Saturday, July 08, 2017

Oregon, Oh Oregon ...

The Senate of my favorite state (Oregon) has  been very busy lately:  two actions prove that they're "doing their job and earning their pay!"

First ...Oregon To Decriminalize Meth, Cocaine | The Daily Caller:
The Oregon legislature passed two bills Thursday decriminalizing small amounts of six hard drugs, including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and ecstasy. The first of the two bills now headed to the governor’s desk, HB 2355, decriminalizes possession of the drugs so long as the offender has neither a felony nor more than two prior drug convictions on record, according to the Lund Report. The second, HB 3078, reduces drug-related property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.
Isn't that special?   Now we can't keep druggies off the streets long enough for them to get past their addiction.

SECOND ... Oregon Passes GOP Senator's Bill Allowing Gun Seizure Order Without Gun Owner's Knowledge:
Oregon lawmakers passed legislation co-sponsored by Sen. Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) that allows a judge to issue an ex parte ruling for the confiscation of an individual’s firearms. The bill is SB 719, and it has now passed Oregon’s House and Senate. It creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order, which forces the subject of the order to hand over all firearms, as well as his concealed carry permit if he possesses one.
Personally, I didn't understand what "ex parte" meant until I read this article:
The ex parte aspect of the law means the bill does not require the gun owner to be present for part of the hearing in which the judge decides whether guns should be taken from him.

(Can you say: "Kangaroo Court", Captain?)

I had ranted against discussed this bill a few times in the past ... once night I raved before I went to bed, and raved the same subject the next morning.  (I deleted one; one overkill is a week is enough.)

I'm not sure which of the Oregon Senate's two actions offended me the most:  more rights for drug users who break the law (they can't work, so they steal to support their habit) ... or less rights for the hard-working law-abiding firearms owner.  (We don't have to break the law for the state to confiscate our property; we only need to know someone who holds a grudge.)

Well, we all make our choices.   It seems clear to me now that I have made a wrong choice of which vice to pursue ... it's safer in Oregon to be a heroin addict than a firearms owner.

Welcome to Oregon!   Bring Drugs and Money!

Friday, July 07, 2017

DC Personal Protection Reciprocity Act

At least ONE congress-critter got it right.
Congressman Massie introduces D.C Personal Protection Reciprocity Act - The Highland County Press:
Congressman Thomas Massie, R-Ky, chairman of the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus, has introduced H.R 2909, the D.C Personal Protection Reciprocity Act. This legislation would allow individuals with a valid concealed carry permit issued from their home state to carry their firearms in the District of Columbia.
This act would not grant "Special Privileges" only to Congressmen; it would allow ANY private individual who has already been vetted in his/her home state to carry in the District of Columbia.
(Earlier motions were an insult to Americans.)
No word yet on whether that extends to carry within The Hallowed Halls of Congress (one would assume NOT!)

And I'm not certain that I would wish it otherwise.

What Civil War 2.0 Looks Like

A few years ago (and not many, at that) there was a meme going around asking whether there would be a "Race War" in America.

I considered that a non-starter; although in the 1970's it seemed not entirely impossible. (see "SIEGE" by Edwin Corley; 1969, Avon Publishing)

What seemed more likely to me would be a "Culture War" ... between political factions rather than races.

Now we have seen Republican politicians attacked with a gun by a Lone Wolf self-declared "Democrat", specifically because of political ... read: Cultural .... differences.

Was this the shot heard around the world?

Here's a sample of text from an article (H/T: FREEHOLDER) which might make you think more seriously about that "unlikely outcome":

Analysis: What Civil War 2.0 Looks Like

Analysis: What Civil War 2.0 Looks Like | Ed That Matters: Since the election of 2016, the left has gone crazy. Their version of the tea party is called Resistance, and the spearhead of that is a loosely formed terrorist group called Antifa. Antifa is short for Anti-Fascist. The irony of their name is not lost on those who actually know history, as their tactics are straight from the fascist playbook. In the past few months, these groups have repeatedly disrupted peaceful pro-Trump rallies. They have called for and used violence against people who support the president or disagree with them and even against members of the media who will report things Antifa doesn’t want reported.
Note that this was written almost three weeks ago.  It was prophetic.

Since that time,  Dana Loesch on NRA-TV has made a video called "The Violence of Lies" ... and several of her comments have been taken out of context by 2nd Amendment Opponents who accuse her of (among other things) "inciting violence against women".  Which strikes me as an odd interpretation, since the NRA actively encourages women to stand up for themselves against violence, as does Loesh in several of the videos she has made as spokeswoman for the NRA.

That small video seems to have turned the Information World on its head; where Truth is a Lie and the Touchy-Feelie Crowd is easily offended: but aren't they always?

