Wednesday, May 02, 2018

Nurses Call for CONSTITUTIONAL Ban On Gunsl

Simplistic, emotional calls for a universal BAN ON FIREARMS are not a solution to the "Gun Violence" problem.

A (group?  consortium?) of professional nurses have made such a call, and while I understand and appreciate their angst, I do not agree that this Draconian measure will resolve the gun violence problem with which they are so personally all to familiar.

Gun rights — Constitution needs to be amended to protect the lives of our patients | TheHill:
We need to recognize that the Constitution needs to be at the center of our conversations surrounding gun violence. Organizations such as The American Academy of Nursing, The American Nurse Association, The American Psychiatric Nurses Association, and the American Public Health Association, have rightly called for a ban on firearms. Moving forward these conversations need to be rooted in the context of the Constitution. Unless we can frame our argument in the context of the Constitution, then we are fighting a battle that is already lost. So, let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work fighting for the right to life for our patients by amending the constitution.
I hope that readers understand that if a ban on firearms should be (unconstitutionally) imposed on Americans, the consequence would be that only police officers and military would be allowed to carry arms.  So much for the rights of The People to protect self, home and family.   We're looking at madness here, where The People have no rights at all when their right to support the Constitution no longer exists.  Welcome to Venezuela (the least democratic state in South America)!

In 1994, America imposed similar extreme measures.    It was an imposition on the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, but Congress agreed to ... "give it a shot" so to speak.
 No, it was not a universal ban on all firearms, but it came very close.  After the ten-year "experiment" concluded, it was determined that limiting access to firearms played no significant difference in the murder rate in America.

The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”
Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.

Would a TOTAL BAN ON ALL GUNS be more effective?

There are at least THREE ... and probably more ... problems involved on a "TOTAL BAN":

The first problem is that there are more firearms than Americans in America!

Very few firearms (relative to the total number) are "Registered", because American gun owners are generally disinclined to register their guns regardless of what the local laws may require.   These laws may have made felons of otherwise extremely law-abiding American .. who resent incursions on their civil rights.  They *(we)* believe that our Constitution does not "allow" us to be armed; it only acknowledges a "God Given Right" to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and our property.

We do NOT believe that our civil rights are "given", or even "guaranteed" by the Constitution.
The Constitution merely "acknowledges" our God-give rights, and those rights may not be ignored, abrogated, mitigated  amended or ignored by Politicians.  Our rights cannot, should not, and WILL NOT be undermined by pettifoggers.

The Second problem is that ... when you make felons of armed Americans ... somebody has to go take those guns away from them.

Nobody expects nurses to go door-to-door citing Nancy Pelosi: "Mister and Mrs America, TurnThem All In!".

(She couldn't get the votes, and neither shall you.)

You cannot confiscate all of the guns in America,.  You can't take them all away ... no matter how many U.S. Marshalls are willing to risk their lives many times a day in an attempt to implement your unilateral opinion. 

 Oh, and by the way?  Many American Law Officers support the Second Amendment.

Even those who would support this proposition realize that confiscation would be a life-threatening project.  Not all are willing to make that effort.

The implementation of this plan would be an exercise of "Excessive Force" ... also not a favorite activity of most law-abiding law officers who hope to go home to their families at the end of the day.

And the third problem is that the Majority of Americans are  NOT eager to tamper with the Constitution of the United States.

Even those who find the Constitution "inconvenient" understand that it requires a clear majority of the states to amend the Constitution, even to make a relatively "minor" change of the text ... let alone delete an entire Amendment!

What does it take to amend the Constitution?
The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.
Unfortunately, a "Constitutional Convention" is rarely a popular action, not the least because if you evoke a Convention, then the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is subjected to being re-evaluated.  It may occur that portions of the constitution with which you DO agree may be discussed ... and are subject to changes which you do NOT wish to happen.   It's like herding cats: you may be able to get them moving, but you have little or no control over the direction(s) they choose to take.

I Do Not Think That Word You Use Means What You Think It Means!

