Curmudgeon Blogging Not Allowed!

The reason I keep writing here is because I have this really terrific "Support Group" of people who, when I get all cranky anc curmudgeonly ... they remind me  that I'm among friends and I don't have to be The Cranky Guy (at least, not all the time(*).

*(see the comments here)

IN OTHER NEWS:
Still can't find the 'missing firearms", still concerned, still searching the house in hopes that I've merely "misplaced them".  Not expecting a good outcome at all ... which feeds my curmudgeonliness.

I've got to go to the County Sheriff on Monday and admit that I've not stored my firearms completely in compliance with Oregon new laws.    You can write me in care of Birmingham Jail.

Portland has become the Canker Sore of Oregon

I use to live in Portland (the largest city in the state), back about 40 years ago.

I sold my house for "$2000, and you take over the payments" on my GI Bill loan. 

Ten years earlier, $30,000 for a cottage on the East Side of Portland was (in the words of our real estate agent when my wife and I bought it) a "steal".

But I got divorced, and gave my ex-wife the proceeds from selling the house.   At the time, I regretted having give up a 2-story house with a front and (fenced) back yard, detached garage, and a basement with an extra bedroom.

Now ... I realize that I could not have foreseen what a Liberal Hell-hole Portland would become.   And I'm glad I got out while "the getting was good".

What happened to Portland is what's happening to America.  Our elected officials are allowing violence by people who call themselves "anti-fascists", but who are in fact becoming the most violent fascists in America.

What happened in Portland is fanatics who wear masks and hoodies and assault total strangers on the mean streets of our most "Progressive" city.   

It's difficult to understand what these Rebels Without A Cause want, but they are more than willing to engage in anonymous violence to achieve their bizarre purpose.

It's just a guess, but I think what they want is anarchy.   So I'll call them Anarchists; people who have no clearly defined goal but mob rule .... and they do it because they can.

The state of Oregon, the city of Portland, have made no effort to curb these Anarchists even while they commit crimes of assault against innocent passers-by.

...

I remember, back in the day, driving 'home' to Portland and being greeted by a huge neon sign of a prancing White Stag (the emblem of a well-known outdoor clothing company)

That sign was ... well, it felt like coming home to me.   It was a comfortable welcome to the Portland of my era, and I loved it.

I don't know if that sign is still up; I have passed through Portland a few times on my way up the I5 Interstate highway, but I no longer look for the White Stag sign.  In fact, I try not to look at anything but the road; it's all too gruesome and disgusting to drive through this "Major City".

Portland, Oregon: The canary in a coal mine for the violent Left:

The last time I passed through Portland, Oregon, I was treated to the sight of a bum squatting with his trousers around his ankles, dumping a huge load of poop on the pedestrian walkway of the Morrison Street bridge. 

This was not the Portland of my memories. It was a Third World hell-hole, which I had become accustomed to in Viet Nam ... but not in My America!

This was a consequence of the progressive permissiveness which seems, to me, endemic to extend "Liberality" to the point where laws are not enforced,  anarchy is tacitly permitted, and basic rules of respectable human behavior are ignored.

Forget the riots, forget the protests, and forget the concept of human dignity.

If anyone wonders why I am a convicted Conservative, it's because I think that in an America which is becoming increasingly populated by people who have no concept of "Correct Behavior" ...

I don't want to be known as a part of that America.

This is not the America which drafted me, which sent me to war, or which expected me to act like a responsible human being in a country that I didn't care whether it went communist or was free.

Because I was, and I remain, an American.   I have my standards ... and I insist that those standards are respected and accepted by every American.

Don't shit on the bridge.
Don't shit on the Constitution.

Is that too much to ask?

ATTEMPT to make normal security measures appear paranoid

The press works its wondrous ways to skew present the news.

WATCH: Security Steps in as Parkland Victim's Father Walks Up Behind Kavanaugh | Breitbart: During Tuesday’s confirmation hearings, security jumped into action as a Parkland shooting victim’s father walked up behind Brett Kavanaugh. Video of the incident shows that Kavanaugh had risen from seat and turned to his left to walk out of the chamber when Fred Guttenberg approached from behind. Guttenberg, the father of Jaime Gutternberg–who was slain in the Feb. 14, 2018, Parkland school shooting–reached out his hand toward Kavanaugh’s and said something, at which point Kavanaugh began to turn toward him and security intervened.

The reportage skewed the news .. and over-reported the incident ... to insinuate that Kavanaugh's security over-reacted.   In fact, no high-profile politician (or his security detail) will willingly UNDER-react to an unidentified person approaching their charge without being thoroughly vetted (and often searched).