On Thursday, DeRay Mckesson, a leader in the Black Lives Matter movement, tweeted that the ad was “an open call to violence to protect white supremacy.
A chilling National Rifle Association ad gaining traction online appears to be 'an open call to violence'
          This chilling NRA ad calls on its members to save America by fighting liberals

Tamika D. Mallory, a co-organizer of the Women's March, released an open letter to NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, calling the ad "a direct endorsement of violence" against citizens "exercising their constitutional right to protest ....
and in contrast a comment which quotes Loesch directly:
6 days ago Inverse dot com says: ... N.R.A. Ad Paints Gun Owners as Victims of Leftist 'Terrorism', quoting:. "The only way we stop this and save our freedom is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth." ... and editorializing:  "Loesch paints a twisted picture of protest..."   The article paints the NRA and Leosh as "Anti-Semites", which is a base canard and they should be ashamed of themselves for using the Jew Card as well as the Race Card.
There were dozens more links found by my search: "Dana Loesch + Protests", but the writers who  use her quotes to further their own political baggage usually carry the same keywords: violence and (somewhere in the screed) chilling,.   Did they never notice which group breaks windows and burns police cars during their "Protests"?   It ain't Dana And Her Friends.

The expression "... fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth ..." seems to be anathema to enemies of the Constitution, who don't like either the word "fight" or "violence", or the expression "clenched fist" scares the crap out of them.

They don't seem to even notice the small word at the end:


These all seem to be "Trigger Words", much in favor in  Liberal Academia today, where students are indoctrinated rather than challenged, and where Truth is less important than Feelings.

I FEEL that these morally lame "wanna-be-men" people need to grow up.

The world is what we make of it.

The Left would make this a reactive world, where words are hurtful.

The Right would make this  a proactive world, where "sticks and stones" are hurtful, and would prefer to deal with the honesty of the stick and the stone ,

The left metes insinuation and would prefer not to address the real Constitutional issues.
Hard facts are too difficult for them to deal with.  They do better with innuendo and slime.

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

Putting a "Brave Face" on Mayhem

It's Chi-Town.

Violence leaves about 60 shot, 8 of them dead, for July 4th weekend - Chicago Tribune:

"The important thing to me is at this point we've had 230 (fewer) people shot this year," First Deputy Superintendent Kevin Navarro said Friday. "I think that's a start, definitely. But every time we have one less person shot, that's a win for us."

If that's "The Important Thing", Chicago, why don't you go after criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime?  Instead, you go after honest citizens who have a firearm to defend themselves, their families, and their homes.

There are few risks to a career criminal in illegally carrying a gun where only Bad People carry guns.   Illinois in general, and Chicago in particular, need to re-evaluate their policy vis-a-vis gun control.

If you want to get guns off the street, prosecute every crime which involves a firearm.   Not the people with no record .. the felon who is caught in the act.

It's a "rider" if you're convicted of a felony while in possession of a gun.

But everyone knows that the "rider" (extra penalty of imprisonment) is the first thing that is on the table when a District Attorney is negotiating with a defense attorney.  The State is too often willing to waive the added crime of firearms possession by a felon if the defense attorney is willing to plead guilty to the original offense.

Stop doing that!

If firearms are a danger to society ... apply your limited resources to prosecuting crimes with a firearm.   Spend less time prosecuting pick-pockets, and more times getting the guns off your streets

When you give away the "enhancement" of "felony with a firearm", you undermine your only way to discourage the use of a firearm in a felony.

What's more important? Convicting a robber of a mugging, or getting guns out of the hands of felons?

Instead, you add laws to prosecute honest citizens who have a firearm.  What could be more illogical?

Tuesday, July 04, 2017

Natural Philosophy:The Difference between Men and Women (Toilet Seat Division)

It's true that men can urinate into a coke bottle without wetting the outside.

So why it also true that we cannot urinate into a commode without getting the seat wet?

Is this some kind of Cosmic "Gender-Levelling" device which God has dreamed up to make men humble?

Or is that why God created Women ... to make men humble?

Note to God:  It ain't working out the way you planned it, eh?

The 2nd Amendment Does Not Give You The Right To Own A Gun

This is an important constitutional point, and who knows how long it will be available online, now that Bob Owens Has Left The Range.   But the discussion is interesting.

The 2nd Amendment Does Not Give You The Right To Own A Gun:
Listen to this college history lecturer turned firearms instructor. He knows his stuff.
You can access the video at the above link.

(I tried to access the source code for the video, but it hasn't been uploaded to any internet source available to the public.  And since it's proprietary to Bearing Arms, they have the right to restrict  SOLE access to their own website.)

I hope that Bearing Arms is careful to preserve this video, because it explains the Constitutional nuances of the Second Amendment, which many people just do not understand.

