Alleged intent of gun control vs. actual observable goals

They say that we peace loving Americans shouldn't have guns because of public safety ... but who will take guns away from those who threaten us with violence?

This is one of the best written, and most understandable articles on Gun Control I've read recently for a LONG time!  It starts out like this:

Alleged intent of gun control vs. actual observable goals - AllOutdoor.comAllOutdoor.com:

 Pushers of gun control state the disarming the population is necessary for the safety of that same population. The punitive measures they are willing to employ to make that hypothetical safety happen look a lot like “he beats her because he loves her”. Or, as the old Soviet joke went: “We will fight for peace so vigorously that there’s (sic) won’t be anything left standing.” Gun control can only be enforced with other guns, so it’s all about concentrating military power in the hands of a small group that would keep others down forever. While some gun control supporters may be honestly deluded, many are lying from start to finish.

Read the whole thing.

If you think you need a gun to protect your self/family/home ... can you explain why?

If you don't accept the right to keep and bear arms as "legitimate", perhaps you can explain why not?

Christmas and Adolescent Angst

There is nothing like trying to hang long (snarled) strings of wire and bulbs from the eves of the house ... and then trying to find the one bulb that is burned out ... to suck the Christmas Spirit from the heart of a teenage boy.

About the time I moved on to College I realized it was a lot warmer in the house, so I unsnarled the wires and tested all the bulbs in the living room.  (I recall my father's paternal pride when he remarked:  I was wondering how old you would be when you figured that out.)

The next year, we built a new set of light strings ... wired in parallel.   My father was disappointed when I did that; I think he enjoyed my annual outrage.   If nothing else, he kept track of what new curse words I had learned since the previous year; because I kept coming home for Christmas, and the box 'o bulbs was always waiting in the attic.  (Pop claimed his rheumatism made it too hard for him to climb the ladder ... it always seemed to kick in toward the END of Elk Season.)

Now I live in an apartment, and if anyone is going to climb a ladder to decorate the place it won't be me.  My landlord went out of town to visit his kids for the rest of the month, so even HE won't be bugging me to "lend him a hand".

My afternoon has been spent watching my neighbors hang out their lights.  It went so fast, I almost missed it.  They didn't seem to have any problems.

Probably just "new technology".

What Civil War 2.0 Looks Like

A few years ago (and not many, at that) there was a meme going around asking whether there would be a "Race War" in America.

I considered that a non-starter; although in the 1970's it seemed not entirely impossible. (see "SIEGE" by Edwin Corley; 1969, Avon Publishing)

What seemed more likely to me would be a "Culture War" ... between political factions rather than races.

Now we have seen Republican politicians attacked with a gun by a Lone Wolf self-declared "Democrat", specifically because of political ... read: Cultural .... differences.

Was this the shot heard around the world?

Here's a sample of text from an article (H/T: FREEHOLDER) which might make you think more seriously about that "unlikely outcome":

Analysis: What Civil War 2.0 Looks Like

Todd SepulvedaJune 17, 2017

Analysis: What Civil War 2.0 Looks Like | Ed That Matters: Since the election of 2016, the left has gone crazy. Their version of the tea party is called Resistance, and the spearhead of that is a loosely formed terrorist group called Antifa. Antifa is short for Anti-Fascist. The irony of their name is not lost on those who actually know history, as their tactics are straight from the fascist playbook. In the past few months, these groups have repeatedly disrupted peaceful pro-Trump rallies. They have called for and used violence against people who support the president or disagree with them and even against members of the media who will report things Antifa doesn’t want reported.

Note that this was written almost three weeks ago.  It was prophetic.

Since that time,  Dana Loesch on NRA-TV has made a video called "The Violence of Lies" ... and several of her comments have been taken out of context by 2nd Amendment Opponents who accuse her of (among other things) "inciting violence against women".  Which strikes me as an odd interpretation, since the NRA actively encourages women to stand up for themselves against violence, as does Loesh in several of the videos she has made as spokeswoman for the NRA.

That small video seems to have turned the Information World on its head; where Truth is a Lie and the Touchy-Feelie Crowd is easily offended: but aren't they always?

NY TIMES: 

On Thursday, DeRay Mckesson, a leader in the Black Lives Matter movement, tweeted that the ad was “an open call to violence to protect white supremacy.”

