Thursday, May 24, 2018

Finger Pointing Is Punishable If The Thumb Is Cocked

Oh my!   If these New Rules were in effect when I was 12 years old, I'd still be in prison!

To summarize; a juvenile was handcuffed and "arrested" because he pointed the wrong fingers at a too-sensitive teacher.

When did elementary teachers become so "Politically Correct" that  pre-adolescent children need to be handcuffed and arrested?
12-year-old boy with autism arrested for brandishing imaginary rifle at Texas school | KUTV: (KUTV) — A 12-year-old autistic boy was placed in a Juvenile Detention Center on Monday after brandishing an imaginary rifle at his art teacher, FOX 26 reports. The 5th grade teacher reportedly felt threatened by the child, identified as David Sims, who was arrested by a school police officer. "She (the officer) just put handcuffs on me and told me I need to go with her," Sims said.

Nobody has yet reported whether his fingers were loaded, or whether they were loaded with "Hollow-Point" or "Armor Piercing" fingernails.

Gun Owners React Rudely to a proposal to "take their guns away"?

Besmirching the image of honest, law-abiding gun owners by conflating them with criminals and madmen is both dishonest and misleading.

We cannot tell the difference between a peaceful, law-abiding gun owner and a criminal or a madman, except for their record of arrests.   Smearing the peaceful with the tar of madmen and felons is Not Helpful ... it only flings another torch into the flames of ignorance and Constitutional apathy.
Too often, the authors of such screeds will include not-so-subtle hints that Americans With Guns feel that their masculinity is threatened when faced with a movement for total civilian disarmament.

No, we're only sad that you chose to have such a low opinion of America.
I am coming from a place of passion, but I am willing to compromise. Yes of course, in the churn of yet another school shooting, in the only country where this happens anywhere near as often as it does, I want to make the problem go away. In these all-too-common moments, my most special wish is to make all the guns disappear. I would also, while we’re at it, like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, and the song I would like to teach us all is “Jump! (For My Love)” by the Pointer Sisters.

"... I Am Willing To Compromise ... " 

"... my most special wish is to make all the guns disappear"

No.  Actually, you are willing to encourage the repeal of the Second Amendment for the purpose of advancing your career.   Millions of Americans own and use firearms legally and safely, and have done so for centuries.   You offer no plan for "compromise" ... which is good; because every "compromise" which anti-gun writers propose only compromises the rights of Americans to enjoy their Second Amendment rights.  When will a "compromise" act in favor of responsible gun owners?  

Never yet, so far.  

We have "compromised" our rights so often that it's a wonder that we have any rights at all ... and "you people" still ask for us to give you more.   There is never enough as long as anti-gun people define the word.

The suggestion that lawful gun-owners will over-react (and badly!) to the proposition that "now you want to take all the guns away" .... is another taunt.   Yes, he does want to take your guns away.

Or if he's just another media whore (one will write anything to elicit a response, and make him more marketable as an author) we must admit that he's very good at stirring up public opinion against defenders of the Second Amendment.

The only thing we know for sure, is that any group (including gun owners) will have "bad apples" who make the huge majority seem irresponsible.

I guess Opinion Writers have their bad apples, as well.

The Dangers of Writing About Gun Control in America:
When you write a piece about America’s unique and uniquely deadly gun problem, as I have done many times for Esquire, you expect a few things to happen: gun-control people will applaud, gun-rights advocates will get upset, and your Twitter mentions will be a mess for a few days. But when, in the face of another school shooting, you write an angry one about how you’ve finally had it and now you want to take all the guns away—even if that piece ends up being pretty moderate when you actually look at it—a whole new series of events will happen. In case you’re thinking about taking on such an endeavor, here are a few things to expect.   (See the original article for more.)

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

It’s the Guns! It's the Guns! (Oh, no ... it's the society!)

 Only 30 percent of Americans own guns. Thus far, that minority has sufficed to block substantial federal action on guns. But a one-third minority—and especially a nonurban one-third minority—may no longer suffice to shape American culture. 

Note: AND since much of East Coast America is Urban ... the whole problem with guns is that non-urban folks know better than you do. 
  Non-Urban (and some urbans)  have a strong survival instinct (gotta have their guns; but you think it's WRONG), and so people who want to defend themselves get all confused by your Urban Chic!
Ignore the problems with Chicago and Baltimore (non-West cost urban societies) ;
These East-Coast societies account for more than their share of gun-violence; the problem with URBAN CHIC Eastern people is that you have too few  people who have guns. (And you think you have too MANY people with guns?) 
Although they aren't typically shooting each other.  
And you can't figure out why an armed society is a polite society?