The central point is, of course, that the Constitutional Forefathers DID NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT to preserve the rights of the common citizen.  Therefore, in the first ten amendments to the constitution called "The Bill of Rights" or The Enumerated Rights ... even though they specifically were not 'enumerated' (ranked by order of importance) .. every one of these rights were deemed as important as any other of the Rights defined there'

Here is a list of the Bill of Rights, in an video file:

Bear in mind that the "Colonists" had suffered under the thumb of The King (George III) of England, and the unwonted excesses of the British troops who were stationed in the colonies to keep order, protect the colonists from predation by native people, and to enforce British Law (including the collection of taxes).

Mostly, the latter.

When you review these amendments, recall that each was enacted to address a specific grievance which the British King's policies had visited upon the Americans.

In the meantime, I hope you all have a joyful and NOISY celebration of American Independence!

And now ... the traditional Independence Day  Geek Fireworks Show!

God Bless America!

Miami judge rules Florida's self-defense law is unconstitutional | Miami Herald

Florida’s updated “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law is unconstitutional, a Miami judge ruled on Monday. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch ruled that lawmakers overstepped their authority in modifying the law this year to force prosecutors to disprove a defendant’s self-defense claim at a pre-trial hearing. The judge ruled that under Florida’s constitution, that change should have been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court, not the Legislature. “As a matter of constitutional separation of powers, that procedure cannot be legislatively modified,” Hirsch wrote in a 14-page order.

H/T:Arms and the Law

Although I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on television, it occurs to me that Judge Hirsch is swinging the duty to present a defense of a judicial position from the prosecution to the defense.

I seem to remember that there is a document ... let me see .. *(shuffle; Declaration of Independence; Constitution of the United States of America; Federalist Papers)*  well, I can't find it now, but I have this strong suspicion that there is some niggling "Innocent until Proven Guilty" clause somewhere.

You'll have to take my word for it, but if it is true that the accused is assumed to be innocent .. whoa!!! Judge Hirsch (wasn't he a lead player in a comedy series "TAXI" a few decades back????)

... sorry to be so disorganized ...

Anyway, I rather assumed that this self-defense law would merely supplement the "innocent ... etc." thingie, rather than throwing a Rat into the Bar-b-Que.  Which is what Judge Hirsche (are you SURE he isn't a mid-20's television star?) seems to find offensive that the Defense will require the Prosecution to make their case:

From the Miami Herald
Florida’s updated “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law is unconstitutional, a Miami judge ruled on Monday.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch ruled that lawmakers overstepped their authority in modifying the law this year to force prosecutors to disprove a defendant’s self-defense claim at a pre-trial hearing.
The judge ruled that under Florida’s constitution, that change should have been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court, not the Legislature.
“As a matter of constitutional separation of powers, that procedure cannot be legislatively modified,” Hirsch wrote in a 14-page order.
I'm just guessing, because everybody knows that the Prosecution is trying to establish the facts of a case, not to throw the accused into eternal penury; and the judge just wants to ensure that Justice Is Done.  So I'm not sure why Judge Hirsch is feeling so cranky this morning (needs more fiber???)

I rather suspect that the objection is that the defense may be offered in "Pre-Trial" hearings, rather than at a trial. But isn't that A Good Thing?  Why empanel a jury for a full trial, when they can present salient evidence during pre-trial hearings and everyone can just sigh, say "Oh .. well. alright then; next case???"?


Monday, July 03, 2017

What if Automobiles were regulated as closely as Firearms?

Gun Sales Are Plummeting and Trump Wants to Help | The Nation: 

President Trump .... signed legislation that would prevent the Department of Justice from using Social Security records to identify mentally ill people and prevent them from purchasing guns. O
What if you could be prevented from buying ... or even driving ... an automobile because you had been adjudicated as "mentally ill"?

What if you had to get a special license before you could buy a car?   And if you already had a car, what if you had to go through another similar process before you could buy any car ... ever?   And if the state decided you shouldn't drive a car (for any reason), you would have to turn over the car you already own.  Without compensation.

What if you had to buy a special drivers' license before you could cross state lines with your car?  And what if the next state decided that your car was too small, or too large, or could contain more then 10 (or 8, or 6) gallons of gasoline?

What if your state decided it had the right to enter your home and determine whether your car was "securely stored", and they could take away your car if the answer was "no"?

What if you had to buy a special license, the process being conducted by the lowest-paid state employee, before you could buy a car with special features, such as a larger gas take, ability to operate on hi-test gasoline, or had more than four cylinders?

What if your car was so small that you could conceal it in your garage?  And what if the state could enter your home to determine that your car was secured so that your child could not access it?

What if you could only buy one car a year.  Which may not seem unreasonable, but what if your car was wrecked and you needed to replace it .... but you had already bought your "One Car A Year"?

What if your car needed a new muffler, and you had to buy a new one, but you had to pass a special "vetting process" and buy a special license which cost you $200 even if you could justify buying that car.