BUSINESS INSIDER Headline:

A chilling National Rifle Association ad gaining traction online appears to be 'an open call to violence'

VOX:

          This chilling NRA ad calls on its members to save America by fighting liberals

DCIST:

Tamika D. Mallory, a co-organizer of the Women's March, released an open letter to NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, calling the ad "a direct endorsement of violence" against citizens "exercising their constitutional right to protest ....

and in contrast a comment which quotes Loesch directly:

N.R.A. Ad Paints Gun Owners as Victims of Leftist 'Terrorism'  

https://www.inverse.com/article/33632-nra-ad-controversy-gun-control-second-amendment-dana-loesch-tucker-carlson

6 days ago Inverse dot com says: ... N.R.A. Ad Paints Gun Owners as Victims of Leftist 'Terrorism', quoting:. "The only way we stop this and save our freedom is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth." ... and editorializing:  "Loesch paints a twisted picture of protest..."   The article paints the NRA and Leosh as "Anti-Semites", which is a base canard and they should be ashamed of themselves for using the Jew Card as well as the Race Card.

There were dozens more links found by my search: "Dana Loesch + Protests", but the writers who  use her quotes to further their own political baggage usually carry the same keywords: violence and (somewhere in the screed) chilling,.   Did they never notice which group breaks windows and burns police cars during their "Protests"?   It ain't Dana And Her Friends.

The expression "... fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth ..." seems to be anathema to enemies of the Constitution, who don't like either the word "fight" or "violence", or the expression "clenched fist" scares the crap out of them.

They don't seem to even notice the small word at the end:

Truth

These all seem to be "Trigger Words", much in favor in  Liberal Academia today, where students are indoctrinated rather than challenged, and where Truth is less important than Feelings.

I FEEL that these morally lame "wanna-be-men" people need to grow up.

The world is what we make of it.

The Left would make this a reactive world, where words are hurtful.

The Right would make this  a proactive world, where "sticks and stones" are hurtful, and would prefer to deal with the honesty of the stick and the stone ,

The left metes insinuation and would prefer not to address the real Constitutional issues.
Hard facts are too difficult for them to deal with.  They do better with innuendo and slime.

The 2nd Amendment Does Not Give You The Right To Own A Gun

This is an important constitutional point, and who knows how long it will be available online, now that Bob Owens Has Left The Range.   But the discussion is interesting.


The 2nd Amendment Does Not Give You The Right To Own A Gun:

Listen to this college history lecturer turned firearms instructor. He knows his stuff.

You can access the video at the above link.

(I tried to access the source code for the video, but it hasn't been uploaded to any internet source available to the public.  And since it's proprietary to Bearing Arms, they have the right to restrict  SOLE access to their own website.)

I hope that Bearing Arms is careful to preserve this video, because it explains the Constitutional nuances of the Second Amendment, which many people just do not understand.

The central point is, of course, that the Constitutional Forefathers DID NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT to preserve the rights of the common citizen.  Therefore, in the first ten amendments to the constitution called "The Bill of Rights" or The Enumerated Rights ... even though they specifically were not 'enumerated' (ranked by order of importance) .. every one of these rights were deemed as important as any other of the Rights defined there'


Here is a list of the Bill of Rights, in an video file:


Bear in mind that the "Colonists" had suffered under the thumb of The King (George III) of England, and the unwonted excesses of the British troops who were stationed in the colonies to keep order, protect the colonists from predation by native people, and to enforce British Law (including the collection of taxes).

Mostly, the latter.

When you review these amendments, recall that each was enacted to address a specific grievance which the British King's policies had visited upon the Americans.

In the meantime, I hope you all have a joyful and NOISY celebration of American Independence!

And now ... the traditional Independence Day  Geek Fireworks Show!

God Bless America!

The 200 round arsenal

Scalise upgraded as gunman James Hodgkinson had 200 rounds of ammo in storage unit, FBI investigators say | Fox News:

Meanwhile, FBI officials said leftist gunman James Hodgkinson had more than 200 rounds of ammunition at a local storage unit when he attacked Republican lawmakers as they practiced for the annual Congressional baseball game.

Three things:  Along with most Americans, I'm pleased to hear that Representative Steve Scalise is no longer on the Critical List.   "Fair Condition" sounds very encouraging.

Second, what's the big deal with JimmyThe Arseman having 200 rounds of ammunition in a STORAGE locker?  What has that to do with anything?