I look back at the American Political Figures against whom assassinations were attempted (or completed), but most especially to the assassination of John F. Kennedy,  whose assassination was successfully completed.   I did not agree with the nuances of his politics, but I admired the man for his integrity.

As we see new candidates for office, we also see those who would threaten their physical security, in an effort to dissuade them from seeking political office.

 I think this is the lowest level to which any politically aware citizen can descend.  If you don't like his/her politics, campaign against him and make your objections part of the public dialogue.

When animals sink to political assassinations, then they reveal themselves for the cultural dupes that they are.

The dichotomy between Republicans and Democrats continues to be not only NON-productive, but COUNTER-Productive!

On the other hand, if the two-party was not intrinsically divisive, how could you tell the difference between them?

For Goodness Sakes, it's a BEAUTY CONTEST!

In a very public "Shallow Hal" moment, the reigning Miss America trashes the organization which voted her "Most Likely" ... apparently, she was Most Likely to be "Bitchiest".

Somewhere in between some anonymous tenor singing: "Here She Is, Miss America; the girl who was only one of a thousand faces ..." and "I'm so honored, there are so many girls here who are more deserving ..."  she evoked her Full bitch Mode.

Miss America Cara Mund slams org, Gretchen Carlson: They 'erased me':

In a twist of irony, the most recent Miss America winner is accusing the Miss America Organization – one that's recently taken public steps in the name of female-empowerment –of bullying and silencing her. In a five-page letter addressed to "Miss America Sisters" and obtained by USA TODAY on Friday, Cara Mund, Miss America 2018, calls out Miss America CEO Regina Hopper and chair Gretchen Carlson for having "silenced me, reduced me, marginalized me, and essentially erased me in my role as Miss America in subtle and not-so-subtle ways on a daily basis." 

Mund blamed the sponsors.   Amazing! 

Michigan State student steals identities to buy weapons parts,...

I'm not sure about the question of "full-automatic weapons", but I'm certain that identity theft is not the best way to support your political agenda:

Michigan State student steals identities to buy weapons parts,...: EAST LANSING, Mich. - A Michigan State engineering student is heading to prison after officials said he became an identity thief to buy weapons parts and create illegal machine guns.

However, we are assured of his devotion to the truth when he vows to go straignt:

Elliott said he will never touch a gun or steal from anyone ever again.

Right.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime

Where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that if you get away with a crime for 20 years, you don't have to pay the price?

Trump voter says she is 'ashamed' to be an American after daughter-in-law is deported: report | TheHill: 
Missouri woman who voted for President Trump now says she is “ashamed” to be an American after her daughter-in-law, a Mexican immigrant who had been in the U.S. for nearly 20 years, was deported.

So ... if you get away with breaking the law for "long enough", that makes it  okay?  Is that the story?

 Shirley Stegall told the Associated Press that while she supported Trump’s campaign promises to deport more criminal immigrants, she did not think her son’s wife, Letty, fell into that category.

You were not aware that your daughter-in-law was an illegal immigrant, after 20 years? 
And you support "TRUMP:", as long as his laws don't affect you personally?

 “I’ve always been proud to be an American,” Stegall said. “But now I’m ashamed.” Letty Stegall came illegally to the U.S. in 1999 and was living with her husband, Shirley's son, and a 17-year-old daughter from an earlier marriage.

Shirley ...you thought that America was "Okay" as long as the laws didn't affect your family.
That's ... interesting, considering your daughter in law is a drunken driver. But that's another story.

 Letty Stegall was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in February, six years after a misdemeanor drunken driving charge, for which she spent a month in jail, alerted authorities to her undocumented status.

So your daughter-in-law is an out-of-control drunken driver, a threat to her neighbors, and you think that's not just cause to expel her?

But that's not the point:

The road to American Citizenship by marriage is clearly defined by law.

(It took me 30 seconds to find the applicable law)

If you marry a U.S, citizen, you won’t be eligible for U.S. citizenship right away. But you may become eligible for a U.S. green card, which can lead to U.S. citizenship.
However, there are certain requirements that must be met before you can apply for a green card and ultimately for U.S. citizenship after marriage to a U.S. citizen.

Apparently, nobody in the family assumed the responsibility to research the law.

Here is the point:

The mother-in-law is "Ashamed" to be an American, because nobody cared enough to research the law on Immigrants who marry American Citizens.

It's not what you don't know that leads to "problems"; it's what you don't know, but think you know.

So .. lady, you can be ashamed to be An American, but it's not because America done you wrong.