What if you wanted to teach your child to drive, but your state would allow only special "Training Programs" (vetted by the state) to conduct the training, and the cost was prohibited.

What if you wanted to buy an old clunker car, because that was all you could afford ... but the state had disallowed purchase of a "Clunker Special" car?

What if you wanted to lend your car to your neighbor, but you had to go to a car dealer and have him run the transaction through a national database to determine whether your neighbor (who already had a car, but it was in the shop) was legally allowed to possess ... not OWN, but POSSESS ... a car; or that specific car?

What if you kept your car locked in your garage, but your child knew the combination to the lock on the garage door and took it out for a spin.  Even though your child had a special license to operate (if not own) a car .. an accident would make you legally liable for any damages caused by the accident, right?



(See below for a statistical breakdown of cause-of-death: cars vs guns)

Light Loads can Explode Page: Of interest to those who load their own ammo

Light Loads can Explode Page:

NEVER, NEVER, mix fast burning pistol powders like 2400 with large volume cases without some sort of overpowder wad, for if you do, you too could experience a debacle.
I have not mentioned this for several years, although I'm away I have written about this strange and complicated phenomena.

Using very light powder charges in high-capacity cartridges may, under specific and bizarre circumstances, subject your firearm to a loud, disconcerting, and very expensive KaBOOM! moment.

Rather than to attempt to explain it, I direct your attention to the link at the top of this page.

(Essentially, instead of a steady burn as the ignition works its way through the powder column ... ALL of the powder charge ignites "all at once", which presents a dramatic pressure spike beyond the usual.    Your firearms may very well not be sufficiently sturdy to resist this PRESSURE SPIKE!)

But don't take my word for it.  Go, RTWT!

PS:  Again, I highly recommend The Reloading Pages of M.D. Smith

Time After Time: Democrats and Gun Control Outrage

Political grandstanding at its best.

For Every $1 the NRA Gave Paul Ryan, I'll Name a Gun Victim |

Representative Robin Kelly:
Despite every effort, including a historic sit-in, we’ve failed to force Speaker Paul Ryan and his leadership team to hold a single vote on legislation to save American lives from gun violence. I was going to try again, and I was going to go after the root of the problem: the millions that the National Rifle Association spends to ensure the Speaker’s silence and inaction.
(Kelly represents Illinois' 2nd district in the United States Congress, is a vice chair of the Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and was an organizer of the 2016 House of Representatives sit-in to end gun violence.)
Representative Kelly seems outraged at the "millions" that the NRA spent to "ensure the Speaker's silence and inaction".   (One would almost wonder how many millions of dollars Representative Kelly's supporters and PACs paid for his elections over the years.   Shee talks as if she's outraged that Ryan enjoys the perks of the ruling party ... which would not be the Democrats.)

Despite every effort, including a historic sit-in, we’ve failed to force Speaker Paul Ryan and his leadership team to hold a single vote on legislation to save American lives from gun violence.

Surely, Rep. Kelly, you know you can't force a majority.  This is rhetoric.

And the Democratic Photo Moment (historic sit-in), Ms. Kelly, is not something that a reasonable man would choose to keep before those who might be his future constituents. WIth respect, you all look like bobble-heads.   Or kindergarteners having been told "It's Nap Time"

Actually, a large part of the NRA's contributions probably went more often to Donald Trump's Presidential Campaign than Paul Ryan's;  and they were donated to defeat the odious Hillary Clinton, whose campaign promise to undermine the Second Amendment Rights of free Americans made her the primary target of millions of us.

Ryan won the post of Speaker of the House because the House, the Senate, and the President are all Republicans.

You know Republicans.  They're the people who get to appoint their party members to high position, right? The people who win elections because they look and act like responsible adults?

Ms. Kelly would do well to remember that Americans love their freedoms, and they cannot abide a politician who promises to undermine their Constitutional Rights.

Remember Al Gore?  Well, neither do most folks, except when they research "Electoral Vote" vs "Popular Vote".

Remember Hillary Clinton?  Well, neither do most folks.
(Well, they do .. but with a sigh of relief as in "Wow, we dodged THAT bullet!  Sigh!")
Now that we're safe from her.

Both of these democratic candidates ran on the platform of undermining the Second Amendment.  Both of them lost.  Coincidence?

Undermining the Constitution is NOT the best route to the White House.  It is, in fact, the fastest route to obscurity.  Unless you don't consider losing power and prestige and respect a sign of obscurity.

On the other
  • A vote on a jobs bill that creates opportunity so kids pick up pencils and books instead of guns, ....
That's something that EVERYBODY could get behind.  We want our kids to grow up to be responsible, productive citizens.   We do NOT want them to be known only as statistics in urban warfare ... or names on a tomb known only to their family.