Ultimately, this well-intended, pie-in-the-sky proposal has a very good chance of bringing the entire pile-of-bricks which is the U.S. Constitution come tumbling down.    It may introduce a Constitutional Crisis which makes the already complex issue even more caustic

It's probably going to be a rough ride.

I sincerely hope you never who hope and pray for a total firearms ban never get your wish;
I can almost guarantee that you never get your wish ... and if you do, you will regret the can of worms you have opened. Not because of anything *-I-* may do or say, but because Americans are historically very jealous of their rights ... which no other nation has the courage to demand.

This is why we live in America: very few Americans migrate to states where their rights are not acknowledged.

Which is perhaps why so many of those states are Kleptocracies.

What Gun Owners Don't Like About "Universal Background Checks"


The thing that ticks me off about Background Checks is that the purpose is suppose to ensure that an individual who buys a gun is checked to insure that he's not a felon, or a crazy, etc. ... but what actually happens is that it turns into de facto registration of the firearm.

(Note that if someone is trying to privately sell an illegal firearm, he's sure not going to do a background check on YOU!)

The folks who respond to your background check swear upon the life of their sainted mother that they are not after your guns, so they don't keep permanent records of the transaction.

So why do they need the make, model and SERIAL NUMBER of the gun?   Their sole purpose is to validate YOUR right to legally own a firearm.

Do YOU believe they don't keep a permanent database?  Oh, perhaps not ALL of the data is permanently reserved .... but your name (etc) and the serial number (etc) are data items they will delete? 

The  Feds are like old ladies who cannot bear to throw away something they might need some day?
And do you believe them when they say:
"We are the United States of America ... why would we lie to you?"
(Notice they don't say they are NOT lying to you.)

And by the way, why do we have to go through a licensed gun dealer to sell a private firearm?  Why can't we do our own background check?  Invasion of privacy issues?   As if the feds aren't already invading our privacy.

NJT got it right:

New Jovian Thunderbolt: Grow the Second Amendment:
How bout getting rid of backdoor registration? Tie gun ownership to gun owners, rather than to guns.  You NICS check a person, not a purchase.  And gun owner they check should be people that are about to own a gun, or might want to in the future.  Does this 'gun owner' have a gun or is about to?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  

Monday, April 30, 2018

2nd Amendment an "incitement to violence"?

I reference this essay (by a man who I greatly admire for his ability to see both sides of an issue and treat both fairly) because ... Oh, Hell!

He seems to me to be the most honest man in the Modern Era, and he rarely writes a word which is not backed by his personal Honor.

The Rutherford Institute :: The Second Amendment: A Symbol of Freedom or An Invitation to Violence?:  *2014 Contributor*  John Whitehead)

You can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives.
 Those who want to see government as a benevolent parent looking out for our best interests tend to interpret the Second Amendment’s “militia” reference as applying only to the military.
 To those who see the government as inherently corrupt, the Second Amendment is a means of ensuring that the populace will always have a way of defending themselves against threats to their freedoms.
 And then there are those who view the government as neither good nor evil, but merely a powerful entity that, as Thomas Jefferson recognized, must be bound “down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” To this group, the right to bear arms is no different from any other right enshrined in the Constitution, to be safeguarded, exercised prudently and maintained.

We could not ask for more.

... but if you DO ask for more, here it is!

If this is Tuesday, and I'm in a 3rd world hell-hole -- I must be in Brazil!

People like to think that, because Americans have the Second Amendment protection of their personal choice to own a firearm (and almost everybody can legally possess a firearm in America), it must be the Murder Capital of the World.



That uncomfortable Second Amendment allows us to own a firearm to protect ourselves.  So this must mean that we have more murders by firearm than any other country in the world.

Not necessarily:  "Struggling Countries" are often overwhelmed by members of their citizenry who are not reluctant to take advantage of their country's distraction.

Here' the summary of a Wapo article which counts "mass shootings"   Yes, America is right up there.
So, this proves that America is  the deadliest state in the world for murders by guns. 