And third, if that  was intended as the "Shocker Line" ... I've got over 200 rounds of ammunition on my kitchen counter at this moment;   that's the leftover .45 caliber ammunition * I didn't shoot up when I went to the range this morning.

I've also got 3500 bullets in .45 and 10mm calibers sitting by my reloading bench;  every one of them will be used to poke holes in cardboard targets.
Let's see you make a headline of THAT, Hoplophobia America!  

* (Thanks again, Ammoman; those .45 samples you sent functioned flawlessly in my 1911!)

Recon By Fire: Strategy beats Tactics every time

PawPaw's House: Democrats and Guns, Again:

Once again, Democrats are using the wrong tactics, targeting the wrong people, and causing more harm than good. Tax-the-hell out of guns and ammo and watch gun violence increase in your city. Who would have figured that? Well, anyone with a working brain.

Don't get your panties in a bind, PawPaw.

It's like we use to do back in The Day:

We would fire volleys into a suspected woodline in Viet Nam, hoping to draw fire.  The technique was intended to urge Viet Cong to fire back at us so we could concentrate our return fire  (and artillery) on their position.

It sometimes worked .. usually, it did not.  but it always got their attention.

At Best, they would be eliminated by our "Heavy Guns".
As Usual, they would retreat and end the engagement .. to our mutual benefit, to live and fight another day under circumstances which we could not predict.
At Worst, they would trick us into revealing more about ourselves, determine that they could prevail in open battle, and demolish our forces.

In the Political field of fire, that's what the Democrats are doing.

They're trying to draw your fire so they have a target to work with.  The technique can backfire on you or them depending on variables of which neither of you are aware at the time, but you/they can always refuse the engagement.

Unless both parties are so focused on minor issues that they forget the primary goal; which is NOT to "look good in the videos", but to prevail on the political field.

The best response is to refuse to return fire; they know they have revealed their position, and although they have a pretty good idea where YOU are .. they're not sure.

If they wish to pursue their attack, they reveal more about themselves than they might have wished; then you can plan your riposte at your leisure,

It's more about Strategy than Tactics.

Tactics win Battles; Strategy wins Wars

And if you cannot draw your own conclusions about how this relates to the political field, you should not be commenting on political issues.

There's  another military axiom which may be useful?

He who commits his reserves last ... wins.

Not Your Father's Idaho

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” 

That link (above) is SO 1999!

It's now 2016, and the current version is:

"Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled rapists ..."


At the risk of being considered a "something-ist", I think that America needs to be just a little bit more particular about the "huddled masses" we welcome here.

5-year-old victim's father watched the video:

The case, which has largely been ignored or dismissed by the mainstream media, has created a political firestorm as pro- and anti-immigration proponents have clashed about the assault in an election year where the candidacy of Republican nominee Donald Trump has brought immigration and refugee issues to the forefront of national political discussion. Although the establishment press has given little time to the story that does not fit the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s narrative on refugees and immigration, the story has caused a stir on right-leaning media through the work of activists like Pamela Geller.

What they are talking about is a five year old girl (FIVE YEARS OLD!) who was sexually assaulted by a group of adolescent boys.  The parents of the girl ... at least the father .. was "treated" to a video of the attack.

Yes, the boys recorded the attack, and showed it around.  Sweet.

The parents of the girl were 'encouraged' to not report the assault.  Because they all came from a 'rape culture', you see, and so it's not really that unusual much of a "big deal".

Stranahan: “The refugee family was trying to stop you from calling the police?”
Victim’s Father: “Yes. They were pleading with us, saying everything was okay, they did nothing wrong, you know – ‘No police! No police!’ – because they did not speak… they speak Arabic, so they had very few words that they can actually…”

Personally, I think that the boys who were involved in the attack (no matter how tangentially) should be forcibly returned to the country of their origin.
Their parents as well should be deported, because somehow they had failed to teach their children that Rape Is Wrong!

(Who knows what other dicta of a civilized society they do not understand?)

I know not what the culture is in their home country, but I refuse to allow them to import their sick cultural 'norms' into my homeland.   I have children, and grandchildren here. They deserve to live under the cultural norms of my country; which do not include a casual acceptance of rape.

These are not Americans, they never will be, because it's obvious that they just ... don't ... GET IT!

Give me your tired, your homeless, your huddled masses yearning to be free.