You should be ashamed to be An American because you just assumed something that isn't true!

Oh, and by the way?  Claiming that you support TRUMP will buy you a cup of coffee, if you have a buck to pay for the actual .... you know ... cup of coffee.

"New Machine Gun Will Blast Like Battle Tanks" ... as if!

Yeah, sure.  I've heard this before.  It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now.

Army's new machine gun will blast like battle tanks | Fox News: The Army’s new weapon will look like a light machine gun, but will put M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank-style blasting power literally at the fingertips of U.S. soldiers.

In 1970 Vietnam, while I was on "Profile" for an extreme case of "Bamboo Poisoning", the US ARMY put me on profile (light duty.)

I got a lot of scratches which were infected because they were not treated; it took 5 years for the sores to heal up ... nasty stuff!

While I was on "Profile", in the rear with the gear, the Army decided I was lolling around doing nothing, so they assigned me to the task of testing and evaluating a 'new weapon".

I don't recall the nomenclature, but it was a shoulder-fired, four-round semi-automatic rocket launcher which would launch rockets (essentially the M72 Rocket Launcher) from a "Man-Portable" platform used to disable enemy "armor"..

The "platform" weighed about 50 pounds when loaded, and it required an "assistant gunner" to carry 4-round reloads.  It may not have been the best usage of infantrymen, since the Viet Cong didn't have a lot of tanks

At the end of the test, my evaluation was that the mechanism was too heavy to carry in a combat environment, deprived the army of two infantrymen who were more effective with common shoulder-fired weapons, and served no discernible combat function because the burdoned infantrymen were unable to keep up with an infantry platoon during movement in the field.

Besides which, the rockets seemed unlikely to actually "Bust" a dirt-bermed bunker which was common in NVA fixed positions such as those I had encountered in at least two combat assaults.

(The M72 rocket was a "tank buster", and we never saw an NVA tank during my 1969-1970 tour.)

My sores healed up and I was returned to active duty.  I never saw any response from "higher" to my evaluation .. but the four-round semi-automatic M72 rocket launcher was never issued to troops in the field.   I decided that I had performed my duty by nixing a bad concept.

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?

Minnesota HF3022: The Face of the Future?

Funny thing; I always thought the law was intended to protect the innocent and our Human Rights.
Today, we see states deliberately formulating laws to make criminals of law-abiding citizens, and undermining Constitutional Rights. 

It's a funny world we live in, isn't it?  But not humorous; no, not at all.


Incredible Anti-Gun Bill Introduced in MN - AllOutdoor.com

I couldn't do a better job than All Outdoor dot Com describing this egregious (and unconstitutional) Minnesota bill, other than to note the subtitle on the original article:

HF 3022 could make California seem "gun-friendly."

... and the subtitle:

If you live in Minnesota, be afraid. Be very afraid. Then get busy.

A very quick summary of the "Features" of this bill:  Universal reporting, State has total control over every firearms transfer, restrictions on "gun features" which have no bearing on either safety or lethality, mandatory confiscation,  and for a grand finale ....

Universal Registration of all firearms owners, and the personal details (including name, address, etc.) of firearms owners are entered  in a database which is available to General Public Search.

I don't know if this bill will ever be enacted in Minnesota; it's enough that their elected representatives have the unmitigated gall to propose a bill which provides no safety or other benefits to their voters, and still manages to increase their vulnerability to violent crime.


This is a Great Benefit to burglars in Minnesota; they know where, when and why to strike any private residence in the state; one of the most sought-after items of "loot" from a burglary is a firearm.  God only knows how many times it will change hands in the criminal community until it's finally found discarded at the scene of a murder, and with so many fingerprints on it that it can only perchance be traced to the original owner (who might not even yet realize that it has been stolen.)

I've often suggested that many politicians were crooks at heart, but this is the first time we have had confirmation that they are enablers of Home Invasions.

Of course, there are no practical measures which an individual may use to protect himself against his on state Legislature ... except the vote.   Oh, and Minnesota is a Democratic state ... you don't even have to be an American Citizen to vote.   So ... forget that; there are probably more illegal aliens that natural born citizens in your state (and mine) already.

In case my friends and neighbors are feeling comfortable saying "It Could Never Happen Here"?

I live in Oregon.  Oregon is a Democratic State.

Democrats are like rats in the woodwork; they pop up without warning, they defile their environment and eat the wiring until it shorts out and the house burns down.   Then it's not fit to live in for anyone but more rats.

Okay, maybe I've taken the analogy too far.

But what if I'm not wrong?

They say this as if it was "A Bad Thing"

Aren't you glad you live in America?


