Saturday, June 02, 2018

NEW NEWS: Harvard Students Are "LIBERAL"!!!!

It SOUNDS as if Harvard were contemplating the inclusion of Republicans on their staff.
But we know that's never going to happen.

Perhaps a couple of  Republican students may be admitted; but that would be just cruel in a student body where they're outnumbered 20,000 to one.

Harvard Student Paper Calls Out University's Liberal Bias, Pushes for Ideological Diversity on Campus | Fox News Insider:
Harvard University's student newspaper criticized the school's liberal bias and called for greater ideological diversity on campus. In an editorial, The Crimson argued that the conversation surrounding diversity and inclusion at Harvard has been dominated by issues of race and gender. "While we should always strive for more conversation that focuses on addressing the unquestionably salient issues of racial and gender identity, approaches seeking to foster diversity, inclusion, and belonging at Harvard should be more comprehensive," the editorial board wrote.
In reference to Conservative Students, would they refer to them using the N-word?

Tucker vs CA Dem on Gun Control Issue .... NOT a "Debate"

There's this thing about a "Debate" where each opponent is permitted to present his position without interruption.

That's how we (observers) get information we need to judge the relative merits of each side.

Unfortunately, Tucker Carlson's aggressive version of "Debate" only allows him to pontificate against his opponent ... which dis-allows the audience evaluate the relative merits of each side.

'You Wrote That': Tucker Battles CA Dem Calling for Federally Enforced Gun 'Buybacks' | Fox News Insider: Tucker Carlson debated a California Democrat who recently called for a law that would institute a government buyback program for "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons" and prosecute those who "defy" the policy by keeping those firearms. (video available at the link)
It seems counter-productive to have a debate where the "host" brow-beats the "guest"; but that's the way the Internet works.   In an interview with a 'hostile' guest (one who disagrees with the host),  it's all about the money ... websites won't abide a host who loses his debate.   And it's unlikely that Tucker Carlson is willing to undermine his "I'm Always Right!" position just to let a 'guest' get in a shot or two.  (Excuse the expression.)

Not that we all agree with Gun Control people, but they are entitled to have their opinion.  If we don't know what it is, how can we debate them?

The Fox News answer is .. we don't debate them.  We bully them, and don't let them talk.
 Piece of cake!

I expect better from people who speak for "my side".

Friday, June 01, 2018

How the assassinations of 1968 led the NRA to become the lobbying force it is today - The Washington Post

WAPO has an in-depth analysis of the rise of the NRA in the turbulent 1960's.

I urge you to read it, and pay attention to the key events which turned this nation inside out.

Also .. WAPO allows a limited number of 'reads' before they begin to charge you for access.  It may be worth it to you , to keep track of what "they" have to say about the issues of gun control and Constitutional Freedoms.

It may be worth it; they don't charge much, and they always have an interesting point of view, whether or not you agree with them.  See below.

How the assassinations of 1968 led the NRA to become the lobbying force it is today - The Washington Post:
The day after an assassin’s bullet crashed through Robert Kennedy’s skull, President Lyndon B. Johnson wrote a letter to Congress. “Let us now spell out our grief in constructive action,” the president urged in a message on June 6, 1968. Johnson decried the availability of arms to the mentally ill. And he lamented “mail-order murder,” which had allowed Lee Harvey Oswald five years earlier to purchase a $19.95 rifle from a Chicago store and train its sights on Robert Kennedy’s brother John as he rode through Dallas in his presidential motorcade:
for more ... follow the link.

YouTube new policy on Firearms Posting

You Tube is "cracking down" on content which features firearms!

 I don't know what the final version will look like, but I DO know that Youtube has  changed its role of providing a central point of reference for Second Amendment issues (and firearms in general) for many years.

Obviously, there's a new Niche market opening up, one which is not inclined to be critical about videos merely because they content provides valuable information about firearms and related topics.   

But you won't see it on YouTube.

Hunting, self-defense, reloading,  care-and-maintenance, quality comparison between manufacturers of similar firearms ... you name it, I've always considered YouTube my first go-to source of information; both technical and entertainment.

Someone will have to step in to fill the gap, but it will be an uphill climb to achieve the familiarity that YouTube had already achieved.

Personally?   think that YouTube has caved into some pressure which hasn't been mentioned yet, let alone identified.  And I think that same agency, group, whatever will continue to hound the Gun Community and its online resources until there's no "There", there!

