Friday, November 17, 2017

"Nobody Wants To Take Away Your Guns!" (Baloney!)


ERPO = "Extreme Risk Protection Order"

I've written about this before (almost exactly a month ago) since an ERPO law was enacted in Oregon.

Anyone who wants to take away your gun(s) can do so with no fear of consequences for their unilateral mischief.   All they have to do is to convince a judge that they have a "close relationship" with you, and  you are "a risk to yourself or others", and BINGO! ... the cops are at your door to search your home and confiscate every firearm you own.   

(And when I say Anyone, even an "acquaintance" can trigger an ERPO.)

And you're not even invited to your own trial.

The only way you can get your guns back is by going before a judge and suing ... and proving that you're not crazy.   Or a risk to yourself, or to others.

Now, just how are you going to do that?

The only crazy ones are the states who, like my home state of Oregon (where I've never been arrested or had police come to my place of residence), are empowered to compromise my civil rights without ever having met me.

How would you like it if the neighbor down the street, irked because you complained that his dog was pooping in your front yard, filed an ERPO on you?   He could do that; and nobody would blink an eye.   There is, apparently, no provision in the law for his investigating what is essentially an false arrest.

I'm a widower, and I've not remarried.  I may date from time to time, but ....

That's all over, because one bad date and *the imaginary* she has the perfect tool for wreaking revenge on me.   Just one little lie to any judge in the county.   That's all it takes.    

People say that gun-owners are paranoid;  I've never been paranoid before, but this works for me..  Except the key definition of "paranoia" is the word "delusion".   If someone is attempting to cause me emotional, fiscal or societal harm, being accused of being a threat to myself or others is not a delusion.  It's a fact.

MSM Proposes Gun Confiscation Orders After Mass Shootings Continue:

ABC News recently published a piece focused on a gun control tool known as an Extreme Risk Protection Order, essentially a restraining order between gun owners and their guns, that would allow for the confiscation of their lawful property on the mere say-so basis from others like family members, acquaintances or law enforcement officials — without the gun owner’s knowledge or input.

ERPO laws are already in effect in such places as California, Connecticut, Oregon and Washington state, with similar legislation being worked on in a multitude of other states and Washington, D.C., as well as — to a lesser and limited extent — Indiana and Texas.
The way these laws work is by allowing family members or the police to express their concern about the potential imminent danger of an individual in a petition to a judge, who could in turn order the individual to surrender their lawfully possessed weapons for a temporary period of time.

Yes, I realize I've said much of this last month.   But that's when it was just a flash in the pan.  Now gun-grabbers in even more states are signing on to this unconstitutional injustice, and it's got to stop somewhere!

Is every state which is signing onto this gun-grabber bandwagon including that the accused will have his day in court?  And is he/she assumed to be guilty without evidence?  I don't see that in the versions of such bills I've seen yet.

As nearly as I can tell, this is just another arrow in the quiver of people who don't think the average citizen has a right to possess an object which they hate (that is ... a firearm.)  So far, it has been a low-profile attack, and I have no idea how successful it has been.  MSM doesn't keep a score card on this one.

Well,  they wouldn't.  It's a "Stealth Attack" on the 2nd Amendment, and opponents of the Constitution are well known for using any trick in the book ... and now, apparently, inventing new ones ... to achieve their goals of undermining the "unpopular" civil rights of Americans.

If they can't stay in the headlines, they can't be heard.  It doesn't matter to them if they win or lose, they'll just turn a corner and find another unpopular cause.

But the Second Amendment is "A Big One", and they really want to score a win in this column.

They don't care about the harm they cause to honest people who think the Constitution is an inviolable part of their country.

Taxing a Constitutional Right?

Paying for the Second Amendment – Baptist News Global:
What about a Second Amendment Reparations Tax, levied on all American households and corporations? If the Second Amendment is essential to American identity, and if additional firearm-related legislation is a long time coming (if ever), then why not create a communal fund to assist those families and institutions devastated by inevitable gun violence? Such a FEMA-administered reparations tax would commit all of us to the task of “binding up the wounds” created by firearm violence. If we can’t affect the laws, the least we can do is help pay for the funerals.
I was raised a Baptist; this kind of "Holier-Than-Thou" mindset is why I am no longer a Baptist.