Man charged after police allegedly find 109 unregistered guns:

Don't you wish everyone did?

Registration = Confiscation

Joe presents a frightening (and real-life) scenario illustrating exactly the reasons why firearms owners are so adamantly opposed to Registration:

Miss a deadline, lose your gun rights forever | The View From North Central Idaho:

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
The state of New York wants to .....

This (click on the link above) logically feeds back to Universal Background Checks, where both the buyer and the seller are required under force of law to provide information (to either a state or a federal "clearing house") about both the firearm and the buyer ... and incidentally, about the seller as well.

The New York "SAFE" Act requires a level of reporting all details of an otherwise-legal transaction to the level where it's difficult to believe that the laws might have any other goal than to quell an otherwise legitimate firearms transfer between private citizens.

That the failure to comply with every jot and tittle of the regulations will result in penalties which are not only burdensome, but would deprive participants of their civil rights "forever" ... not to mention the confiscation of private property ... makes it apparent that the goal is not to regulate, but essentially to ban legal transfer of firearms between private citizens.

It's a "Witch Hunt", where civil rights are abrogated and the possibility probability of prosecution because of a simple  misunderstanding may cause the imposition of punishments which are too drastic to risk.

The Constitution was specifically designed to prohibit any level of government to threaten private citizens for exercising their rights.   While the state of New York may smugly continue to brow-beat its citizens, it is unbearable for the rest of us to watch The Lawyers work their sneaky wiles.

The consequences of such a law are that both buyers and sellers will be disinclined to submit to the law.  Honest people may lose their property and their freedom because they have not done anything wrong, in their opinion, than to oppose an unjust and burdensome law.

Any law which will not be obeyed is not a law, but a cause celebre.

It's a publicity stunt, and New York State should be ashamed of itself for imposing such a burden on its citizens.

Has America Gone Crazy?

Sandy Hook Anniversary: These Are the Gun Control Laws That Have Failed Since the Newtown Shooting:

What seemed at the time like the horrifying turning point in the American gun debate—a gunman in Newtown, Connecticut, slaughtering 20 children and six adult employees during the school day after killing his mother—now instead seems like the moment the United States decided no tragedy was too great to change federal gun laws. More than 200 state-level gun laws have passed since Sandy Hook, but every major attempt at federal legislation has failed, even as shootings with ever-higher body counts keep coming. 

Yes.

Madmen arise in any society; they don't obey laws, but here ... in America ... they take advantage of the freedoms which our country holds most dear.

There is little we can do about that, without infringing on our own constitutional rights.

The problem isn't with the constitution; the problem is with our society.   Will we give up the rights which our progenitors fought for, because we now realize that we have created a "sick" society?

Our system of government is deliberately "skewed" to protect our rights.  That some people abuse those rights is not the fault of the laws, nor the Constitution; it's something in our national character which promoted aberration.

It may have begun when President Reagan undermined the Mental Health System.

Reagan observed a system which regularly locked up people with mild psychotic symptoms, and determined that it undermined the civil rights of people who were "just different".  He acted to correct this social injustice, and people who were committed for no greater offense than being 'different" were set free and thus protected from the distrust of their society.

Was Reagan wrong?  Is he the cause of the slaughter we have recently experienced?

As is the case in many decisions to protect individuals at the expense of the general population, this single act may have served to ignore delusional people, who have become a larger portion of our population than was earlier allowed to remain free. 

Whatever the cause or the effect, America today seems to have its fair share of crazies who feel no compunction against acting out their rage.

And the few sane people left ,,,

 ("I fear all are mad except me and thee, and I worry betimes about thee!")

... now suffer the consequences of a society which is so "free" that the madmen are ruling the institution.

Well ... the politicians, of course. 

But I was speaking about normal people.

Denial?

A mother's grief at the loss of a child is boundless, unendurable, and understandable.

 After her unimaginable loss, Fulton discovered some relief when she reached out to other moms who have lost children to gun violence. Now, she plans annual peace walks in her home state of Florida, works with legislators on gun violence laws and travels around the country speaking at colleges and churches about preventing senseless shootings.

Trayvon Martin's Mom Helps Other Grieving Mothers | PEOPLE.com:

 Sybrina Fulton’s life as she knew it ended on February 26, 2012. That’s when her 17-year-old son, Trayvon Martin, who was unarmed, was fatally shot in Sanford, Florida, by a neighborhood-watch volunteer for his gated community. 

Zimmerman testified he was flat on his back; Martin,  straddling his supine body, beat him with closed fists.
So, George Zimmerman should have just laid there and taken the beating? 