That dictum of the Statue of Liberty implies nothing about accepting "cultural norms" which are anethema to civilization, and America.

This is America.

We deal in lead.

The Courage Of Your Convictions

Oregon priest who spent $3K to destroy AR-15 may have broken background check law:

A Portland area priest who coughed up $3,000 in a charitable raffle so that the AR-15 would not get a chance to run free and “be used to kill kids in schools” is now under investigation. As previously reported by Guns.com, Rev. Jeremy Lucas of Christ Church Episcopal Parish in Lake Oswego went all-in on the raffle madness in July and showed just how deep his own love for the community was by throwing $3,000 in the plate for a girls’ softball team, coming away with the lucky ticket to a new AR-15. Instead of putting the gun in his collection, the good Rev. Lucas told local media he intended to destroy the firearm, saying, “There are millions of guns, I know that. But this gun will never be used to kill kids in schools, kill people in a movie theater, kill people at an office party or at any other place of mass shootings.”

(quote continues, unattributed)

However, as reported by the Lake Oswego Review, Lucas may have broken the state’s new and confusing expanded background check law by asking a parishioner to store the gun while he arranged its transformation into a art object without first going through a mandated check.
Under the new law, all private gun transfers must take place through licensed firearms dealers who would perform background checks. There are some narrow exceptions for family transfers, brief loans at shooting ranges, law enforcement, and – in some cases – inherited firearms, but disregarding these, all others must go through a dealer.

(end unattirbuted quote)

I don't agree with Rev. Lucas, but I applaud his dedication to a goal which seems useful to him.  And I'm disappointed that Oregon's new firearms laws may make him only the latest victim.

The laws require that transfers from one person to another go through a licensed dealer; the reverend did not know nor understand these laws.  He thought that if in good faith he found someone to hold the rifle while he managed to find a way to dispose of it (for the benefit of others), he was doing A Good Thing.

Spending $3,000 on a raffle, for the sole purpose of 'getting it off the streets', may seem naive to some of us.  (Well, it seems so to me.)   I accept that his intent was noble.
However, according to my blog records:

Last updated August 27, 2015.

In 2015, Oregon enacted a law requiring a private or unlicensed firearm seller to conduct a background check on a private or unlicensed purchaser before transferring a firearm him or her.1 The transfer must be conducted through a federally licensed firearm dealer (FFL). The FFL must process the transaction as if the dealer were selling the firearm from his or her own inventory and comply with all federal and state laws regulating firearms dealers (See the Oregon Background Checks and Federal Law on Private Sales sections for further details).

IF the "Parishioner" was not a FFL, the good Reverend has clearly violated the law ... however inadvertently.

Will the State of Oregon prosecute him for this act of do-gooder-ism??

If justice is to be served ... no.

However, the State Must Be Served, and laws do not allow for 'ignorance as an excuse'.  

Which means that Reverend Lucas had no intent to violate the law; but rather, his intent was to avoid having an Evil Gun enter the community.

This is a classic example of state legislators creating a law for no valid reason other than to show that they are 'doing something' during their tenure.

Baby you can drive my car ...

Saudi Arabian Women Love Bumper Cars (But Not for Bumping) - WSJ:

Joudi al-Omeri drove in circles. And when cars came in her direction, she swerved. These were electric bumper cars, but in Saudi Arabia, the ride doesn’t always live up to its name. “I come here to drive,” said Ms. al-Omeri, a 27-year-old homemaker still giddy from the roughly five-minute, mostly crash-free ride in her red-and-green two-seater. “It’s much better than bumping against others,” she adds.

Saudi women are not allowed to drive.  But they can drive bumper cars on special "women only" nights.   I'm glad for them that they have the opportunity to make believe, if only for a few minutes, that they are "people":

Who Will Bell The Cat?

What Black Americans Say About ‘Black-on-Black’ Gun Violence | The Nation:

For example, community residents recommended limiting access to guns by the small group of people at high risk of engaging in violence—sometimes no more than 0.25 to 1 percent of a city’s population. Rather than looking to greater penalties for handgun possession that could increase mass incarceration, community members emphasized universal background checks, mandatory reporting for lost and stolen firearms, and increased oversight of licensed firearm dealers. Each proposal was supported by over 86 percent of African Americans and Latinos in the survey research. These restrictions are seen as reducing rather than fueling mass incarceration. About three-quarters of both African Americans and Latinos agreed that “if we keep guns out of the wrong hands, we can also help decrease the number of people who are in prison.”

