Saturday, May 20, 2017

watermelon thigh squeeze

watermelon thigh squeeze practice - YouTube:

Okay, I'm not looking for a date.
Any more.

Ever.

Okay?







No Big Magazines for YOU, California!

SF forces gun suppliers to agree to halt sale of high-capacity kits - SFGate:
(May 16, 2017)
San Francisco extracted a legal settlement Tuesday from online gun suppliers who may have tried to sidestep state and local bans on high-capacity gun magazines by advertising “repair kits” that could be used to assemble the forbidden weapons’ cartridge holders
But the question is ... can San Francisco do this ... legally? *
 (City Attorney Dennis ) Herrera sued five out-of-state companies in February, accusing them of violating state laws prohibiting the sale of gun magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. He said Tuesday the companies have agreed to a 10-year settlement that forbids them from selling or advertising the repair kits in California and requires them to notify customers on their websites that the kits and the large-capacity magazines are illegal in the state. 
I had thought this was a San Francisco ' local ordnance, but NOOoooo .. it's state law!
 (See the above reference for full text)

“Californians have spoken clearly. We don’t want these weapons in our communities,” Herrera said in a statement. “I have zero tolerance for gun sellers who try to skirt the law.”

Well, magazines are not weapons, but I catch your drift.

The answer to my above question is .. oh, hell yes! *


I won't ever go to San Francisco again ..
but I have family down there, which are too important to me, for me to be scared off by a bunch of hopolophobes.

So I will still go down to the wilds of California from time to time, but only carrying 5-shot and 6-shot revolvers.   No semi-automatics ... I get it.

But if California wants to throw me in jail for carrying a tiny revolver (or .380) for personal defense ... they can do so and kiss my patootie.

I'm kidding, of course.


Take away my stuff, will you? SUE YOU, I will!

Today, May 18,the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) announced it is supporting, along with the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), an important Second Amendment lawsuit challenging California’s ban on the possession of standard capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The lawsuit, filed by NRA attorneys, titled Duncan v. Becerra,challenges California’s ban on possession of these standard capacity magazines because the law violates the Second Amendment, the due process clause, and takings clause of the United States Constitution.
What this article is suggesting is that California CANNOT confiscate private property without addressing the constitutional rights of the owners.

The first  *(Due Process Clause)* is that the owner cannot be deprived of his property without an actual legal action, in which he may defend the ownership of his property in court.

The second *(Taking Clause)* is that the owner, even if he loses the court decision, cannot be deprived of his property without compensation ... presumably, for the monetary value of the property which is being confiscated.
(GREY AREA ALERT: with a physical article, it may be sufficient to present a receipt for the original purchase; for landed property, such as a house and lot, the valuation of the property may be the cause of many more legal actions.)
DETAILS:

It occurs to me that some folks may not be aware of the details of the "Due Process Clause", and the "Takings Clause", of the Constitution  Here are the details of both clauses of the 5th Amendment:

Expired? Who ... ME?

My CHL *(State issued Concealed handgun License)* expired on the 17th.

That means I have to go to the county sheriff's office, get my picture taken, pay them a couple of bucks (I think it's on the order of $15 for the processing fees), and then wait for a week for them to send me a new CHL.  I doubt they need to take my finger prints again, but if they do that's okay.
They already have them on file, have for years since I got my first CHL from this office.

This is the third time I've had a renewal (I got my first CHL in 1966, but it expired LONG ago!) and as I recall it takes about a week for them to make a new card ... which looks a lot like a drivers' license.

It's my fault, really; but how often do you look at those cards to see when they expire?

Credit cards are nice, they write you a letter to let you know when yours is about to expire, and make it really easy.

But the sheriff is not exactly 'customer oriented'; and they need to know you're still alive before they re-issue.  (Credit cards don't care; they know you have a bank account, and they'll charge you even if some stranger is using your card, unless you deliberately cancel the card!)

This may be a good time for you to check your CHL (or whatever passes for a concealed carry license in your area) and make plans to update it before it expires.   Note that the cops CAN arrest you for carrying with an expired CHL ... depending on the local laws.