Curiously, even American "Mass Shootings" combined with "Gangland Shootings" in America do not seem to compare with those in a country which has completely forbidden private ownership of firearms ... so the murder rate is only ascribable to those who DO own firearms.... more likely, those who have illegally acquired firearms to protect whatever *(criminal?)* endeavor in which they may have been engaged.

Some people might decide that forbidding firearms possession is a "mistake"  they may not be right, and a new Republic might be forgiven for trying to drain the swamp before drilling a new well.  But the point needs to be addressed sooner or later.

There's a country in South America which doesn't allow private citizens to own firearms.


Gun Ownership Is Illegal In Brazil, So People Are Taught To Never Fight Back - The Advocates for Self-Government:

The average citizen in Brazil is not legally permitted to own a gun.  This should, by Liberal thought, result in "Less Guns/Less Crime".

Brazil proves that this is a fallacy: the crime problem in this country is certainly being addressed by its government, but a large, rich country such as Brazil has problems of its own ... which America shares, in part if not in whole

 Brazil is, in fact, the Murder Capital of the World!

Less Guns, More Crime?  Not so!  

(Note: the following is personal conjecture; it is not a quote, so no source is cited.)
There are plenty of people who point to countries with fewer guns as models which they believe the United States should follow. However, there are few who take notice of Brazil, a country with far fewer guns but which still struggles with gun violence and death.   No one seems to take note, but the numbers are there for those who want to see them.
The conclusion is likewise obvious: fewer guns do not necessarily mean fewer deaths by guns.  According to UN statistics cited by the BBC of Brazil, Brazilians own 15 million firearms compared to 270 million held by Americans. Yet American deaths by guns in 2010 numbered 9,960, while Brazil listed close to 36,000 such deaths in 2009. It is also interesting to note that the population of Brazil is nearly 200 million while the United States has over 310 million.  Clearly, the problem is much more immediate in this vibrant, growing country.
So the next time someone tries to convince you that "More Guns In The Hands of Untrained Civilians will result in more murders ..


I'm reluctant to go on the record as someone who is pointing a finger at a foreign government as 'responsible" for civilian deaths.  I have no personal knowledge of anything that occurs outside my local area.   I only briefly research, and suggest possible conclusions.  Nobody should take this commentary to be conclusive evidence of wrong-doing by any governmental entity, anywhere in the world.   I rely on published (Internet) sources 100% and I do not have access to the root data provided by these sources.


California Gun and Ammunition Laws May Be Unconstitutional: professional shooter objects!

California''s Democratic  Rulers thought they were really onto  something. Since they can’t seem to control guns, even though they really keep trying to, they decided to control bullets instead. After all, what could go wrong with that?

They didn't figure that a National Figure would call them out on their paltry "Gun Control" plan, when California changed it to an "Ammunition Control" issue!

Olympic Medalist Files Suit Against California Over Bullet Control:
California " ...  Prop 63, which Second Amendment advocates characterized as “Gunmageddon,” outlaws direct mail order ammunition sales, puts all transfers of ammo under a “burdensome registration scheme,” imposes costly fees and price increases on bullet sales and mires would-be vendors in piles of Sacramento red tape. As such, it not only violates the Dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce but also tramples on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms."
Six-time Olympic medalist Kim Rhode takes a bit of exception to the new rulesKim Rhodes has taken a stand in favor of law-abiding California gun owners who don't think that the Second Amendment has room for "Bullet Registration".

The newly enacted California State law offends the rights of lawful California firearms owners:
 " Prop 63, which Second Amendment advocates characterized as “Gunmageddon,” outlaws direct mail order ammunition sales, puts all transfers of ammo under a “burdensome registration scheme,” imposes costly fees and price increases on bullet sales and mires would-be vendors in piles of Sacramento red tape. As such, it not only violates the Dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce but also tramples on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
The fact that California is attempting new twists to Firearm Laws in order to impose even more stringent restrictions on its' citizens right to Keep and Bear Arms is not "New News" is apparent to everyone who tracks arbitrary infringement on the Second Amendment in opposition the the rights of its citizens.