It's censorship, it's bowdlerization of America, and it's a not-so-subtle attack on our Second Amendment AND First Amendment rights.

The following page contain links from YouTube which provide specific references the above article:

FedEx v NRA Pricing Program Inclusion

FedEx has released a statement in reference to  doing business with the NRA.   *See below for text*

(Note: Hogg Grunts not addressed here.)

While FedEx "distances" itself from the NRA it continues to offer discounts for "american small businesses and consumers".

Apparently, the NRA falls within their business aperture.

It's impossible to criticize their determination to "...  protect schools and students from incidents such as the horrific tragedy in Florida on February 14th".   

In fact, nobody could ask more, or expect less, from a concerned business in America.

So while Fed-Ex isn't about to offer direct support to the goals and activities of the NRA (firearms safety training, safe gun handling, protection of the Second Amendment),  it is encouraging that FedEx hasn't been intimidated by anti-gun fanatics who would undermine our constitutional rights ... and paint law-abiding, safe firearms owners with the same brush of felons, fanatics and murderers.

Speaking as an individual safe firearm owner who has been hunting, plinking, competing for 60 years (as well as serving as an Infantry Platoon Sergeant in Viet Nam during 1969-1970), I applaud Fed-Ex not only for their rational, measured response, but also for not joining the clan of corporations which would tarnish my service by conflating me with illegal, irresponsible firearms users.

I have a couple of Competition Pistols which I have been planning to send to the manufacturer for Level 3 Maintenance and Repair; I believe I'll send them via Fed-Ex rather than "those other guys", and request return vie Fed-Ex as well.

Perhaps others of my friends and co-competitors will Take A Clue and be more particular about specifying Fed-Ex for their shipping needs, as well.

Firearms Owners need to support those agencies who support our sport.   It's not about the money; it's about the support.

Gun control activist David Hogg hints at Memphis protest versus FedEx:
* FedEx released a statement late Wednesday that didn't mention Hogg and repeated several points the company had made earlier this year during an earlier dispute over its discount program for NRA members. "The pricing program mentioned in some reports is not for the NRA itself – it is for American small businesses and consumers that are members of the association," the company said. The company also repeated earlier statements distancing itself from the NRA's positions: "FedEx opposes assault rifles being in the hands of civilians . . .-Most important, FedEx believes urgent action is required at the local, state, and Federal level to protect schools and students from incidents such as the horrific tragedy in Florida on February 14th." *
And yes, even those firearms which you consider to be "Assault Rifles" need maintenance.  My firearms are used for self-defense, competition and for putting meat on my table, not for hurting people.

Thursday, May 31, 2018

Helpful Advice from the Theocratic Republic. of Iran

The Supreme Ruler says we need better gun control in America.

I'm touched that the leader of a Theocracy is willing to provide helpful advice to the infidels of America.   I'm only surprised that he hasn't been engaged in extended conversations with leaders of the Baptists, the Catholics, the Mormons, the Shakers, the Episcopalians and the Muslims who constitute only a few of the many, many religious denominations which comprise the religious leadership in my native country.

The experience might help him to understand why we so vigorously defend our freedoms.
But that's not going to happen, because the Ayatollah only recognizes his own religion.

(Well, that's his job.)

Ayatollah Khamenei Calls for Gun Control—in the U.S.: ( -
Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has released a statement calling on the United Nations to “seriously” pursue seven “human rights” cases in the United States. One of these is what Khamenei perceives as the need for gun control. “Another case which the UN should definitely pursue is the freedom of selling guns in the US with which so many crimes are being committed,” Khamenei said in a statement published today.
Get your own house in order, "grant" them the same freedoms as American .. and then we'll talk.

We are Americans ... all of us.

Even those of us who don't agree with everyone else.

Oh ... that's all of us.

Nobody Likes a Potty Mouth

The Democrat who said 'F**k The NRA' Is Dropping Out Of NM Congressional Race - Matt Vespa: Pat Davis is dropping out. The New Mexico Democrat who made headlines with his “f**k the NRA” ad has decided to back his challenger instead. He’s doing it to help shore up party unity in the race that’s considered a toss up.
Curiously, in a news release published yesterday, he claimed that his numbers were looking good and that he had received a lot of encouragement from his constituents.