I think the sheriff considers CHL processing to be a mundane administrative chore .. they only schedule two days a week, and always after lunch  (if I recall correctly) to process either new or renewals.  So I'll have to make an appointment, and then get a haircut; nobody wants to license a handgun owner with scraggly hair.

Hell, if it weren't for scraggly hair, I wouldn't have no hair at all!

But nobody wants to look like a fugitive on their CHL picture!


The Decline and Fall of the British Empire

Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK - NaturalNews.com:

As reported by The New American, British subjects seeking advice about what are and are not permissible self-defense instruments found some recently on a police web site. It is sponsored by the British government's Police National Legal Database. Q589: Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy? The police answer: The only fully legal self defence product... is a rape alarm.
Chaperone┬« Baysik Personal Rape Alarm with Test ButtonIf a British subject picks up an object to defend against a violent intruder, that is a crime.  Even if they only threaten, and don't actually USE it against their aggressor.


The only LEGAL alternative to a rape alarm (what the heck is a "Rape Alarm"?) would be a squirt bottle of dye which could be used to easily identify the intruder after he has had his way with you, your family, and your home.
StoppaRed Mini Defence Spray


But if you squirt it in his eyes, that also  may be a criminal offense.

The intruder, if caught, will probably not be charged.  The resident will most likely be charged.

Pick up a knife?   You're toast, Baby!

Aren't you glad you're you?

Product image
Welcome to America ... Land of The Free and Home of the Saved!

You don't know what you think you know; and the difference can be important

Massad Ayoob  Blog Archive  THE VERDICT IN TULSA:

 Officer Shelby had observed erratic behavior from a large man who appeared to her to the under the influence of PCP. This would later be supported by evidence: Crutcher had PCP within his body, and a quantity of it in his car. After repeatedly ignoring lawful commands, he suddenly reached to the open window of his car, as if for a weapon. It was enough to cause the male officer present to fire his TASER at Crutcher, and enough to cause Shelby to fire the single pistol shot that killed him.
The difference between a trained LEO and a "Private Citizen" (no matter what your training) is big enough to take your breath away.

Literally.

Officer Shelby had LEO training which would cause her to believe that a suspect under threat of address might respond in an extreme manner ... such as reaching for a firearm to resist arrest.

A person (not a suspect, if you're not an LEO) who is confronted by a 'citizen' pointing a firearm at him might legitimately reach for a gun; if you shoot him, you are a murderer.

Forget all that "Citizen Arrest" BS.   You, as a citizen have few rights beyond those afforded the person you may be accosting, for whatever reason.

Unless you are accosting an unknown & aggressive trespasser on your own property, and are not a LEO and have not identified yourself as such .. you are an aggressive felon, in the eyes of the court.

(Very little wriggle-room there, and circumstances are subject to the eye of the interpreter.)

As a private citizen, you not, with confidence that your actions will be acknowledged under"Castle Doctrine" guidelines shoot at someone who is not moving aggressively toward you, or not threatening you with a lethal weapon.  *

However, in most american counties ... if you're in your home and someone breaks in and threatens you ... most counties will assume that deadly offense if a legitimate defense if you can't tell that your assailant is NOT there with the intention of physical meyham.
*(Some local exceptions may apply; if you don't know them, don't expect them to justify your actions. Exceptions are rare, but MAY apply for your physical response using only fists and boots, or apply with a firearm only if you are a juvenile, female, old person, abused domestic partner of record, absolute stranger ... etc.)
I am not a Lawyer, nor do I play one on television.

But I am sufficiently well-read to realize that the concept of "Castle Doctrine" may not be completely legally agreed upon in all states, if at all.


If, under the circumstances, you are completely convince that a home intruder intends to do murder or "grievous bodily harm" (and who can read their mind?) you decide to defend yourself, your family, your home with aggressive lethal means ... you're probably much better protected from legal challenges in America than you might be in England .. which espouses the concept of Proportional Defense.

I know, I've said this all before.

I'll say it again.

You don't need to read it, if you already know everything.

"Allowing"?