But this is just another assault on citizen rights; it's a new twist to an old rule, which is that California does not trust its citizens to safely and responsibly exercise their constitutional right to "Keep and Bear Arms" under the second Amendment.

National Assault Weapons Ban

A "National Assault Weapons Ban" may seem inevitable to some people, but I don't see it happening until a reasonable definition of the term "Assault Weapon" has been established.

Having beem under fire from an "Assalut Weapon", I am clear on MY definition of an "Assault Weapon::

::An "Assault Weapon" is a shoulder fired gun which is capable of  "selective fire": both semii-automatic fire (one round per pull of the trigger) and full-automatic fire (keeps shooting as long as the trigger is deoressed ,,, aka "Full Automatic Fire.   Examples are the M16 and the AK47.

A National Assault Weapons Ban is the Next Best Thing - Quote of the Day - The Truth About Guns:

April 29, 2018 at 08:02 "There is very little doubt, that bans on standard mags are going nationwide. A complete ban on semi auto rifles will be next. The writing is on the wall."


Contra Gun Philosophy:

There are two sides to the Second Amendment:
(1) those who thing that semi-automatic weapons are "Assault Weapons";
(2) those who think the semi-automatic weapons are a standard means of personal defense.

A National Assault Weapons Ban is the Next Best Thing - Quote of the Day - The Truth About Guns: “Otto Van Bismarck once said: ‘Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.’ For those who are looking for the repeal of the Second Amendment, I would urge them to abandon that hope and look to the ‘the next best:’ the imposition of a national ban on assault weapons.” 
Sol Wachtler in Keep assault weapons in the military [via]

These idiots who posit  so confidently don't actually know what an "Assault Weapon" is.

They think it's  any gun  which shoots one bullet every time you pull the trigger.
They would be surprised to learn that they have just defined a Double-Action Revolver ... which they are usually willing to accept as a "Safer Firearm".

A true "Assault Weapon" is (as an introductory course on Fierarms  Defininitions) one which fires a bullet until

Sunday, April 29, 2018

In Spain; criminals do not fear their victims can defend themselves

It was the opening day of the traditional Spanish "Running of the Bulls", when a woman was raped by 5 men in a downtown doorway.

The men were arrested and charged with a "lesser offense" than Rape, because ... SPAIN.

Thousands protest for third day in Pamplona over 'wolf pack' gang rape case:
Tens of thousands of Spaniards took to the streets of Pamplona on Saturday to protest against the acquittal of five men accused of gang raping an 18-year-old woman at the city’s bull-running festival. Demonstrators have filled streets across the country since the court ruling on Thursday, leading Spain’s conservative government to say it will consider changing rape laws. The men were acquitted of sexual assault, which includes rape, and sentenced to nine years for the lesser offence of sexual abuse.
*emphasis added*

I'm not sure what 'sexual abuse" is, but I'm pretty sure the "RAPE" includes a "one women, five men", public assault ...
The men, aged 27 to 29, had been accused of raping the woman at the entrance to an apartment building in Pamplona on July 7, 2016, at the start of the week-long San Fermin festival, which draws tens of thousands of visitors.
The five, all from the southern city of Seville, filmed the incident with their smartphones and then bragged about it on a WhatsApp messaging group where they referred to themselves as "La Manada", or "The Pack" in English. 
In Spain ... ordinary citizens are not allowed to carry firearms for self defense.

When a lone, defenseless woman suffers a sexual attack on the street, and is disallowed by her government to defend herself by force of arms, she is at the mercy of a merciless pack of jackals,

A government which cannot defend its citizens, and will not allow them to defend themselves, is not a government; it is a failed patriarchy.

REMEMBER When seconds count, the police are ...  just minutes away  no help at all .   collecting evidence   blaming you for being a victim ...
You're on your own!
[H/T: 357 magnum}