His opponents (in New Mexico?) didn't necessarily disagree with his opinion:
Opponent Deb Haaland issued the following statement:
"The NRA and the arms industry are responsible for horrific preventable deaths all across America -- with communities of color hardest hit by this epidemic of violence. I fully understand the anger many people are expressing, and I share it -- even if I might use different words."
Damon Martinez's campaign declined to comment. KRQE News 13 did not hear back from Antoinette Lopez.
Well they're Democrats, trying to toe the party line (and privately grinning at the curiosity of an avid anti-gunner shooting himself in the foot).

Let's start a new totally unfounded rumor, shall we?


Claims He'll Feel More Comfortable as a Member of the "STUPID PARTY

(file under: "Accidental Discharge")

CNN and Broward County

The Gun Feed ( has a great picture on their website entry page today:

Wednesday, May 30, 2018

Parkland Students Continue To Be USED by Anti-gun Fascists

Someone  has proposed a bunch of  gun-control laws (as if we don't already have enough) to suit his vision of nirvana:
Parkland students: our manifesto to change America's gun laws | Editorial staff of the Eagle Eye | US news | The Guardian

That’s why the Eagle Eye has come together and proposed these following changes to gun policy. We believe federal and state governments must put these in place to ensure that mass shootings and gun violence cease to be a staple of American culture.
I believe that any effort put forth by our "government" is more likely to infringe upon our Constitutional rights than to support them.  And anyone who invites the Government into our privacy is an absolute dingbat clueless asshole.
Yeah ... I'm talking about You, Guardian!

Ban semi-automatic weapons that fire high-velocity rounds
Civilians shouldn’t have access to the same weapons that soldiers do. That’s a gross misuse of the second amendment.
These weapons were designed for dealing death: not to animals or targets, but to other human beings. The fact that they can be bought by the public does not promote domestic tranquility. Rather, their availability puts us into the kind of danger faced by men and women trapped in war zones
WHY shouldn't  Civilians have the same weapons (and ammunition) as soldiers do?  In America, we revolted against British Rule by arming ourselves with the same arms and ammunition as our oppressors used .. and we kicked their asses!

Sorry .. are you British?  Did I offend you?

Terms not defined.  And yes ... assuming that all semi-auto weapons fire "high velocity rounds",  this probably defines the weapons which people who are attacked would choose to defend themselves.  It's difficult do carry on a dialogue with someone who is entirely CLUELESS about the technicalities of the subject.

Moving on ....
This situation reflects a failure of our government. It must be corrected to ensure the safety of those guaranteed the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"Our Government" is rife with failures.  It sounds naive to expect Our Government to accept responsibility for our individual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The police are not responsible for our safety.  Look it up ... they just enforce the law, and clean up the mess "after".  They don't protect, whatever the chi-chi motto is painted on their patrol cars.

"Our Government" has chosen to NOT accept this responsibility. 

High-capacity magazines played a huge role in the shooting at our school. In only 10 minutes, 17 people were killed, and 17 others were injured. This is unacceptable.
That’s why we believe that bump stocks, high-capacity magazines and similar accessories that simulate the effect of military-grade automatic weapons should be banned.

If you were attacked by a number of people and weren't very good at shooting .. wouldn't you want a lot of ammunition to defend yourself?

This is a "Second Amendment" nation.  We hold these truths to be self-evident .. unlike the British whose truths are all wrapped up in gauze and tape.  

Establish a database of gun sales and universal background checks

We believe that there should be a database recording which guns are sold in the United States, to whom, and of what caliber and capacity they are.
That makes it very easy for the government which you don't expect to protect you  to take your guns away from you.  Are you SURE this is what you want?

You offer no reason why you would want your government to have such a Draconian control over you.  You sound like a person who trusts anonymous elected officials to be more caring about your health than you are.  Don't you think you are the best person to decide how you should be protected?

Why in the WORLD would you want that?
The Government already knows more about you that you would wish ... the only reason for "them" knowing all that crap is so that they can violate your civil rights arbitrarily.

Together with universal background checks, this system would help law enforcement stop a potentially dangerous person before they commit a gun crime.
Thanks to loopholes, people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to buy firearms are able to purchase them at gun shows and secondhand sales. The existence of these loopholes reflects the ineptitude of state and federal legislators.
If we are serious about preventing people from purchasing deadly weapons, we must monitor sales that take place at gun shows and on secondhand markets. This is especially urgent given the danger posed by mentally unstable and violent individuals armed with firearms.
There is no "Gun Show Loophole".
What there IS, is the ability for two people to make a private transaction of any commodity without involving the Federal Government.

Which suits me just FINE.