Here's an alternative solution:  What about a First Amendment Reparations Tax?   How about we remove the tax exemption for churches whose ministers preach against Rights guaranteed by the same constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and religion?    If you feel that strongly about “binding up the wounds”, pay for it out of your own pocket.   Don't steal from mine.

 And don't demonize Second Amendment supporters with one side of your face while you want to tax us with the other side.   Your article bemoans the attack of innocents in a church, and rightly so; it was a heinous crime.    If you want to be safe from this kind of attack, hold church in a National Guard Armory.   That's where gun shows are held, and they're not being subjected to violence.

Because everybody has guns there, nobody uses them.

Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition.  I bet you know that song.
It's got a good beat, and you can dance to it.  I give it an 85% rating.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Democrats Lie because The Truth Is Unpalatable

All politicians lie, some are more skillful or subtle than others, but Diane Feinstein takes to lying like a pig to mud; it's her natural domain and she likes it.

Her recent press release (see below) admits that she will not be able to get a gun ban law past the Senate, because they tried it once and it didn't work .. after a 10 year "trial run" it bumped into the Sunset Provision which Republicans required before agreeing to that odious plan.

Feinstein argued then, and now argues again, that anti-gun laws would limit crimes with guns if they just get the 'military style assault weapons' off the streets.   *

(Or if all firearms owners would shoot each other, with the last remaining gun ownerwho  would explode an atomic bomb rendering him/her to a fine mist along with all the guns in the world ... at which time the firearms industry would bootstrap itself because EVERYBODY WANTS A GUN!)
In 1994, she (and elected partners-in-crime) put American Citizens who own firearms through a decade of turmoil and trouble, and for no better purpose but to massage her ego.

She now claims: "we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war.

The truth (which is a stranger to the not-so-honorable Senator from California) is that her earlier plan *the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban* proved that the laws which she forced upon honest Americans did not significantly reduce the rate of people murdered or otherwise assaulted, which was the promise used to justify passage of the law ... provisionally.  It was accepted for a period of 10 years, with the agreement that Conservatives had no confidence in the plan but would ALLOW IT TO BECOME LAW;  but Liberals would, in return, allow the law to expire after ten years if it did not accomplish the goals which were the justification for the law.

After ten years, the Sunset Provision took effect:  The law didn't have any affect on violent crime rates, but it imposed an enormous (and unpalatable) burden on legal firearms owners.   The Senate agreed over steaks and drinks at The Capital Hill Hotel that the whole idea was a f*cking Flop and nobody wanted to be known as the Senator Who Trampled the Second Amendment.

And so, the law was repealed.

(Diane was not invited to the dinner; and hasn't had a dinner with a republican ... ever!) 

The NRA had little need to politicize the act, which all agreed was clearly a really bad idea.

Even the Washington Post had to admit that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban failed:
Did the law have an effect on crime or gun violence? While gun violence did fall in the 1990s, this was likely due to other factors. Here's the UPenn study again: "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."
One reason is that assault weapons were never a huge factor in gun violence to begin with. They were  used in only 2 percent to 8 percent of gun crimes. Large-capacity magazines were more important — used in as many as a quarter of gun crimes. But, again, the 1994 law left more than 24 million magazines untouched, so the impact was blunted.
And Feinstein's statement that "The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004" is an outright lie. That odious piece-of-shit law was never instrumental in the goals it was based on; it only affected law-abiding people, It never even inconvenienced the criminals, although it might have made the black-market for guns more profitable.   Feinstein was "off-target", focusing on weapons which had never been a major factor in American crime rates: she wanted them banned then, and she wants them banned now, for no better reason than that she doesn't like them.

Since when has American law been predicated on a Senator's personal distaste for an inanimate object?  And why does California continue to elect a lunatic to the Senate? 

(Oh, sorry; that's what they do there.  I can't complain, my elected senators are not much more rational than California's, but they haven't been messing with my Constitutional Rights!)