 Allowing more Minnesotans to freely carry guns seems unwise | Duluth News Tribune:

 It wasn't that I thought the NRA and its members had some ill intent when I decided to discontinue my membership; it was because of the evermore unlikeable image of the NRA to many people.
Odd, that this writer decided that he should quit the NRA because of what OTHER people think.
(You may want to read the original post to GROK the context.)
PERSONAL:I have no objections to his decision to quit the NRA; I've personally quit the NRA a dozen times over the past 50 years .. .for reasons which were personal, and not related to what someone else may think.
.
I still don't much like the NRA; I get tired of getting "personal emergency letters" from La Pierre, hounding me for more money.   I'm retired; I need my money for ammunition

So, "This Guy" quit because of public pressure?  Because anti-gun groups, founded by a half-dozen zillionaires, are using their money to turn their own personal preferences into laws which infringe on MY private space?

And "This Guy" has made this decision to quit the battle because his friends and neighbors wonder if he's such a nice guy, after all?  He has allowed the opinion of others to prevail upon his personal judgement, because either he is not sure of his own judgement, or he is fearful of the opinion of his neighbors.  So who needs him?
(Thought: move to another neighborhood; your neighbors don't deserve you.  On second though, because you kowtowed to the opinion of others instead of forming your own judgement, perhaps you deserve them.)
America was built by Individualists; people who knew what this country looked like when outsiders, fearing an armed populace, imposed  severe restrictions upon their civil rights.

Now these  "NEW outsiders" who are nominally INSIDERs are actively trying to impose these same restrictions on me (not us ... ME, personally!)

In 1776 (and before, and later), the OUTSIDERS were the British, who didn't like it that "free men" thought they should have some say about what laws were reasonable, vs those laws which kept them from their freedoms.

Now these new OUTSIDERS are international fat-cats who share the same nationality as we do, but they don't share the same respect for the Constitution.

They want to force us to reject our freedoms, because they fear another revolution.   Which is odd, because their actions are driving America into a mini-revolution; one which has already started.

So far, it's a war of words; a war for men's minds.

Here are some words to ponder:




H/T: Sebastian

Friday, May 19, 2017

"What Did I Do Wrong?"

WATCH: “Shattered” co-author Amie Parnes on the many mistakes that doomed Hillary Clinton’s campaign - Salon.com:

In “Shattered,” the first must-read book to emerge from the 2016 presidential election, political reporters Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes provide a detailed autopsy of what their subtitle calls “Hillary Clinton’s doomed campaign.” Their account — drawn from background interviews with numerous people who worked in or around the Clinton campaign — is controversial for many reasons. As they admit in their introduction, Allen and Parnes assumed all along that Clinton would win, and that for all her strategic missteps and messaging problems they were probably chronicling the election of America’s first female president. Only on the night of last Nov. 8, they write, did the full meaning of their reporting become clear.
Dear Hillary;
Let me tell you the story of a man named Job  [cue banjo theme song]

Job was a poor man, barely kept his family fed.  He observed the sabbath and kept it holy, paid his tithe faithfully, was diligent in his work and never spoke ill of any man.
Then one day his daughter turns up pregnant.
His son runs away with someone named "Maurice".
His wife admits that she has contracted a social disease, and she's not sure from whom.
The sky clouds over, the rains pour down, washing his crops away.
His oxen are struck by lightening.
His barn burns down.
He develops running pustules on his face.
And all of his neighbors turn their backs to him
.
Job falls to his knees, looks up into the stormy skies, and weeps:
"Lord, why hast thou forsaken me?"
The rains stop for a minute.   The clouds part, a beam of brilliant golden sunlight catches job, and a deep voice booms out:

There's something about you, Job, that just pisses me off!


Thursday, May 18, 2017

Jason Chaffetz ... lays out Reasons for leaving Washington DC. - YouTube

Jason Chaffetz ... lays out Reasons for leaving Washington DC. - YouTube: Published on May 18, 2017 Jason Chaffetz Tears up as he thinks about his kids, and lays out his reasons for leaving his position in Washington DC. He speaks about his conversation with President Donald Trump....



This is important. Chaffetz is one of the most .... aggressive and believable Conservatives in Congress, and he's leaving for reasons which are not quite clear, other than he would prefer to spend more time with his family.

Just one more reason to admire his integrity.

I'm going to miss his effect on the current administration.