[emphasis added]

"That looks good on the video", as the saying goes but the question remains:  what are 'community residents" doing to help limit access to guns?

Historically, members of  'at risk' communities are quick to decry the violence in their neighborhoods, but are not willing to step up and act as witnesses.    Quotes from investigating officers typically sound like this:

"Everybody knows who has a gun. Everybody knows who did it.   

But nobody will talk to us."

Liberal pigs more equal than Conservative pigs at SUNY campus

SUNY cancels debate after prof. objects to conservative participant:

“It’s part of our purpose to engage in the free exchange of ideas, even with people whose views we may disagree with,” he reminded them. “If we don’t prepare our students to engage with differing views while they are in college, then we have not prepared them for the world they are about to enter.”

But that "good intention" wasn't enough, so the Conservative member of the scheduled 'Debate' between speakers with opposing viewpoints ... was informed that he wasn't welcome there.

Ah, Grasshoppers; this is the lesson you must learn here!

Obama's Parthian Shot at America: HIV

Obama Opens the Border to More STDs | Center for Immigration Studies:

In his first year in office, President Obama lifted an entry ban on foreigners with HIV. In his final year in office he will lift the entry ban on three more sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The president's own Health and Human Services department says this guarantees more infections in the United States, proving once again that immigration is the defining issue for politicians like Obama. Increased immigration trumps all other concerns.

I've left this post to lie fallow for a few days, because (a) I'm just mad as hell, and (b) I'm not sure what I can contribute to the story.

The answer is (c) there's nothing that I can add.  Y'all just gonna have to figure out for yourselves how you feel about this.

Certainly I was not aware that Obama was allowing foreigners with such pernicious infectious diseases to infest our country.

I'm not particularly surprised ... but this is the kind of thing which one tends to reject because

It Can't Possibly Be True!

but it is,

More Guns Linked to More Mass Shootings? NO redeeming factors? Hah!

Study: More Guns Linked to More Mass Shootings | RealClearScience:
(February 02, 2016)

After peaking in the 1980s and early 1990s, crime has plummeted in the United States. The rates of forcible rape, murder, violent crime, property crime, and aggravated assault are currently as low as they were in the 1960s.

Some studies have suggested strongly that this reduction in crime can be directly tied to the increase in the number of states which allow concealed carry (and often "open carry" ... where firearms are NOT concealed but in open view ... predominately in holsters) by private citizens.  

("Correlation does not imply causation", but the author of this article uses the word "relationship" in the discussion.   Based on that synchronicity,  it seems reasonable to suggest that some 'relationship' exists between the statistics on violent crime and the increased presence of 'carried' firearms.)

 While these statistics demonstrate that Americans are about as safe from crime as they have been in over a half-century, there is a particularly horrendous type of crime that has been alarmingly on the uptick: public mass shootings. In places like San Bernadino, California, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Roseburg, Oregon, Charleston, South Carolina, and Newtown, Connecticut, innocents have been mercilessly gunned down in great numbers.

However, other studies , such as the Texas A&M study reported here dispute that assumption:

According to the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, crime, and specifically violent crime, has been decreasing nationally since 1993, with a similar decline in other Western nations. Some commentators claim the decline in the United States is attributed to the increase in concealed carry legislation. But criminologists point to a variety of factors that have lead to the drop in crime, including changes in policing, punishment, crime prevention technology and socio-economic factors.

The Texas Tribune article, quoting state Rep. Garnet Coleman, a Houston Democrat who chairs the House County Affairs Committee, which tackles criminal justice issues asserts that:

“People who commit crimes are less likely to go through that background check,” he said.  It’s also unlikely that a concealed handgun license holder would be in the right place at the right time to stop a crime, Coleman said.

That statement seems a little disingenuous.  The purpose of undergoing a background check to acquire a concealed carry permit is specifically to catch criminals ... who don't want to apply for a license to do the illegal actions for which they need guns.  ("Circular Reasoning" is a difficult concept to explain.)

As to the "unlikely" probability that a CHL holder "would 'be in the right place at the right time" is disproved daily in news reports.  For example, John Lott recently described four crimes stopped by civilian handgun carriers in one week in December, 2915.