Flashback:

March 8, 2012 - Investigators receive a fax from the Altamonte Family Practice containing the medical records identifying the injuries sustained by Zimmerman on the night of the shooting: Open wound of scalp, without mention of complication; nasal bones, closed fracture; assault by other specified means.
March 12, 2012 - Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee says that Zimmerman has not been charged because there are no grounds to disprove his story of the events.

We will never know the full truth of the story, but Zimmerman's wounds suggest that his version of the story has some validity; that he was helpless, under physical assault, and unable to overcome his assailant.

April 30, 2013 - George Zimmerman waives his right to a "stand your ground" pretrial immunity hearing. Zimmerman's attorneys decide they will instead try this as a self-defense case. If Zimmerman had had a pretrial immunity hearing, a judge would have ruled whether his actions were protected under the "stand your ground" law. If the judge had ruled in favor of Zimmerman, it would have meant that no criminal or civil trial could proceed.

Whether Zimmerman was justified in confronting Martin is a moot point.  Whether Zimmerman was reacting to a deadly assault was ... not entirely deniable; some people refer to his wounds as evidence that he was in fear for his life.

Counting the story as an example of "Firearms Violence" is stretching the interpretation a bit.

The violence was initiated by Martin.  He was in control of the situation, and chose to continue beating Zimmerman ... who was helpless to defend himself against the younger, stronger aggressor.

Except that he carried a weapon, and used it.

(NOTE: Zimmerman refused to take a "stand your ground" defense)

This is "Gun Violence"?   Or is it using a weapon as the last method of defense against an aggressor?

You decide.

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

I'm disgusted that Americans who own firearms are now OFFICIALLY being treated as "Second Class Citizens", and having their constitutional rights abridged willy-nilly.

Bullshit!

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.

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.

"Military Style Weapons" to be banned?

Three days after one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, 22 Democratic senators on Wednesday proposed a national ban on military-style weapons of the sort the Texas shooter deployed to massacre 26 people in a church on Sunday.Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both of Connecticut, were the lead co-sponsors along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.“Connecticut’s ban was a model for us in drafting this,” Blumenthal said in an interview.

http://www.ctpost.com/business/article/Democratic-senators-propose-military-style-12342649.php

Do Democrats understand that there are very few firearms which cannot be accurately defined as "Military Style Weapons"?  This includes most hunting rifles, which are sometimes described (by Democrats and other Gun Confiscators as "Sniper Rifles".   Pistols?  Revolvers?  All issued to Military personnel.

(Well, of course they understand that!   It's in the book; you can look it up.)

Confiscation?  Not obviously on the public venue, but we can bet Registration is on the horizon, and Confiscation follows Registration as surely as Dawn follows Dusk.   And the kind of bill proposed would not be possible to enforce without registration of firearms in private hands "already legally in the hands of owners".   How else can they tell 'new guns" from "those already legally in the hands of owners"?

Oh, the Democrats are just eating this up with a Big Spoon!

Democratic senators propose military-style weapons ban - Connecticut Post:

The measure would ban the sale, manufacture and importation of affected new guns, but would not confiscate those already legally in the hands of owners. It covers broad classes of semiautomatic firearms including most versions of the AR-15, which the Texas shooter used, and which has been used in several mass shootings. The bill would also ban high-capacity magazines, which are also already banned in Connecticut. "Weapons of war have no place in our communities,” Blumenthal said in a written release. He defended Connecticut’s 1993 ban on military-style weapons in the state Supreme Court. “These killing machines have no purpose for self-defense or hunting and they must remain on the battlefield where they belong — not in our churches, schools and theaters,” he added in the release.

So, if "weapons of war have no place in our communities", why would the good folks in Connecticut (who have already raised the "WILL NOT COMPLY!" banner high) be expected to obey another new law which is impossible to enforce without compliance ... and without protest ... and without justification?

And for that matter, why would the REST of America feel comfortable with an "Assault Weapons Ban" .. which we proved decades ago would have no meaningful benefit? 

(1994 Assault Weapons Ban)

Connecticut seems an odd place to begin the confiscation of firearms.  One of the original 13 colonies, Connecticut has a proud history of resisting firearms confiscation.

In 2014, news sources reported that in Connecticut a confiscation of firearms was in the works, but this turned out to not be true.

Is it possible that this is just another example of "Fake News"?

Or have both state and National officials raised the flag of confiscation, just to test the waters?

Or have they truly, under the maniacal leadership of Democratic Senators, decided that this was "the right thing to do".