If you're interested, here's an interview:




Dumb Thief Steals Airsoft Gun After Handing in Resume

Dumb Thief Steals Airsoft Gun After Handing in Resume - YouTube:

Uploaded on Dec 12, 2011
Check out what happened at Airsoft and Hobby Stores in Santa Clarita. Pretty amazing how stupid some people are.



Old news, but still ... geez!

OWIEE!

Police: Suspect Shot In Groin While Trying To Rob Man With Gun  CBS Philly:
PHILADELPHIA (CBS)—Police say a suspect was shot in the groin while trying to rob a man in Philadelphia on Tuesday. It happened around 2:37 p.m. in the 4800 block of Palethorp Street.

There's an AP for that:


Oregon gun nuts ... another gun bill.

They Never Give Up | Oregon Firearms Federation:
After the failure of their last bill that sought to force gun dealers into the mental health business,House Rep (and gubernatorial hopeful) Knute Buehler and anti-gun extremist Senator Elizabeth Hayward are back with a watered down version. HB 3460, introduced today, would require the Oregon Health Authority to create “a firearm safety and suicide prevention program.”
Go read the whole thing

Universal Background Checks = Registration!

THIS is What's Wrong with Universal Background Checks - The Truth About Guns:
 Universal background checks are a bad idea that leads to even worse ideas. They should be opposed and repealed.
I keep reading articles about UBC (Universal Background Checks) as part of the process required for transfer of firearms from one person to another, and I can't believe that everyone who writes about the "process" misses the most important point:

Universal Background Checks = REGISTRATION!
Has nobody noticed that when you submit to a UBC, during purchase of a firearm, you must submit detailed information about the gun you are proposing to purchase?

Why is this significant?

Person "A" wishes to purchase a firearm from Person "B", so both parties submit to a UBC,   No problem, so the purchase is .. well, not "Approved", but at least not "Dis-approved".

What information is required for a background check.

There's a lot about the purchaser, a little about the seller, and a bit about the firearm in question.

Why do we need to submit information about the firearm being traded?

Make, Model, Serial number.   Isn't that part of the form filled out?

Form 4473 is the standard paperwork required to properly complete a firearms transfer.

 HERE is a copy of the standard form 4473, necessary to register any gun sale.

Notice that the purpose of the form is to determine whether the purchaser of a firearm is legitimately and legally authorized to purchase a firearm.

Notice that Section "D" includes full information about the firearm being transferred: including make, model and serial number.

Complete the form?  Buy the gun?

You have just registered the gun.

Now our kindly Uncle Sam knows that Person "A" just bought a gun  (with full information including make, model, caliber, serial number, etc) from "Person "B", and even if Person "B" didn't register the gun ... he is now known as the seller.   Isn't that just too cute?

And Person "A" is registered as the proud new owner of the gun.

And Person "B" (the seller) is also registered .. in case he didn't go through the process (as in: private transaction) of letting Uncle know that he purchased a firearm in a very private transaction ... he looks Not Very Good because he didn't tell Uncle that he owns an unregistered gun.

(Tsk Tsk ... this will NOT look good on your Resume!)

Don't believe in registration?  Too bad, Charley .. your loving uncle has established a record of ownership going back to both you, and the seller.   What do you want to bet that Uncle can't .. or WON'T .. track any other firearms transaction by you or the seller?  Paranoid much?

Don't like that?  Too bad ... it's the law.  And you always thought that "Registration" was for people in "other states".

WHY does the form include information about the gun?  The obvious justification for the form is to determine that the seller is legally someone who is not forbidden to purchase a gun (insanity, felony .. whatever reason why you shouldn't buy a gun) but why include the information about the gun?

Because your Uncle wants to know what guns are being transferred (and are now being owned) from whom and by whom.  Including your social security number (which you have been PROMISED will not be used to trace your chattel!)  By completing the purchase, and a 'gun show' .. you have just registered the gun.

Did the person who sold you the gun buy it in a private transaction, where no 'registration' was required?  Gee, he now is flagged as an "unregistered gun owner' and he will be followed through every sales transaction that pops up on the Internet, because he didn't register the gun when he bought it.

Shrug ... just part of doing business, expect Uncle to look over your shoulder at every opportunity.