And  in April of 2015, Lott (author of "More Guns, Less Crime") published an article titled: 

COMPILING CASES WHERE CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT HOLDERS HAVE STOPPED MASS PUBLIC SHOOTINGS

(Please follow the links from that starting point ... there is a lot of information, including links to published articles.)

This is all background, presented to establish the statistical evidence that firearms ownership DOES have a positive effect on crime prevention, and introducing another opinion on the question whether (civilian) concealed carry provides another approach to crime prevention.

The right to "Feel Safe"

Joe at The View From North Central Idaho  posted another article from a momma's boy who wasn't willing to defend his family, and didn't want anyone else to do so, either.   The quote included:

I am officially beyond a place of wanting to find a compromise with those who want to argue for the right, or the need, of citizens to arm themselves with guns.

I looked at the Declaration of Independence, which (among other things) said something more important:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Read the whole thing.   I couldn't find anything in the Declaration of Independence where it said that (a) you have a right to FEEL safe, or (b) anyone else has a duty to make you FEEL safe.

The Constitution, however, has this thing which acknowledges your right to defend yourself, but the momma's boy rejects it because the whole thing is distasteful to him.  After all, what are we spending our tax dollars on if it's not to make the momma's boys of the world FEEL safe?  (I ask you!)

I'm not easily impressed

When I AM impressed, I'm full-bore pedal-to-the-metal impressed ....

There’s never been an America, but rather several Americas—each a distinct nation. There are eleven nations today. Each looks at violence, as well as everything else, in its own way. 

... as I am here, by this article in "Tufts Magazine" (Tuft University Fall 2013 .. dated, but still vital) by Colan Windard

Tufts Magazine / fall 2013:

If you understand the United States as a patchwork of separate nations, each with its own origins and prevailing values, you would hardly expect attitudes toward violence to be uniformly distributed. You would instead be prepared to discover that some parts of the country experience more violence, have a greater tolerance for violent solutions to conflict, and are more protective of the instruments of violence than other parts of the country. That is exactly what the data on violence reveal about the modern United States. 

the author has divided the Continental United States into several regions, which exhibit common sociological perspectives.

To these regional definitions, the author as suggested meme-like societal priorities (for want of a better word, which I'm sure will occur to me as soon as I hit "PUBLISH").

This is a research project which somewhat parallel's John Lott's research, as it derives data from the county level rather than obey "state line" research parameters:

 Most scholarly research on violence has collected data at the state level, rather than the county level (where the boundaries of the eleven nations are delineated). Still, the trends are clear. The same handful of nations show up again and again at the top and the bottom of state-level figures on deadly violence, capital punishment, and promotion of gun ownership.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of this report is that the author doesn't make an effort to stigmatize populations based on their Second Amendment stance.  Instead, he has some information to offer, and he offers it without a minimum of comment (other than to explain what we're looking at).

Oh, go read it all for yourself.

Welcome to Hell!

Here's your Hand-Basket:

Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos:

. BREAKING NEWS: FRENCH AUTHORITIES IDENTIFY one of the eight Paris assailants who created havoc in the city Friday night, killing 128 people and wounding more than 300 others, as 29-year-old Ismael Omar Mostefai, according to Sky News. Mostefai was reportedly a French citizen who was living in Chartes, just southwest of the capital.
.  CONFERENCE HEATS UP: Obama expected to come under pressure for more ISIS involvement at G20 summit
. ARRESTS TIED TO PARIS ATTACKS: Belgium makes three arrests linked to Paris attacks
. NO MERCY: France's Hollande responds to Paris attacks that leave at least 129 dead
. DC VIGIL: French ambassador to US joins hundred in Washington vigil for those killed in Paris
. KERRY: World leaders take step to end Syria war and spreading terror concerns, but disagreements persist
. LIVE BLOG COVERAGE OF PARIS TERROR ATTACKS | France-bound plane grounded after tweet
.VIDEOS: French president confirms ISIS behind attacks | ISIS claims responsibility for Paris attacks
. VIDEO: Heavily armed police gather outside Paris hotel
. 'IT WAS CARNAGE': Survivors describe horrific scene in concert hall

I know, it's  easy to blame this on "Extremist Muslims", but according to at least one source, it's NOT THEIR FAULT!

SOLON: It's all the fault of Right Wing Exploitation!