CTPOST.COM reports that this is not merely a proposed state ban, but is proposed as a FEDERAL ban on "Assault Rifles":

(Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both of Connecticut, were the lead co-sponsors along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.)Three days after one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, 22 Democratic senators on Wednesday proposed a national ban on military-style weapons of the sort the Texas shooter deployed to massacre 26 people in a church on Sunday. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both of Connecticut, were the lead co-sponsors along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.“Connecticut’s ban was a model for us in drafting this,” Blumenthal said in an interview.

(Did anyone notice that it was a guy with an "Assault Weapon" who drove the rascal away? 

No? 

I didn't think so.)

Oh, Crap.
It hasn't been two hours since I swore to myself that I would no longer report on the Texas Church Massacre ... but our National Leaders haven't been able to demonstrate even that miniscule modicum of restraint.   (At least nobody mentioned the word: "BumpStock".)

You know what I think?  I think we should tar and feather the rascals, and run 'em out of town on a rail.  Like they did in the old days.

Write your congress-critter.  Better yet, phone his office.  Tell him this is a threat to Americans in every state and that nobody who votes for this kind of shenanigans will ever be elected to public office again. 
Because we're MAD AS HELL and WE"RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!

Would YOU mistake a turtle for a gun?

We're putting more trust in "artificial intelligence" to take care of our fleshy bodies in risky situations than ever before.

Researcher: ‘We Should Be Worried’ This Computer Thought a Turtle Was a Gun - Motherboard:

Self-driving cars, airport luggage scans, security cameras with facial recognition, and various medical devices all employ 'some' variation of AI ("Artificial Intelligence") systems, and more systems will do so in the future, as we become more "comfortable" with trusting our machines to do our thinking for us..

 But neural networks are easy to fool, if you fiddle with the algorithms just a tiny bit.  Or worse, if you don't!

Or worst, we don't have to "fiddle" anything.   We just have to trust the humans who designed the systems to have thought of every possible situation, and have 'programed' the systems to know the exact best response to any foreseen situation.

What about the situations which haven't been "foreseen"?

One example might be the madman who ran a rented pickup-truck on a crowded sidewalk in NYC,  killing or injuring dozens of people?

Gee, who could have foreseen that?

Oh, it's New York City ... all kinds of freaky stuff happens in that, one of the most crowded cities in the world (with the possible exception of, say, "Tokyo").   In a crowded rat-cage, anything can happen.  And eventually, it will.

As the Mayor of NYC said, we can't put a policeman on every corner.

Even if they could post a cop on every corner, it's doubtful that they could have prevented either the tragedy in NYC.  People are weird ... remember "Bump-Stock Vegas"?

What's the problem?  "People are weird."   Right, we got that.

What's the solution?  Nobody knows.
  Prince William said recently that the problem with this world is that there are too many people in it.

He may have a point, but what's the solution?  Hitler had a solution; we didn't like it.  Hitler died in a hole in the ground bunker; good choice.

Maltheusian Theory is that eventually the earth will be so over-populated that we will be unable to feed everyone.  (Prince William must be channeling his inner Thomas R. Maltheus)

Eventually (stealing from the Science Fiction Literature premise of "If This Goes On ...") we'll end up like Schrödinger's cat ... locked up in this box called "Earth", we will be both alive and dead at the same time.   There's nobody watching us from the 'outside' to know the difference; there's just us.  You and Me.

Lebensraum:

Hitler saw this coming on a smaller scale (Germany in the 1930's).  He began his conquest of Europe in order to provide "living room" (and resources) for the expansion of the German people. That ended up badly for him.  (see above).

But what can you expect?  He was a madman and a visionary at the same time.   His only solution was to kill the people he didn't like (minorities) and conquer everybody else.  He came damn close to making his "final solution" work (for various definitions of "making it work"), and frankly it was only the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor which brought the Americans into WWII.   If you cross your eyes and stare at a spinning bicycle wheel long enough, you might almost want to thank the Japanese for their contribution to World Peace!

Well ... perhaps not quite.  But you get the gist of it.

More likely, you may be a reader of Robert Heinlein ("If This Goes On"), or perhaps the maniacal ramblings of Harry Turtledove's "alternate histories", where the question of "what if the Confederate army moved to Africa and started a New World Order" may be explored in excruciating detail.  There are more than a couple of authors who imagine what our world might look like today if a powerful leader was able to impose his vision on the few of us who live lives of slavery and persecution.

No, it's not a pretty picture ... unless you're a member of the Chosen People.

Have I strayed from the subject?

Not really.

We may not live in the "Perfect World" envisioned by speculative fiction, and that's a blessing to "most of us".