Allow the CDC to make recommendations for gun reform
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should be allowed to conduct research on the dangers of gun violence. The fact that they are currently prohibited from doing so undermines the first amendment. It also violates the rights of the American people.
The CDC has been restricted in its reportage ... not its research.  The reason is that the CDC allowed it's anti-gun agenda to negatively influence its reportage because they emphasized  gun attacks, and never mentioned defensive use of guns (which saved lives).

Their support has NOT been cut off;  several other sources (such as Harvard University) have come forward to provide funding.  But our tax dollars no longer are arbitrarily used to support a political position which some of us do not espouse.

Personally, I'm grateful.  I hate the thought that my tax dollars would be wasted on a governmental department dedicated to undermining my Second Amendment Freedoms!

Raise the firearm purchase age to 21

If you;'re old enough to serve in the army, you're ole enough to pack a gun.

Dedicate more funds to mental health research and professionals

bunch of crap; the researchers and professinals are more often as bug-house nuts and their patients.

Increase funding for school security

Our children are our future.  They should be protected against any threat.
No effort is too expensive, no defense is too radical.  

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Fear Mongers R (not) US!

The Limeys have their knickers in a knot because Americans are being terrorized by the National Rifle Association.
'The NRA are fearmongers': students excoriate gun group and politicians' lack of action | US news | The Guardian: Students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school accused the National Rifle Association on Sunday of exploiting people’s fears to sell weapons and criticized the Trump administration for its stuttering response to last month’s gun rampage in Florida, which left 14 of their peers and three teachers dead.
Actually, the NRA doesn't sell weapons.

Those who libel shooters are generally timid folks.  They see danger in situations which have nothing to do with them, except in their own minds.   They live in protected environments, stay in their high-rise apartments, and email to their publishers opinions on subjects which they are poorly qualified to evaluate.

In my PERSONAL opinion, a bunch of teenagers who have recently been traumatized by a terrible act of violence are inclined to react emotionally, given the slightest bit of encouragement from Liberal News Networks. 

I don't criticize the teenagers who have reacted emotionally to a horrible experience. 

But I DO blame the Liberal Press for taking advantage of a malleable group of victims to buoy the Liberal Anti-gun agenda.

Parkland Students; Manifesto: My response:

Parkland students: our manifesto to change America's gun laws | Editorial staff of the Eagle Eye | US news | The Guardian: After the massacre at our high school, our lives have changed forever – so we’re proposing these changes to halt mass shootings March for Our Lives – live updates by Editorial staff of the Eagle Eye
I very much understand your fear and your concerns ... which are, here, one and the same.

I don't doubt that your concern about private firearms ownership is based upon your horrible experience, and I have no way to respond to those fears ... except to yield my own right to defend myself against similar attacks.   And I am not prepared to yield that right.

You are all very young.  You are not familiar with firearms, and you have been taught to fear them.  And your recent experiences have taught you that this fear is justified.   I share your dismay.

I am not prepared to yield my right to keep and bear arms, because of your fears.  I have my own fears, but they are based on the concern that I may be attacked ... and not "allowed" to defend myself.

I am very old.  I  have been shot at (a LOT!) and it was never my choice.

I was drafted into the army as a young man, not much older than yourselves  I was given a gun (and minimal training)  and sent to a foreign country to fight a war I didn't believe in for causes I did not understand.   A lot of us went  to Viet Nam, a lot of my friends died there, and I died a little bit there, too.

People who randomly attack peaceful citizens are just ... wrong.

I think we will agree with that; it's only common sense.

Well .. not obvious to everyone:
Personal Experience are a powerful testimony, even if their experiences are not universal:
We have a unique platform not only as student journalists, but also as survivors of a mass shooting. We are firsthand witnesses to the kind of devastation that gross incompetence and political inaction can produce. We cannot stand idly by as the country continues to be infected by a plague of gun violence that seeps into community after community, and does irreparable damage to the hearts and minds of the American people.
The Constitution of the United States has wisely acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms is not something that it can 'give' to us, but rather one which is intrinsic in all free people.  So it is with all of the "rights" enumerated in the Constitution, including the First Amendment Right to speak our thoughts without governmental interference.

And not "everybody" who owns a gun is a monster: the paint splatters widely and taints not only the Bad Guys With A Gun. but the rest of us ... who never pointed a gun at a person and would not do so other than exceptional circumstances ( to wit: protection of our selves or our family).