---------------------------------------- supplemental references ---------------------------------------

Feinstein Press Release:
Senators Introduce Assault Weapons Ban - Press Releases - United States Senator for California: Senator Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement: “We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote. “This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004. Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere. “To those who say now isn’t the time, they’re right—we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war. To my colleagues in Congress, I say do your job.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Bad Holstering

I realize that this is parody, but you and I have seen people on the firing line who haven't been "significantly" less safe.
What IS "significant" is that the last time I checked, you can't DQ a competitor in IPSC/USPSA for 'sweeping" during drawing or holstering.  (I need to recheck that I am referencing the current edition of the rule book.  Or someone might check for me, and reply in comments.  I'd appreciate it.)

Which is, situationally, "cringe-worthy" because I've seen some people who are not practiced in competition use their 'off hand" to direct their pistol into their holster by placing their off-hand over the muzzle ... literally.  Rare, but not unknown.

The best you can do, as a "Range Officer" or "Safety Officer" (depending on your competition venue) is to quietly suggest that this is not normally considered a Safe Practice, and offer to work with them in the Safety Area to practice safer gun-handling techniques.

If they are unwilling to learn, they'll eventually perform some other "Unsafe Act" which is not protected by the rule book.  But then, you'll have another heart-stopping moment.  Cringe!

Getting back to the image, this breaks at lest three competition safety rules in several disciplines.  Which suggests that I have no sense of humor.

When it comes to range safety, I have no sense of humor.

Rule Number One:   Don't Frighten The Range Officer!!!!

Finally ... Someone Other Than Me disputes that "Revolvers Are more Reliable"!

I don't care to know the details.  I'm sure it's far too technical for me to understand.

But I've had my own "WTF?" moments with revolvers, and they were always my fault.

The problems I've had were with ammunition which I reloaded ... but I didn't get the primer as fully seated as I should.  (Translation: it was my fault!)

The funny thing about a wheel gun is that if you have a primer that's just a little bit less than 'poked in the primer pocket so that the primer doesn't  hang up on the frame', that cylinder thingie just won't turn.  And you're left with a revolver that not only won't cycle, or fire, but maybe won't even allow you to remove the cylinder to reload it!

My Revolver Stopped Revolving - Lucky Gunner Lounge:
Revolvers fail, too. I feel like I’m starting to sound like a broken record at this point, but I’ll probably keep bringing it up until people stop spreading misinformation about revolvers being “100% reliable.” In the video below, I describe yet another revolver failure I recently encountered. Two of them, actually. And I’m not talking about the kind of problems you can fix in a couple of seconds on the firing line. I mean, “put it in a box and mail it to the men with tools” kind of problems.

Personal Anecdote: (Stop me if you've heard this before)

Several years ago (15 to 20 years ago, if it matters) I went to a special "Concealed Carry" match at Tri-Country Gun club.    Doesn't matter ... it's a 'local club' to which I was once a member.

I didn't have a "concealed carry" gun, or holster, so I just used my Taurus Revolver (4" barrel) in a 'regular' holster, and moved the holster way behind my right hip.  Then I put on a rain jacket (this IS Oregon ... I thought it was reasonable) and kept the jacket buttoned so the gun didn't show.  When it was my turn to shoot, I had to unbutton the jacket, but I wasn't really concerned about winning the match; I was just shooting for fun anyway.  I have little patience or concern for people who "can't take a joke".

Some folks took exception to this as not being "Real Concealed Carry"' but I ignored them, as is my usual practice toward people who don't like the way I do things.  And I eventually survived their caustic comments by just not listening to the damned fools. 

*The match rules didn't define "Concealed" anyway, which was an indication that they had no better idea than I did about what "Concealed Carry" meant.*

But that's not the point.

The point is, I was using my own personal handloaded ammunition, and one of them didn't have the primer seated quite as 'fully' as it should have been.  So when I reloaded my pistol during one of the match stages, the cylinder wouldn't cycle!

The "high primer" kept the cylinder from cycling, and I ended up disobeying one of the primary range rules; I had to take my LOADED PISTOL off the range, go to a distant "safe" bay, and eventually hammered the cylinder so it would unlock.  Literally, hammered the cylinder with a ROCK so I could break it loose and unload it.

This taught me a couple of important lessons, not the least of which is to NEVER load a revolver with ammunition which hasn't cycled the cylinder before.  And ALWAYS use factory ammunition if you care about either reliability or safety with your revolver.