According to that article in Solon:

We must mourn all victims. But until we look honestly at the violence we export, nothing will ever change

,,,

Any time there is an attack on civilians in the post-9/11 West, demagogues immediately blame it on Muslims. They frequently lack evidence, but depend on the blunt force of anti-Muslim bigotry to bolster their accusations.
Actual evidence, on the other hand, shows that less than two percent of terrorist attacks from 2009 to 2013 in the E.U. were religiously motivated. In 2013, just one percent of the 152 terrorist attacks were religious in nature; in 2012, less than three percent of the 219 terrorist attacks were inspired by religion.

Actually, Americans have been rather sensitized by the events of 9/11/01.
Which was .. ahem ... universally acknowledged to have been caused by Muslim extremists.  Most of whom came from privileged backgrounds.

mmm   I'm not convinced that this isn't a "Three-Percenter".   We've had other news reports since the Salon article was published which suggest that it wasn't an attack by Christians, or Jews, or Budists,  And I didn't see anyone in Saffron Robes wielding an AK47 in the photos.

Actually, some people are relating this to the 2008 Mumbai attacks.  But what do they know?

The article goes on to state:

As soon as the news of the attacks broke, even though there was no evidence and practically nothing was known about the attackers, a Who’s Who of right-wing pundits immediately latched on to the violence as an opportunity to demonize Muslims and refugees from Muslim-majority countries.
In a disgrace to the victims, a shout chorus of reactionary demagogues exploited the horrific attacks to distract from and even deny domestic problems. They flatly told Black Lives Matter activists fighting for basic civil and human rights, fast-food workers seeking liveable wages and union rights, and students challenging crippling debts that their problems are insignificant because they are not being held hostage at gunpoint.
More insidiously, when evidence began to suggest that extremists were responsible for the attacks, and when ISIS eventually claimed responsibility, the demagogues implied or even downright insisted that Islam — the religion of 1.6 billion people — was to blame, and that the predominately (although not entirely) Muslim refugees entering the West are only going to carry out more of such attacks.

Oh, that's so slick   It's a work of art to conflate "Black Lives Matter" and the slaughter of over a hundred innocent victims in Paris.

But since I'm a WASP, I guess it's obligatory for me to jump to the conclusion that because this massacre was aimed at a group of citizens of a nation which has been accepting muslim refugees in record numbers in the last few years, the violence has been due to the national reluctance to support said muslim refugees.

Most of those refugees, though, have 'forted up' in neighborhoods where even the French police are loath to enter.

 The Washington Times - Wednesday, January 7, 2015

A backdrop to the massacre in Paris on Wednesday by self-professed al Qaeda terrorists is that city officials have increasingly ceded control of heavily Muslim neighborhoods to Islamists, block by block.
France has Europe’s largest population of Muslims, some of whom talk openly of ruling the country one day and casting aside Western legal systems for harsh, Islam-based Shariah law.
“The situation is out of control, and it is not reversible,” said Soeren Kern, an analyst at the Gatestone Institute and author of annual reports on the “Islamization of France.”

That sounds like it could have been written on November 14 rather than January 7, doesn't it?

But no, it's part of the reporting on the Charlie Hebdo attack.  It's not as if we ... and Paris ... hadn't been warned.

Apparently, it's reactionary to assume that if Muslims attacked Paris in January, and people using the same (or similar) terror tactics and equipment attack Paris in November ... oh, I can see that I am SO NOT Politically Correct, for I am jumping to conclusions before sufficient evidence has been ascertained.  (But after all, I remember this "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" racist cultural heritage that drives my knee-jerk reactions to large-scale public massacres by groups of individuals.)

Unfortunately, France continued its irresponsible Right Wing Exploitation (apparently by allowing unrestricted immigration of Muslim 'refugees'), and so of course it deserved every thing it got.

My son says: "Facebook Is The Devil". I believe it!

Facebook Disables Author's Account Because of Word 'Firearms':

He (Maddox) said that after you have three Facebook ads that are not approved “they close your account down, which means you can’t advertise at all.” Maddox said that when he tried to go through the appeal process to explain that he was not selling guns but a book that helped people get an FFL, Facebook responded that their decision was final and that it appeared Maddox is selling firearms because the word “firearms” can be drawn from FFL in the advertisement, and Facebook clicked through the ad to get to FFL123 website where the word “firearms” appears. Of course, it is hard to sell a guide to getting a Federal Firearms License without using the word “firearms.”  *

It's The Golden Rule:  They that have the Gold, get to make the rules!