The outrage after Parkland looked less like a political movement, and more like the great waves of moral reform that have at intervals since the 1840s challenged the existing political order in the name of higher ethical ideals. The most important success of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, for example, was not to change laws (although they changed some), but to change hearts: to persuade Americans that drunk driving was not funny, not charming, and not acceptable. American gun culture in the 2010s is as blithely irresponsible as American alcohol culture in the 1960s. 

MADD is a *(successful)* aberration, not a sterling example by which we may all measure our societal value.
The majority of  gun-owners who are charged and convicted of murder are centered in Urban societies (Chicago, Des Moines, Baltimore, etc.)  where firearms ownership is typically illegal,

...and you don't see a connection between firearms violence and defining firearms ownership as an "aberration"?  Perhaps you are part of the problem, not part of the "solution".  Perhaps the "victims" should have been allowed to arm themselves, to defend themselves ....

 According to a Pew survey, only about one-quarter of gun owners think it essential to alert visitors with children that guns may be present in the home. (Twice as many non-gun-owners think so.) Only 66 percent of gun owners think it essential to keep guns locked up when not in use. (Ninety percent of non-gun-owners think so.)

NOTE: In Non-urban societies, visitors do not consider firearms to be a threat ... and so, they don't bother to inform visitors that there is "a gun in the home":  it's assumed, that they have a gun in their home.  And often, they have a gun on their person when they visit their neighbors.   When non-gun owners see a problem where pro-gun owners do not .... perhaps the people who own guns and are not afraid of them have something to teach the others.

 Only 45 percent of them actually do it. This carelessness and disregard is taking lives and breaking families. The first step toward correcting a social wrong is opening people’s eyes to see that wrong. America has now tallied still more victims and broken the hearts of still more mourners. It’s a horrible price to pay for a moral reckoning and awakening—but the history of the nation promises that while the awakening may often come tragically slow, it does come in time, with all the power of justice delayed but not denied.

This is not a symptom of "Carelessness and disregard", and it is not taking lives.Possessing and/or carrying a firearms is not a "Social Wrong"; it's a normal way of life for many Americans.  When you see normal firearms possession as "carelessness and disregard", you make firearms violence .... attractive.  

The "horrible price to pay" is  that when a sector of American society consider firearms possession a "SOCIAL WRONG", they are sometimes enchanted by the bizarreness of their action (carrying a firearms .. either lawfully or otherwise) and they cannot resist the temptation to  bring it out and shoot their friends.  You don't see this in the America where possession of a firearms is a normal and acceptable state.

You only see it in places where the Second Amendment is considered an aberration.
It's not our fault; it's your fault for defining possession of a firearms  to be a perversion.
You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves!

You brought it on your own heads.  Now you have to pay the price.  Y'all should just get over yourselves, and quit making the natural priority to defend yourself and your family seem like something wrong.

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

More Huffington Post Propaganda

An Open Letter From Hunters About Gun Reform | HuffPost:
We do not need AR-15s or any assault-style weapon to hunt game. That’s not to say some people won’t use them to hunt. But they are simply not necessary, and are actually not preferable for legitimate, fair-chase hunting. We believe that simple, responsible reforms in firearm policy are an urgent necessity. Hunting and hunters should not be seen, or used, as a shield against constructive bipartisan solutions. We see the need and opportunity to frame compromise between the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms and the Fifth Amendment’s right to life and liberty.
Actually, the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

Nobody who is legitimately advocating for Second Amendment Rights is using "Hunting" as a justification for the Second Amendment.   The argument presented here is not only facetious, but also misleading.

I have hunted, most of my life.  I have also fought a war, where I used weapons which are not available to me in private life.

This article is not about Second Amendment Rights; it's about infringing upon Second Amendment Rights.  The thrust of the article is that access to various ("non-sporting") types and models of firearms may not be "legitimate" because they are not commonly used in hunting.   And that's just bizarre, because the Second Amendment is constitutionally protected  to protect those Americans who may be called upon to defend their nation in time of war.   (Originally, it assumed that civilians would have the same or similar firearms which were available to members of the Army.)

Personally, I'm not terribly concerned about firearms which are only appropriate for "hunting" (although some of them are particularly appropriate for Snipers).

We need to accept and legitimize that some firearms are appropriate for "non-hunting" purposes.  For example, I have several pistols which are definitely not appropriate for hunting.  Would the author of this article argue that they are not "legitimate"?

"Self-defense" is a different issue; but still, no less legitimate.

Huffington Post: "Gun rights? We don' need no Steekin' Gun Rights!