 *Especially if you're not as good a reloader as you think you are.*

The upshot is, that you should never load ammunition into your revolver, if you intend it for "serious purposes", until you're certain it will cycle reliably.   That rule also applies to Semi-automatics, but for slightly different reasons

And ..  oh yes, Revolvers are not significantly "more reliable than semi-automatics" because ammunition with flaws which will cycle (if perhaps not perform well) in an automatic may not be as reliable in a Revolver.   A revolver which locks up because of a high primer is not something you want to bet your life on, which is why I never again will load ammunition in a revolver without spinning the cylinder ... "just in case".   Stranger things have happened to me.

Curiously, I still keep that same (loaded) revolver in my bedside night stand.   But I don't have just one weapon; I always have a backup under the "Belt AND Suspenders" philosophy.  It's difficult for me to imagine why anyone would want to raid my home, but I've become convinced over the years that there are people who are more unreasonable than I am.  And yes, Mark, I realize that's hard to believe.

The NRA IS Stronger Than Our Government!

I started writing a "reaction" to that titular statement (added in full below), and after an hour of trying to undermine the thesis, I realized that it was true.   The NRA is "Stronger Than Our Government"!

The key word here is "STRONGER".  The NRA is not more powerful, not more influential than our government.

Just Stronger!

Our government is filled with politicians, all seeking re-election to positions of power and influence, and often full of themselves.  They want to be king-makers ... or kings in their own local barnyard.   From the local level to the national, they pander to the voters to support their own personal careers.  They campaign for re-election by saying anything which will give them one more vote.  They'll say anything for that vote.  I don't stoop to calling them all charletons but we know there are many in elected office.

 Sure, most of them are honorable men and women, but some are selling tonic water from the back of a wagon. And you're buying their tonic water with your votes.

The National Rifle Association is a 'club' with five million members who have the odd notion that the Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment (and all the others) and not coincidentally enjoy the "Shooting Sports"; which include hunting, competition, and personal defense according to the Constitution.

The difference between "Our Government" and "The NRA" is the Government is a group of people fighting for dominance.    The NRA, on the other hand, is a group of people in (almost) complete agreement about their goals and their message.   Their goal, and their message, is the Constitution of the United States of America.

If you will fight to defend the Second Amendment, you must necessarily fight for ALL of the Constitution.

There is infighting among congress and almost any other organized group; but the infighting within the NRA is almost always "technical".   Lately, the controversy in this group is about "Bump Stocks"; which will be rancorous, but will not undermine their homogeneity of purpose: to defend the Constitutional rights of all Americans.

So when an obscure editorial comment (see below) complains about the NRA, our thought is that he should be complaining about the Government ... which cannot make a decision.

We've already made our decision, to defend our Constitution and (not incidentally) our Second Amendment Rights. 


We don't expect "Leadership" from politicians.   Their goal is to be re-elected, not to defend the Constitution.   It's an effort for them to even find a way to pretend to care about the Constitution.


We don't expect "Leadership" from Europe.  They don't a Constitution!   There are no moral guidelines in Europe.   They are a disparate bunch of tiny groups which cannot agree on anything, and their constant bickering relegates them to nothing more than background noise, like static from an FM radio tuned into a frequency which you can't clearly receive from Outback, Alaska.

 A letter to the editor of a Florida newspaper insists that "The NRA is Stronger Than Our Government":

I think America is confused. We have no real leadership. Maybe we need to look to Europe for models of leadership on gun control and other issues.
When will Congress finally do something about the NRA, which has become stronger than our government, and enact and enforce stronger gun control laws? Every time there is a mass shooting we learn that someone fell down on the job, ignored significant warnings about the shooter, let important findings fall thru the cracks.
Why are lawmakers so afraid of the NRA? Get rid of every ineffective representative in Congress. I'm mad and I'm frustrated and I have to stop reading and watching the news. Let me know when we have a real president and lawmakers who really do love America more than their jobs.

 Wikipedia Entry:
Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington, DC. Over its history the organization has influenced legislation, participated in or initiated lawsuits, and endorsed or opposed various candidates.

NB:  The author of this letter to the editor is someone who wants his government to treat him as a child to be coddled and protected.  He is not someone who wants his government to protect his Constitutional Rights.  He could stop reading and watching the news, and learn to love America for what it is.  He chooses instead to take counsel of his fears.   This is no country for old men.  He could move to Europe, where they would be happy to give him no 'rights' but not ask what he can do for his country.

