Friday, September 14, 2018

Posting about the Second Amendent

Since December of 1998, I have written 4513 drafts (and actually published 4056 of them) posts on this website in an attempt to present the Shooting Sports as a wholesome, widely accepted exemplar of the freedoms which America has protected in the Constitution..

As of this date, there are still more writers who condemn the use of firearms for sport, defense and hunting than those who accept this Constitutionally acknowledged RIGHT!

I do not know how Americans seem so ready to turn their backs on a Right which seemed so important to the Founding Fathers.  I can only presume that America has become so smug about ourselves that they don't think we have anyone against whom we need to defend ourselves.

we are perhaps probably the most hated country in the world ... certainly in the Middle East!
Because we think all men are created equal, and we give them guns to prove it.

It seems trite to assume that the "911" events were dismissed:  Did nobody notice that if our country was not essentially disarmed, those terrible deaths of Americans would not have occurred if (for example) the passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 had been armed .. or even if the odds were that they might have been armed?   They couldn't defend themselves against box cutters!

Today, the 911 tragedy is nothing more than a "Trip Ticket Tour". where for $100 (more or less) you can see all the sites where Americans died. 

Is this what our country has come to?  A place where you can relive the places where innocent Americans have died?  I wait with bated breath for a tour where you can visited the incinerated bodies of Americans who died upon that day.

Not.   That's disgusting!

It seems to me that the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

(Not an original observation, I agree.)

It's about preserving our freedom .. preserving our freedom from a tyrannical government (which was the original priority of our ForeFathers), but also from those outsiders who resent our freedoms and who would seek to undermine them.

Not all of which are aliens;  many native born Americans are fearful of those Americans who own and use firearms.   (Or box cutters.)

They think we are wild men. 

They assume that we are fearful and would use our guns irresponsibly.  They do not accept that we think we are at least as sane as they are, and perhaps more responsible because we are prepared to use our meager firepower to defend those who are unwilling or unable to defend themselves.

There is a story ( which I personally disbelieve) that at the onset of WWII, someone in the Japanese  High Command was presented with the suggestion that Japan should open the festivities by invading America's.   The senor Japanese general waived the plan on the basis that: "Oh, HELL no!  Americans are all armed, and we would face armed Americans behind every rock and tree with guns!"

Aprophycal, to be sure; but not entirely unrealistic.

The might of America  is with its laymen.  
Those gun-nuts (and the Second Amendment) who are so despised by the Liberal Left are perhaps our First line of Defense.

Forget the U.S. Army, and the National Guard.   
They are all-too-organized, and everyone has access to their names and addresses.  And besides, they are not "on the scene" when violence  begins, when it is disorganized, when they have not yet established full control over their victims.

But their purported victims are there, and if prepared ... they can dismantle even a planned attack if they have the will, the conviction and the firepower

No, America's "First Freedom" (however you may despise them) are the individual; the man with a gun, who has no qualms about defending his country ... and is likely to be the man who is most effective.

He has no name.  He exists on no roster of "Military Member".  He's just Joe Schmo from Tipalo.

He is The Minute Man; the guy who our forefathers expected to defend his country 200 years ago, ... not because he should, but because he can.

You may not like him; maybe stuffing a chaw in his cheek; or he may be a Corporate CEO; but he's an American with a gun, and someone who knows how (and when) to use it.

If and when we really really, really need him, he's there.

Like it or not.

Information, or Salesmanship?

I like the concept of a website which promotes firearms as a means of self-defense.

I worry that some seem to be more concerned with promotion of their website, than they are for defense of our civil rights.

Sometimes it's a little confusing; but perhaps I've missed a few issues.

Obama ...: we gave him EVERYTHING!

It's not just you.

Two Alpha?


When you really, really need to shoot somebody,  it ought to leave a mark for the NEXT G-friend to wonder  WTF???

Police: Woman shot local man in the face as he choked her: During the investigation officers discovered Hampton and woman, who are in some sort of relationship or possibly related, were fighting when the man began to choke the woman, Waco police Sgt. Patrick Swanton said. During the struggle, Hampton pulled out a gun, but the woman was able to point it toward him and shoot him, Swanton said. He was taken to a local hospital.

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Why We Fought The Britsh

1984 has reached No-longer-so-Great Britain.

U.K. Police Urge Citizens To Report Neighbors For 'Offensive' Speech:
English police are now calling on citizens to report hate incidents. Reporting friends and neighbors to the police has terrible historical connotation, and for good reason. It is legitimate fascism. Timid citizenries are easy to control — fear that even a coworker could file a report to the police can keep people in check.

Thanks to Joe's Gulch for the heads-up and the link; he's a nice man, but he just doesn't HATE enough to give this report the attention it deserves.

The only way the world could possibly be negatively affected by this sort of societal incursions on the First Amendment is if the good folks at GOOGLE agreed with them!

Oh ... wait .....

Hello?  IS there anyone there? 

>TAP TAP TAP<   Is This Thing On?

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

All they know is what they read in the papers

The Trace references an independent study which purports to prove ... statistically ... that private individuals who legally carry guns do not reduce crime. (see below the fold for detail)

The thing is, crimes which do not occur because of legally carried guns are rarely reported.

Woman Waiting For Her Commute:
During the bitter winter of the year in which Oregon permitted concealed carry, a lady friend of mine was waiting in the transit station to catch her ride into Portland.  She was approached by a trio of young men who threatened her and demanded her purse.  She slipped her hand into the pocket of her overcoat ... and the thugs backed off.   

They said (words to the effect) "Oh no, you don't gotta pull a gun on us, lady.   We're out of here!"

And they left. 
A few minutes later, her bus arrived and she went to her job.

Did she report the attempted mugging?   No, she did not.   She was cold, worried more about getting to work on time, and the crime (of "Threatening", if nothing else) was never reported.

Man Leaving The Office:
Another friend was threatened in the parking lot of the Corporate Headquarters building where he and I both worked ... this was just after he got off work.    He had stayed late to finish a product, and he was the only employee in the parking lot. 

Again, multiple assailants ... but this time he had a pistol in a concealed carry holster; he pulled the gun just far enough to display it, and the gang ran.

He unlocked his car and went home to dinner.  No report was filed with the police, the incident never appeared in the newspapers. 

Just life in The City.

I worked for several years in an educational institution.  I carried every day.  Even though I had a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) it was not legal for me to bring a firearm into the buildings, although it was legal for me to (concealed) carry on campus.  (NOTE: Oregon does not recognize any other state's handgun license; we are that weird.)

Nobody knew I was armed, and I kept the pistol in a locked desk drawer during the day; I only carried it between the parking lot and my office.   And I was never assaulted during that most dangerous time of the day ... on the way to and from work.

If I HAD been approached by someone who threatened me, I would have lost my job by defending myself with a gun; it was obviously a violation of my "Terms of Employment" for me to possess a firearm in any building on campus.     I wouldn't have reported it, either.

In Oregon, CHL folks are the Red-Headed Stepchild; nobody recognizes us, nobody likes us, so we just keep a low profile ... at least, in our professional life.

I suspect many CHL folks around the country are much the same way.  We don't advertise.
And i wouldn't even be writing this, if I wasn't retired.  Now Oregon laws on CHL have been updated just a little bit, but I still can't carry inside of any building on any campus in Oregon.

BELOW THE FOLD: CHL does not reduce crime