(Huffington Post Article HERE)

There's a deep and surreptitious movement on the part of Liberal anti-gunners to encourage dramatic infringements on the Second Amendment rights of Americans for the purpose of ... er ... infringing on your Second Amendment Rights???

Outdoor writers' group responds to gun control op-ed from some senior members:
The letter by Ashe advanced an agenda to curb gun violence through regulations that included outlawing the sale of all semi-auto rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 cartridges, a ban on gun sales to those under age 21, and a “no-fly/no-buy” law that would bar those on terror watch lists or with a mental illness recognized by the Social Security Administration from buying guns. Other suggested measures included a ban on bump stocks, mandatory and universal background checks, the institution of gun violence restraining orders and increased federal gun research. “(I)n comparison to the 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who have been stripped of all of their rights, and of life and liberty, it is a small price to pay,” said Ashe in the piece, saying, “There are simple, responsible solutions. No one should use hunters and hunting as an excuse to avoid pursuing them.”
Let me see:
"No one should use hunters and hunting as an excuse to avoid pursuing them.”
This goes beyond the usual "anti-gun violence" rhetoric.

It exceeds all previous proposed restrictions on the Second Amendment. 

Yes, some of the proposals which have previously been proposed elsewhere, and some of the restrictions seem almost reasonable.
But the part about SSA defining "Mental Illness" has already been defined as excessive ... just because someone wants another party to help with Social Security form doesn't mean they are mentally deficient.

"Simple, responsible solutions"?
Neither Simple, nor Responsible.  Only burdensome to honest, law-abiding citizens.

"A Small Price to Pay"?
I think not!

The reference to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is excessive, bordering on Facetious.

EVERYTHING they propose is overly simplistic and arbitrary, designed only to  undermine the Second amendment rights of Americans.

We are not amused.

The Offensive NRA vs "Cave-in-itis"

Americans not only have the right to keep and bear arms, but we have the obligation.

Folks are getting worried that the tide of Public Opinion is turning against the NRA and the Second amendment.  *(See below from*

This makes it hard for us to find the courage to stand up for our constitutional rights.
I have no doubt that our Founding Fathers found it equally contentious to defend their rights; are we not as faithful Americans as they were?

I think that the NRA and its members need to stand firm with their conviction that the Second Amendment  is the codification of a basic human right.

There are a lot of Americans who have no use for their civil rights; but just because they do not value their freedoms, that's no reason why those freedoms shouldn't be defended by those of us who do not kneel to public opinion.  These  people are comfortable where they are, and because they do not USE some of their civil rights, they do not VALUE them.

I went to war ... unwillingly ... because my nation called upon me to perform my civil duty.

Now my nation (in the persons of weak-willy folks who are challenged with cave-in-itis) wonder whether there is an American Majority who thinks that the Second Amendment is passe'  .... whether we should just do away with it and give in to the "popular opinion" that the right to defend our home and family is just a passing illusion.

My ancestors came to this country a century ago (often less) from England, Ireland, Scotland and Germany, seeking to be free.   They were not hoping to defend their right to "Keep and Bear Arms"; they just wanted to live in a land where they had RIGHTS, rather than OBLIGATIONS.

Now it is up to me, and my cousins, to defend those rights.

If we yield to "Popular Opinion", we are no better than serfs;  allowing other people who believe in State-ism to determine how we live, what rights we may enjoy.

You may not agree, but *_I_* believe that the Constitution is the living will of our ancestors, and if we fail to defend it then we again doom our children to serfdom.

The question of whether we fight for our rights, for our Second Amendment rights specifically, seems to be a contentious question this year.   Too many Americans are too ready to give up their rights, because they don't exercise those rights ... and so, it's not an important issue to them.

Don't listen to them.

They don't care about their rights, they just want to be left alone in their servitude to people too fearful that their "permissions" are too difficult a responsibility.  Many Americans don't trust themselves with the responsibility to judiciously "Keep and Bear Arms", and so they don't trust the rest of us with that RIGHT.

The Second Amendment was not acknowledged by the Constitution so we could hunt; it was acknowledged (not granted!) so that we could defend ourselves against a government which had become too burdensome, too arbitrary, to allow us our RIGHT to become Citizens ... not "Subjects".

America was founded in Rebellion to a British King.

In the words an A-rated movie: "I don't  have to show you no stinkin' badges!"

 Neither do you.

We're Americans.