Monday, November 13, 2017

Everyone Has A Right To Have An Opinion, But ... it's Not Your Problem!

Sometimes your opinion isn't worth spit.

From a recent comment-roll on National Review Online:
The entire experience of mankind shows that as gun ownership decreases, so does possession of guns by criminals. Millions of Americans who get bamboozled by gun manufacturers propaganda and buy guns "for self-defense", not only endanger themselves, statistically speaking, but also keep criminals well armed, since so many guns get stolen. Speaking of which, former owners of stolen guns should have unlimited civil liability for whatever guns stolen from them are used for - unless the police report from the time of theft shows the gun was stored reasonably securely (e.g. in a standard gun safe). If you keep a gun in a night stand, you REALLY should know that that's the first place a burglar will be checking for valuables.
Yeah, yeah, your mother wears a moustache!

I like folks who have an opinion but I prefer that they know what they're talking about.  I take issue with a few points raised by the commenter:

  • Exaggeration"the entire experience of mankind" is over-written.  Gun ownership has never decreased; it has only increased.  Population and manufacture have increased.  The point he's trying to make is fallacious and arrogant.   The possession of guns by criminals is a fact of life.  You're not responsible ... it's not your problem.
  • Misdirection: "bamboozled by gun manufacturers propaganda" assumes that gun owners are ignorant and easily led.  People buy guns because they like to shoot.  As more shooting sports appear (eg: Cowboy Action, IPSC, Three-gun etc.) more people find a reason and an outlet for their purchase of firearms.  And having "matches" at "Clubs" allows them reason to practice shooting, leading to a better degree of expertise.  Competition also allows individuals an opportunity to meet new friends, share experiences and advice, and become more comfortable with gun ownership.   (That is not something that Anti-gun Liberals want to hear.)   Criminals buy or steal guns, and use them for less "socially acceptable" purposes.  Responsible gun owners will find the safe-storage solution which provides the best balance between self-defense and keeping THEIR kids from shooting each other.  As far as everyone else is concerned?  Not your problem!
  • Lies from Liberal Sources:  "...people who buy guns 'for self-defense/, not only endanger themselves, statistically speaking, but also keep criminals well armed, since so many guns get stolen ..." is a Two-For-One.   Not only does it surreptitiously channel the debunked Kellerman fallacy, it also also provides the subtle suggestion that firearms owners should ALWAYS keep their guns locked up.   If you own guns for personal defence in your home, storage in a "safe" makes it much more difficult to access it when you most immediately need it.  Yes, you need to balance the security of your firearm against the security of your family.  The decisions you make will probably be the most appropriate for you.  What everyone else does with their guns is not your problem. (The assumption is that there are people in your home who are not to be trusted with a gun that isn't locked in a huge metal box.   It's a valid point in some homes, but not in ALL homes!)
  • Night Stand Storage:  Well, it's uncomfortable to sleep with your gun under your pillow.  And "occupied residence home invasions" are becoming more common as intruders are (incidentally) encouraged by published articles which suggest that it's A Bad Idea to keep a gun in a nightstand.  You'll find the best balance between accessibility in an emergency, and accessibility by people who can't be trusted with a gun.   Other people might not agree with your decision, but you don't need to please them.  Their opinion is not your problem; your family is.
Ultimately, the entire article was written by someone who thinks that a gun in the home is more likely a danger to the residents than to any intruder.   Which isn't necessarily bullshit, but close enough.

Post Script:    former owners of stolen guns should have unlimited civil liability for whatever guns stolen from them are used for - unless the police report from the time of theft shows the gun was stored reasonably securely (e.g. in a standard gun safe).

Isn't that typical? Make the victim be the bad guy, because he (or she) had chosen to defend his/her self, family, home or property.

  Liberal thinking is often that it's the next best thing to a mortal sin to take responsibility for your own actions and for your own safety.   You should count on your Government (fire department, police, janitor) to keep you from burning up your own home, defend you against armed aggressors, and clean up the mess you left behind.