Unfortunately, too many Americans (and people all over the world) have abused that Right, and so we have to deal with the recurring theme of MONSTERS who use firearms to predate upon their fellow men and woman.

I applaud your determination to keep firearms away from those who would do us harm, or whose intention may someday do us harm.  Unfortunately, it's difficult (if not impossible) to predict just which villain may choose on the spur of the moment to use a firearm to attack us.

Or to drive his car into a crowded sidewalk.

Or to throw a gallon of gas into a disco dance floor, and light it.

Or to fly a hijacked airplane into a metropolitan skyscraper or two.

Or to place an explosive pressure cooker along the finish like of the Boston Marathon.

My point is that we cannot reasonably apply laws against gasoline, airplanes or pressure cookers because ... there are too many ways for men of ill will to predate against a sane society.

But there is ONE way which we can use to, perhaps, minimize the effect of "men of ill will" when they attack us; and that is to allow each of us who are armed, trained and prepared to defend the rest of us in times of great distress.

IT IS NOW LEGAL and permissible for men and women of good character (dependent upon a "background check" by civil authorities) to apply for, and be rewarded, a license to keep and bear concealed weapons in defense of themselves ant others.

(There was a time when it wasn't necessary to undergo Special Training and federal approval for an honest man to carry a gun ... but too many Bad Men have appeared in our society, and I guess it's not enough to have lived a frugal life to be commonly known as a "Responsible Gun Owner");

The police cannot be 'everywhere' ... but Concealed Handgun Licensees (CHLs) may be almost anywhere; and you will not know them until they are called upon to defend you and/or themselves. in the event that a random attack may occur.  The police cannot be 'everywhere", but the CHL may.

This is why I caution us to be concerned about comments like this:
We have a unique platform not only as student journalists, but also as survivors of a mass shooting. We are firsthand witnesses to the kind of devastation that gross incompetence and political inaction can produce. We cannot stand idly by as the country continues to be infected by a plague of gun violence that seeps into community after community, and does irreparable damage to the hearts and minds of the American people.

I understand that "mass shootings" are increasingly prevalent, and wee need to address the issue.

(Hey, I've owned guns for 60! years and I have yet to shoot up a university community, even though I live in a College Town and the "kids" in my neighborhood party until down!)

I would not argue against the concern about gross incompetence and political inaction  .. I only wonder what alternative  actions the authors might suggest.

Sadly, they have nothing to offer other than a squeal for action ... which they themselves are unable to propose.

There are three possible methods to address this very real and immediate "problem".

  • Nobody has a gun
  • Everybody has a gun
  • Gun?  What's that?

If nobody has a gun, nobody has the means to defend herself': only criminals are armed.
If everybody has a gun, at least the proposed victim has the means to defend herself
If we just ignore the problem, it will never go away

Today, we are stuck in the fourth situation ... we are afraid to take action, we would prefer to write a law (which will not be obeyed), and we won't even question our options because it's just too difficult to decide what's right.  We can't even talk about it without slings and arrows flying every which way.

We know there are enough guns in America to arm every man and woman and child.

IN THE 1930's We banned fully automatic weapons (machine guns) because ... Capone.

In the 1090's we banned a lot of in-common-usage firearms because it was "politically expedient" to do so.  That went away, because the Assault Weapons Ban didn't do anything to reduce "Firearms Violence".

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was .. controversial at best; not distinctively helpful, at worst.

Today, our legislators are trying to decide what other guns they syhould ban, to reduce "firearms violence".  That has gone nowhere because after you "highly regulate full-automatic guns" all the guns left are "In Common Usage" .. except for this-and-that.

It seems obvious to me that gun-bans are nothing more than wishful thinking, imposed upon the  law-abiding citizens for the political purpose of folks who want to be elected to public office.

It may take a while, but I look forward to the day when gun bans are minuscule and rare because there are no political points to be made by office-seekers who know nothing about the firearms they choose to vilify in the current election cycle.

In the meantime, it seems obvious that any laws which are intended to reduce the proliferation of firearms in the America community will only affect the law-abiding.  Criminals, crooks and various neer-do-wells will ignore the laws, with the resultant effect that only law-abiding citizens whi wish to protect their homes and familislies with rapid-firing, high-velocity firearms with a quick reload option will be banned.  This will inconvenience (disarm) law-abiding home-owners, but the criminals the home invaders, and the bank robbers will not even momentarily be inconvenienced.

I think that I should have the same rights as bank robbers.  What do YOU think?