The NRA better go on the offensive, and they better do it now! - Gunmart Blog:

I think this is also going to be the moment where we see what the NRA is truly made of. Are they willing to throw anything else under the bus to passify short term manufactured outrage like they did with bump stocks? Or will they give the gun grabbers the middle finger and say ‘come and take it’ like they did after newtown. Politicians are watching. Make no mistake, EVERY politician in Washington wants America disarmed. They are just waiting for the NRA to signal that they will protect them during re-election before they sign that bill. Now we are going to find out if the NRA itself is the slippery slope that we are so worried about

"Shotgun Less Lethal Than an AR15"?

Note:  This article is written in terms of "home defense".  The criteria varies for street defense (concealed carry) and for any other defense situation.

I've got a problem when challenged to compare "Lethality"  of one gun type as compared to another gun type;   we're talking rifles, pistols and shotguns as the basic comparison,  and in the rifle class ... specifically the AR15.

USA TODAY Calls Shotgun Less Lethal Than an AR15 - Omaha Outdoors:
In an article titled initially “Guns used in Texas killings were less lethal than in other mass shootings,” USA TODAY meanders from error to error in describing rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Though the title has since been changed to “Texas shooter used shotgun, pistol in deadly assault,” the rest of the errors in the article remain unchanged.
I'd like to talk about that for a bit.

Definition of terms: for the sake of this discussion, we assume that "Lethality" refers to the likely "One Shot Kill" .. whether a person or an animal.

The lethality for animals is dependent on body size and weight.   If the 'animal' is a home-intruder, assume a healthy male of around 180 pounds, and someone who is determined to do you harm.

The variance between firearms type is dependent on bullet size, bullet weight, bullet design; and also the caliber, the powder charge, velocity, and (in practical terms) the number of rounds available to the shooter.

Since we've defined "One-Shot Kills" (or "Stoppage") is the criteria for LETHALITY,  let's ignore how many rounds the gun can fire in x-number of seconds.   Magazine capacity may be mentioned, but it is not the defining criteria.

The advantage of a pistol is that it is easily portable and concealable, and thus more likely to be available in a self-defense situation.   Generally speaking a "big gun" (eg: .44 magnum revolver) is inconvenient to carry ... but much more lethal.    As a "home defense weapon", a pistol offers the advantages of convenient storage, concealability, and ease of engaging a target with little warning.   Pistols (and revolvers) typically allow at lest six shots before a "mandatory reload", and magazines/speed loaders can easily reload in the dark with practice and experience.

Single-action revolvers are not ideal for home defense; the reload speed is unacceptable.

The Disadvantage of a pistol is that most are designed to be 'conveniently' fired from one hand, so it's difficult to have sufficient mass times velocity to equate to a relatively large power factor.  Even the .45ACP with a standard bullet weight of 230 grains is not propelled with sufficient power to maintain a flat trajectory for long.   Fortunately, this is not a disadvantage in the even of a home invasion ... go the range often and practice with the gun you chose for home defense. Shoot until the target is down.

In a home invasion scenario, "point shooting" will probably be the only available option.  Pistols with their short sight radius make it more likely to hit a surprise target at the three-to-five yard distance which is common in home invasions.

The advantage of a rifle is that is designed to fire a relatively lighter (usually) bullet at a higher velocity (usually) than a pistol.   The long sight radius increases accuracy, and also rifles which are magazine fed often provide more shots before reloading that many pistols ... and all revolvers.

The disadvantage of a rifle is the very length which provides an accuracy advantage; it's virtually impossible to conceal, cumbersome to get into action, and unlike a pistol it is very difficult to "point and shoot" with the same chance of getting a hit as is a pistol at its normal range of use.

The advantage of a shotgun is that it combines the advantages of the rifle and the pistol, considering that the shot spreads wider as the distance from the gun to the target increases; that allows the multiple-pellets (sometimes the same or greater diameter as many pistol bullets) to provide a greater  chance that one or more pellets to hit the target ... at distances intermediate between the best range of a pistol v. that of a rifle.  (The effectiveness of a rifle pellet depends on the ammunition chosen:  00 buckshot is "size per-pellet" often comparable to either  pistol or rifle bullets; however, as distance to target increases, the efficacy of a shotgun blast diminishes because fewer pellets are likely to hit the target.

The disadvantage of a shotgun is that for concealment; shotguns are as inefficient as rifles; for long range accuracy, shotguns are as inefficient as pistols.   The advantage of a shotgun is that


Whatever gun you use, practice with it often.  Rotate your ammunition.  If you use a semi-automatic, have several magazines and always keep one magazine "resting" (unloaded) so the spring does not weaken due to remaining loaded for months at a time. (Do NOT keep that empty magazine in your "reload supply"!)  Rotate your magazines .. weekly ..  so you can "rest" the magazine spring in between practice sessions.