Conservative thinking is that when the stuff hits the fan, you're often all alone.  Calling the fire department is great for fires and rescues, but isn't it better to not smoke in bed?  Calling for the police is a good idea, but by the time they get here the blood might have already flowed, and isn't it better that it's not your blood? 

And if you get stuck in a tree trying to rescue a cat ... the cat would have found its way back to earth eventually.

Even if it's your cat ... It's Not Your Problem!

Sunday, November 12, 2017

I BELIEVE in Gun Control!

... if I'm controlling it.

"Funny"? I'll give you "FUNNY"!

Forget Bob Hope and "The Road to Where-ever" movies.  In my mind, the two funniest comics in Show Business are Gene Hackmen and Marty Feldman.

No .. wait .. I got that wrong.   Gene WILDER and Marty ("old screw eyes") Feldman, under the directorial genius of  Mel Brooks!

Young Frankenstein.

Blazing Saddles.

It takes some serious comedy to make me laugh, but this combination of wit and nitwits constitute the series of films which I call "The Road To Nowhere" .. and I mean this in the nicest possible way!

Chloris Leachman keeps showing up (see: "High Anxiety") ... to my everlasting pleasure.

... and if that's not enough to put you 'in the mood', I give you "A Comedy Tonight" by Zero Mostel.

Never Give An Inch

If "People Of The Gun" are an anachronism in Modern America, we should at least leave a Dinosaur-sized footprint behind as we die off.

Dianne Feinstein is at it again.   Hit 'em high, hit 'em low, there's no limit to her perfidy:
Democrats' New 'Assault Weapons' Bill Would Ban the GLOCK 17, More Semi-Auto Pistols - The Truth About Guns: The text of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s assault rifle ban bill is now available on her website and, contra Nick’s expectations, it isn’t simply a copy-and-paste re-run of the failed Clinton era assault rifle ban language. It’s worse. Much worse.
I don't know, maybe Senator "Mr. and Mrs. America, Give 'Em All Up" has the right of it.  Perhaps we "Bitter Clingers" (to quote another famous American) have stayed stuck in an era which the rest of America has passed by.  We may have outlived our "Stale Date".

But I don't really think so.  There's an intractable element of our society which rejects the "New America" because we were born in an era that believed the Constitution protected liberties which all mankind can - or should - recognize are "inalienable".

Today, the Constitution is nothing more than an irritating anachronism (there's that word again) to the new "Dear Leaders".   They will be happy when the Old School dies off; it can't come too soon, to them.

But the pivotal moment in the American Revolution came when the British attempted to confiscate the contents of an American arsenal

Americans of that era decided to fight and die to protect their right to keep and bear arms.  England at that time was the "owner of America" and arguably the strongest military force in the world.  But Americans with flintlocks (which were prohibitively expensive at the time) not only paid the price in the applicable gelt at the time,  but in American Lives, to keep their guns.

They needed guns to fend off attacks from the Native Americans, who resented the encroachment on the land where they were born.

The Liberal intelligentsia is, today, not yet strong enough to force Americans to voluntarily "give up their guns"; but they're working on it.  Their tool is to denigrate gun owners as being rabidly violent anti-social neanderthals.    And it's working, even if there is little evidence that the average firearms owner is either anti-social or irresponsible.   Whether we are Neanderthals is a side-issue.

These New Americans don't think we need guns.  Well, they live in major cities where police are readily available ... for various values of "readily available".  They are reluctant to take responsibility for their own personal protection; except for the Gang Bangers, who know best their need for personal defense.  Or defense of their 'turf'.

The police are reluctant, at best, to go from door to door and search private homes with the goal of confiscating firearms. (We have given up the concept that private arms must be keep in an arsenal ... good choice!   The Brits could learn from this.  See "Concord" and "Lexington".) 

Police don't know which firearms owners are 'crazy' enough to resist confiscation with force, but their thought is that there are more than a few.   So let the Liberals among them (and they are few) risk their lives to serve their masters; most police are 2nd Amendment supporters, anyway.   My personal experience is that legal gun owners are the most responsible and law-abiding members of society, but there is no such thing as a "Universal Truth", no matter what the Huffington Post says.

Essays should end with a conclusion, proven by preceding arguments.   At least, that's what the "Ten Golden Rules of Essay Writing" says.

Here's my conclusion:

Dianne Feinstein is full of crap.