He may not pay much attention NOW, but in the future ... if your name pops up in some other investigatory venue ... every thing you do and think and say (and every firearms transaction) will be flagged.   Yes, Big Brother is definitely watching you.  Not actively, but very completely.

Paranoia much?  

Probably not enough.




Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Money for nothing ... chicks for free!

Deportation fears stop some LA County immigrants from applying for EBT program:
(May 10, 2016)
Los Angeles County officials say they are hearing stories that immigrants with legal status or those who are undocumented are staying away from health and social services programs. At a county Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday, Supervisor Hilda Solis said she’s hearing from residents in her district that pregnant women are afraid to go to hospitals to deliver their babies. Los Angeles law enforcement officials as well as those with various county departments have said they will not share immigration status with ICE.
So you want to immigrate to the States, but you don't want to take advantage of all the Free Money that America offers its citizens under the Welfare program?

Good.

Get a job, become a citizen, contribute to the common welfare and then feel free to take advantage of American welfare programs after you have paid your fair share.

I'm sick of extra-nationals coming to America only to abuse the programs which we have established to take care of our own.

Not every American is as heartless as I am on this point.  

Most of us are sympathetic to citizens who have issues which require them to rely on the largess of the Public Trust to help them get past the Hard Times.

But people who come to America only to suck on the public teat?

Not so much.

And if you legitimately decline public support because you know that you have not contributed?

Very good for you ... you are a responsible new citizen and we are happy to include you.   WE will help you to find a job, support yourself and your family, and welcome you to the community of hard-working who just want to do the best they can with the (often limited) means they have.

Every one else, those who sneaked into this country because you think you can get money for nothing?

Not so good for you.

You're liars, you're cheats, you are an imposition on our trust, and frankly we don't need more never-do-wells whose intent is to take take away from the rest of us, because we will let you.  

Monday, May 15, 2017

It's hard to get a baby-sitter in the middle of a burgulary

Homeowner Shoots, Kills Man Who Allegedly Brought 7-Year-Old Son Along for Home Invasion - Breitbart:

According to the San Antonio Express-News, the suspect allegedly tried to break in through a window in the very room where the homeowner happened to be asleep. The female homeowner heard the suspect trying to make entry into her home, armed herself, and fired at least two rounds. Police arrived in time to transport the alleged intruder to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The woman was in her mid-30s and the alleged intruder was his mid-30s. 
Police also discovered the alleged intruder’s 7-year-old son at the scene. San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said of the young boy, “We’re gonna get help for him.”
The man must have been either desperate, or depraved, to bring his son along with him when he attempted to perform a "Home Invasion" in an occupied dwelling.

Either that, or he was trying to "break his kid in" on the Family Business.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does:

Perhaps he was as stupid as he sounds.

It's gonna be hard for the child to work through all of this.   I doubt if he really understands it.

I know I don't.

Probably, it's going to be difficult for police to explain to the lad that "Your Father Was As Dumb As A Box Of Rocks, And We Expect You To Turn Out Better".

It's worth a try, I guess.

I have no great expectations.  Stay tuned about seven years from now for The Rest Of The Story.

Fratricide is Religious; don't f**k with my religion!

Anti-Travel Ban Lawyer Leans on Argument that Honor Killings Are Islamic:
 
The lawyer representing the State of Hawaii in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today has stated the collection of data with regards honor killings should be removed from President Trump’s Executive Order in order to “pass constitutional muster”.
In other words, it's okay to kill your sister if she acts in a manner which contravenes the strict interpretation of your shared religion?   Is that the tenet?

And if some person calls on the Constitution to justify murder because he claims it is a religious tenet
 .. that should be considered acceptable?

That is the most despicable thing I have ever heard.

The Constitution is the one thing which should never be used to justify immoral acts.

And this thing ... "honor killings" of a family member ... is the most immoral act possible.

That is not America, and anyone who leans on the Constitution to justify despicable immorality is the most horrible person imaginable.   They should NOT consider themselves part of America.

FOAD!

How the Illinois House can help combat gun crime - but they won't

Where I live, I can (and do) carry every day.  In fact, I'll be going to my local sheriff office tomorrow to renew my CHL license.'   For the third time ... CHL must be renewed every five years; the cost is $5,

I feel good about that.   I've never been threatened by a gun, or witnessed firearms violence in the 20+ years I've lived here.