(*H/T: Breitbart)

Fisking Hillary on Gun Control

I am SO tired of bloviating politicians.  Unfortunately, that's the only kind we've got.

Hillary Clinton's gun-control plan - Business Insider:
  "It's time to act on gun violence. We simply cannot accept as normal 33,000 gun deaths a year,"

[hat tip: David Hardy]

Hill The Pill is going to fix all our problems, with one simple gesture.

Actually, it's SEVEN "gestures" ... all of them flawed one way or another:

#1: Universal FEDERAL Background Checks

• Without justification, will not stop "mass shootings".
• Individuals cannot perform background checks; only licensed dealers can.  They charge anywhere from $30 to $60 to perform that service. 
• Suggests that the serial number and the make/model etc. description of the gun be entered, which amounts to registration as there is currently NO laws restricting record-keeping of civilian background check information.
• Not enforceable, as there is no way that Law Enforcement Officers can know when a private sale is being transacted.

"Domestic Terrorism" My Ass!

Chattanooga Shooting: Four Marines Dead in Shooting at Military Offices - ABC News:

 Four Marines were killed and three other people were injured today in a shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, according to the mayor and military officials.

THIS IS JUST WRONG in so many ways!

Cops and Black Protests

 After reading a 34-page summary of the case, the judge made it clear he disagreed, saying that "Brelo's entire use of deadly force was a constitutionally reasonable response to an objectively reasonably perceived threat of great bodily harm from the occupants of the Malibu, Russell and Wiliams."

I wrote about this some time ago.  At the time, I wondered if this would not initiate another "Death By Cop Protest".

Apparently, the local 'community' (which was unable to disuade the two felons in the car that Brelo stopped in a barrage of bullets from the hood of their car) has chosen to rise in righteous indignation.

We're not pleased here at Geek Central to learn that the prognostication was confirmed.  One would prefer not to be so 100% able to forecast ghetto indignation.

On the other hand, when one identifies with a community which has historically been plagued by oppression, it's difficult to resist the urge to riot.

Would the Jews in 1938 Berlin embraced the same approach, they might have lost a few million of their families.  I know, that sounds cold.  But those peoples were faced with a truly oppressive armed police force, one which had the publicly espoused goal of 'resolving the Jewish Question".

I don't think we're at that point yet, now, here.  But when Black citizens protest the death of their brothers and sisters at the hand of the police, they do have a point.  Even if the black deceased was a criminal, engaged in violent crime, it's not a situation which they can ignore; the death of one diminishes all.

(Wish they could get past the criminal behavior which draws the attention of the police, but only the community can deal with that.  Maybe they will, maybe they will not.  Their choice.)

The thing is, the Jews faced racial extinction; the blacks face what they perceive to be an institutional drive on the part of the folks with the power (you know, the guys who have the guns?) to keep them down and out.  Not quite on a par with racial extinction, but from the point of our black bretheren ... the distinction is vague.  Who can blame them for over-reacting when the lesson of the Jews is to stomp on this oppression before it becomes "institutional"?

I don't believe that the police in major cities are consciously (or 'deliberately') trying to put down the black community.  I do think that the attempt by the black community to be as high-profile as possible is their "Come To Jesus" Moment.   Or at least, a way to make sure that America is not comfortable with accepting their plight.

What I DO believe is that Black People in America are determined to keep their issues right in the bitch-slapped face of What America, if only so that people of conscience will not be 'comfortable' with ignoring their issues.  Do I think their situation is, today, as dire as they portray it?  

No.

But their best game plan is to over-state every situation, to keep those of us (including me) on the edge of our Strat-o-Lounger Easy Chairs wondering if maybe we might be part of the problem; because it's quite clear that our comfort is no part of The Solution.

SO:

Was Michael Brelo justified in jumping on the hood of Tim Russell's Mailbu and emptying his Glock into the bodies of  Russell and his friend Malissa Williams?

I don't know.  I wan't there.  All I know is what I read in the newspapers.\

I'm pretty sure there was some crime involved, and that Russell and Williams did not meekly surrender to police.

And the "African-American Community" (I HATE the hyphenated American terminology) is not happy.  Don't much blame them; if it was me I'd be pissed, too.


(If you're looking for some wisdom, and solution to a vaguely stated problem, or something more than questions ... hey!  Don't look at me; I'm as confused as everyone else is.)