Probably.

 We may not like our national leaders, but so far they haven't been able to impose their ideals on the most of us to the advantage of a privileged few.  (And yes, I'm aware that many people today who consider themselves "disadvantaged" will disagree with that statement.)

Getting back to the difference between a Turtle and a Gun ... oh, there was a point to be made; what was it?

Oh, right.  I remember now.

When we begin to put our faith in technology, we begin to lose our humanity.  A computer has no ethics.  It's just a machine.  We made it, we programmed it, and then we sit back and let the computer do all the work. 

What could possibly go wrong?

For starters: a computer can't always tell the difference between a turtle and a gun.

I was a computer programmer for 30 years.   I lived by the concept that "if anything can possibly go wrong ... it will".

People are fallible: they make mistakes, but sooner or later someone will say:
"Hey, what the heck ...?"   And then some underpaid computer programmer will pull an all-nighter and fix the program.  I know, I spend a lot of nights trying to debug a computer program that someone else wrote and had been doing things "wrong" for years, until someone happened to notice that their paycheck (for example) always ended with thirteen cents. 

True story. 

(Actually, I just made it up, but what the heck, it's my blog ... I can do that.)

People (well, most people) intuitively know the difference between a turtle and a gun.   That's important, especially if a thug points a turtle at you and says "Your Money or Your Life!"

  There's an old joke about the first passenger airplane which was  run by a computer.  Just after it took off with it's first load of passengers, it put the following message out on the Public Address System:

"Welcome to Artificial Airlines Inaugural Flight.   This airplane has no pilot, no co-pilot ... the only employees are those who will shortly be serving your lunch.  There are no humans involved in navigation or piloting this airplane.  It is completely controlled by a computer, and there is absolutely NO possibility that anything will go wrong (click) go wrong (click) go wrong (click) go wrong (click) go wrong (click) ..."

Trust me on this one:

Never trust a computer to get your paycheck 'right'!

Oh ... sorry; too late.

New Questions arise in Justine Damond death

Justine Damond: Killer cop Mohamed Noor ‘didn’t respect women’ | Daily Telegraph:

On Thursday, Officer Harrity’s lawyer described their fear of being attacked as “reasonable” given a spate of recent cop killings. Mr Noor’s gun was on his lap — and not in his holster — at the time on the incident.

What?  
This adds a whole new perspective to the situation.  It strongly suggests that Noor was not only anticipating, but EXPECTING that he would be attacked.   And it makes one wonder why his partner didn't object to his unprofessional behavior at the time.  Note that the press still refers to "Officer Harrity", but "Mr Noor".

Just one more reason to question why there was no more experienced officer in the patrol car; someone who possessed the experience and judgment ... and seniority ... to suggest that Noor was over-reacting.   As in: Stand Down!

 But claims of an ambush yesterday infuriated Ms Damond’s family, whose newly hired high-profile lawyer told US television they “have no basis in fact” and were “ludicrous”. Lawyer Robert Bennett told CBS that Ms Damond’s family does not want Officer Noor to stay in the force and they are considering a civil lawsuit over her death. “This is an unbelievable situation,” Mr Bennett told CBS yesterday.

On the Other Hand: What?
"claims of an ambush" had "no basis in fact" and were "ludicrous"?

Ms. Damond called TWICE to the police emergency phone number  ... once to report a possible felony assault, and again to make sure the police were on the way.   That sounds to me as if the 911 call suggested that an ambush was possible.   (Which does not excuse Officer Noor's over-reaction .. he obviously did not see a gun ... were there not enough lights in that alley?   Of course, a Policeman's Lot is Not A Happy One.  They are sometimes required to enter dark alleys; that's why they are issued flashlights.)

In the first call at 11.27pm Saturday, she said she feared someone was being raped behind her house in south Minneapolis. Eight minutes later she called again to make sure police were coming.
“Hi, I can hear someone out the back and I’m not sure she’s having sex or being raped,” Ms Damond said at the start of the call, at 11.35pm.

I can understand how the Damond Family would wish "Officer Noor" to be removed from the police force, but I don't understand how the Daily Telegraph can believe two impossible things before breakfast.

“This is an unbelievable situation,” Mr Bennett told CBS yesterday.

And that is the first believable thing I can understand about this entire tragedy.