How many people in Chicago (etc.) can make that claim?

How the Illinois House can help combat gun crime - Chicago Tribune:
Will allowing the state to regulate dealers prevent all guns from getting in criminal hands? Of course not. But allowing the state to require dealers to improve security measures will help prevent gun theft and burglary. Recently, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives stated that since 2012, the earliest year for which data are available, burglaries from licensed dealers have increased by 48 percent, and the number of guns stolen during these burglaries increased by 73 percent. Requiring dealers to train all employees on how to identify potential straw purchasers will also reduce that path of guns getting into the illegal market.

Chicago might be better served by allowing gun stores to locate in the inner city, where police presence is better manned, then  forcing them to establish in the outlying districts.

NRA ... can't you tell when you're being played?

It's Publish or Perish in the Blog-o-sphere, and sometimes we write stuff that is obvious.

Sometimes we have to belabor the obvious, to reach the 2% who just don't "get it" without having everything spelled out for them.

Like all the foo-fra over Maloney's latest "outlandish measure".

Of course it's impossible.   So we should not be treating it like it was a legitimate attempt to pass a bill.

Part of her proposal is for her own self-aggrandization;  part to show her constituents that she's "trying to do something about the Gun Problem", and part just to bait the NRA.

Since the NRA *and its members* would be better served to ignore the professional politician [but they didn't], they fell right into her trap.

She can SHOW she's "doing something", can SHOW that the NRA can't do anything, and SHOW that she's important because she has the NRA dancing on her strings like a clumsy marionette.

As of today, I score it Maloney 3, NRA zero

Just looking at the following NRA release (an excellent example of over-explaining the obvious),
 I wonder if we aren't as dumb ... or at least as easily manipulatable ...  as we think she is,

America's 1st Freedom | Another Helping Of Maloney Baloney:

Now Maloney has introduced an outlandish measure in the U.S. Congress—H.R. 2380—requiring that within five years, all newly manufactured handguns sold in the country include technology enabling only authorized users to fire the gun. That’s quite startling when you consider that proven technology of that kind doesn’t even exist. H.R. 2380 would also require that existing handguns be retrofitted with similar technology within 10 years of the measure's passage. With the wide variety of handguns made and sold over the past many decades, such an undertaking would, of course, be impossible. The result of such legislation would simply be outlawing all of those currently owned handguns.
When I was a journalism minor in college, my instructor told me:
"It's all about Column Inches, Son; don't ever forget that."

I didn't.  Didn't like it.  Went into computers instead of journalism.

Now where am I?   (Duh!)

Washington State Background Check Failure

New Washington State Background Check Failure Reporting Law Raises Questions:
So much for Michael Bloomberg’s I-594 living up to its promises. Not that anyone expected it to have any effect whatsoever on predators. What it did do, aside from forcing “law-abiding” gun owners to give up private transfers, was create and put a new class of “criminal” at risk for life-destroying consequences —the previously “law-abiding” who chose “I will not comply” civil disobedience over submission to new Intolerable Acts.
- David Codrea
Yep.   Look for the same results here in Oregon.   We always tread on Washington's coat tails.

Einstein's Definition of Insanity:  Trying the same thing over again, expecting different results

NOTE:   Also posted by IRONS

Sunday, May 14, 2017

EEEEYAAAAAAHHHHHH!

I have commented unfavorably on the issue of the so-called "Appendix Carry".

(We use to call it "Mexican Carry" before that was considered to be a ... racist, socially unacceptable and very insensitive term.)

From now on, whenever the subject comes up (excuse the expression) in conversation again, I can simply point (excuse the expression) to this article as a very good reason why ...

IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, Cowboy!  (Excuse the expression.)


Ohio Man Shoots Himself in Penis While Exiting His Car - The Drive:
There have been about 700 unintentional shootings this year—and this one may be the most unfortunate. (At least, among the non-fatal incidents.) A poor guy named Murad Hamedallah in Toledo, Ohio was found by police on the ground near a garbage can with a bullet hole in his penis and his right thigh. Witnesses say he was screaming after he got out of his car, tried walking, and collapsed. You would be screaming too, if you went through what he did.