper's accumulated works on the subject.

Best if you can do both, but for some folks it's a little late to attempt to grasp 30 years of culture in a single session;  Cooper attempts to give us at least a shadow of the values of Gun Culture, which nobody else (with the possible exception of perhaps Skeeter Skelton) has managed to do in the past half-century.

Oh, and of course Robert Ruark is on your "Must Read" list, for all times!

I find myself on the verge of providing a reading list for my friends, and that's A Bad Idea.  It's best that we discover our own "favorite author" list,

The Shooting Sports comes with a century (or two) of literature, which non-shooters neither know nor appreciate.  The writers (from Robert Service through Ernest Hemingway to Peter Hathaway Capstick  .. well, you name it) have provided the glory of the Gun World to millions of readers over the past century and longer.

...

I am of the opinion that people in general need to develop and perfect three social skills:

(1) Shooting ... quickly, accurately,  ... where and and when it is needed;
(2) Situational Awareness, so that the first skill is never needed;
(3) Civilized Discourse, so that the first two skills are less likely to be needed.

This isn't to say that the three skills are mutually incompatible; only to say that there is an accelerating stratus of skills to be learned, with the hope that each may minimize the need to descend to the next highest level.

About that 2012 Clackamas Mall Shooting .... ARMED CITIZEN!

Oregon Divide | Indiegogo:

On December 11th, 2012 at Clackamas Town Center in Portland Oregon, a lone gunman walked into the crowded shopping mall and started shooting.  He killed two people and wounded a teenager before he placed the barrel of his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle in his mouth and pulled the trigger.

This is a frightfully telling story about a gunman in a public place.

The only element missing is ... why did the shooter kill himself?

Because one armed civilian (even though it was a Gun Free Zone) pointed his gun at the killer.

The Civilian didn't have to fire a shot ... the killer, noticing that he had been 'targeted' .... handled the dirty work.   Blew his own head apart.  (One Alpha)

Gun Free Zones ...  the civilian was NOT prosecuted for carrying in a GFZ!

And you know, the Main Stream Media won't tell you about that Armed Citizen!

(cf: Bearing Arms)

Racist Me

I'm a white male member of the NRA, and I haven't shot anybody for ... like ... MONTHS!

No, really!

I hope this won't look bad on my resume.

"Whiteness" Presenter Bashes NRA, Says All Mass Shooters Are White Males - YouTube:

Published on Apr 6, 2016 Charlotte Childress, with her sister Harriet Childress, give a presentation on hierarchy at "whiteness history month" at Portland Community College. In this excerpt, they bash the NRA, white males, say all mass shooters are white, talk about the psychology behind wanting to talk about white mass shooters without actually talking about guns, and framing the NRA as a hierarchical organization, thus making it evil.

Sneaky, dirty rats

Trump calls Islamic State 'sneaky, dirty rats' during Hannity interview - YouTube:

 Jan 26, 2017 President Donald Trump discussed the fight against ISIS, replacing Obamacare, his Supreme Court nominee and much more in an interview with Sean Hannity in the White House.

I wish I had said that ... I could have, but nobody would have listened.
Oh, and I don't have the ability to pick the perfect nomenclature for the "sneaky, dirty rats" which threaten our country.