I think there are three, perhaps four, lessons we can all take from this:

1. Ms Damond, out of a keen sense of social responsibility, made the fatal mistake of entering a possible crime scene which SHE reported; she paid for that mistake (she thought someone was being raped, yet she ran into the alley while wearing her pajamas?) with her life;
2. Officer Noor should never have been allowed out  of the station house without an experienced (read: not gullible) keeper;
3. Officers in a patrol car do not typically carry their duty weapons in their hands; unless they are being fired upon, they usually wait until they exit the patrol vehicle before drawing their duty weapon.  This is called "Don't Shoot Your Buddy", aka "Rule One".   Had Officer Harrity been more experienced, and/or clearly Senior, he might have tool Officer Noor to "Keep Your Pecker In Your Pants, Dude!"  (Or words to that effect.)    This is another of the unfortunate side-effects of the recent spate of patrol officers being murdered
4. The press will print what they have, and if they have nothing to print, they will make it up.  If it bleeds, it leads.   The truth doesn't matter.  Accuracy doesn't matter.   Appropriateness doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is selling newspapers (or hits on a website, or readership, or viewer count ... it's about the numbers, Baby!)

Senior officers need to take command of their individual units; it's not enough to hold the command office, they need to actually command their subordinate officers.   When a patrol officer rides with his gun in his hand, that's something that his superiors need to know about ... and stop!

What if Automobiles were regulated as closely as Firearms?

Gun Sales Are Plummeting and Trump Wants to Help | The Nation: 

President Trump .... signed legislation that would prevent the Department of Justice from using Social Security records to identify mentally ill people and prevent them from purchasing guns. O

What if you could be prevented from buying ... or even driving ... an automobile because you had been adjudicated as "mentally ill"?

What if you had to get a special license before you could buy a car?   And if you already had a car, what if you had to go through another similar process before you could buy any car ... ever?   And if the state decided you shouldn't drive a car (for any reason), you would have to turn over the car you already own.  Without compensation.

What if you had to buy a special drivers' license before you could cross state lines with your car?  And what if the next state decided that your car was too small, or too large, or could contain more then 10 (or 8, or 6) gallons of gasoline?

What if your state decided it had the right to enter your home and determine whether your car was "securely stored", and they could take away your car if the answer was "no"?

What if you had to buy a special license, the process being conducted by the lowest-paid state employee, before you could buy a car with special features, such as a larger gas take, ability to operate on hi-test gasoline, or had more than four cylinders?

What if your car was so small that you could conceal it in your garage?  And what if the state could enter your home to determine that your car was secured so that your child could not access it?

What if you could only buy one car a year.  Which may not seem unreasonable, but what if your car was wrecked and you needed to replace it .... but you had already bought your "One Car A Year"?

What if your car needed a new muffler, and you had to buy a new one, but you had to pass a special "vetting process" and buy a special license which cost you $200 even if you could justify buying that car.

What if you wanted to teach your child to drive, but your state would allow only special "Training Programs" (vetted by the state) to conduct the training, and the cost was prohibited.

What if you wanted to buy an old clunker car, because that was all you could afford ... but the state had disallowed purchase of a "Clunker Special" car?

What if you wanted to lend your car to your neighbor, but you had to go to a car dealer and have him run the transaction through a national database to determine whether your neighbor (who already had a car, but it was in the shop) was legally allowed to possess ... not OWN, but POSSESS ... a car; or that specific car?

What if you kept your car locked in your garage, but your child knew the combination to the lock on the garage door and took it out for a spin.  Even though your child had a special license to operate (if not own) a car .. an accident would make you legally liable for any damages caused by the accident, right?

ANNUAL DEATH BY CARS:

ANNUAL DEATH BY GUNS


(See below for a statistical breakdown of cause-of-death: cars vs guns)
_____________________

This is a Tough Month for USPSA: MATT B.

First there was the incident where a competitor shot and killed himself in Vancouver

Now one of USPSA's Champion Shooters has been busted: Majorly!

This is the first time I've heard about this.

I'm shocked.

Feds: Scottsdale Shooting Champ, Gun Maker Matthew Burkett Busted for Meth | Phoenix New Times: Former national shooting champion and Scottsdale gun maker Matthew Burkett continues to blow up his career with legal troubles: This time, the feds say he's on meth. Burkett  was arrested in Arizona this week — and remains in federal detention — for testing positive for methamphetamine three times in the past month, court records show. He confessed to using meth after one of the three tests. As the Phoenix New Times reported last month, Burkett previously was accused of defrauding customers of his company, Predator Tactical.

Other sources:

The Firearms Blog
The Outdoor Hub

I'm not sure that these "other sources" have any more to add to the story, but that's where a quick Internet search found appropriate references.

No, I am not prepared to editorialize on this story.  I doubt I will be prepared in the near future.

Except that I will say this: