"Gun Sense Vermont" offended by NRA contributions to students

They didn't know whether to Sh*t or go blind, so they closed their eyes and pharted.

NRA Dollars Target Vermont Schools | News | Seven Days | Vermont's Independent Voice:

 Clai Lasher-Sommers, executive director of the gun-control group Gun Sense Vermont, said public schools and universities should refuse money from NRA-affiliated entities because their parent organization lobbies against gun regulations. "When the NRA goes in to provide bullets to students, I just find that problematic," she said. But according to Evan Hughes, a leader of Vermont's NRA chapter, the grants largely support training for women and students,

A good guy with a gun doesn't always stop a bad guy with a gun

CNN is wetting its collegial panties with joy at the demonstrated evidence that the NRA is wrong, and it does so by implying that a good guy with a gun must stop a bad guy with a gun.

Here's definitive proof that a good guy with a gun doesn't always stop a bad guy with a gun - CNNPolitics: There are no simple solutions. There are no foolproof answers. Mass shootings are not entirely preventable.

Law Enforcement Officers are not legally required to protect private citizens; why then does CNN imply that armed private citizens should be held to a higher standard?

As usual, CNN is oversimplifying the situation, and then castigates the NRA by accusing that organization of oversimplifying the solution:

"To stop a bad guy with a gun, it takes a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said to applause from the CPAC crowd on Thursday morning.

The CNN article makes assumptions which are not warranted (as is often the case when Leftists attempt to misinterpret pro-gun positions).    The National Rifle Association never claimed that the mere presence of "a good guy with a gun" would automatically counter the predatory actions of "a bad guy with a gun".

That claim would be just ... stupid; much like these insinuations of CNN.

The Constitution enumerates Rights ... not Obligations.

The fact that an armed citizen was nearby during another {sigh} shooting, but declined to risk his life in protection of others, speaks only the constitutional choices available to each individual.  The CNN article suggests that an armed private citizen has an obligation to defend others which the state does not even assign to Sworn Officers.

The Second Amendment recognizes our personal right to carry a firearms; it assumes that we have the right to protect our persons, our property, and other persons. 

It does not present a mandate for the individual to protect others, at the risk of our own life.

 Few of us know, for sure, how we would react when faced with armed personal combat. 

This CNN article is just another feeble attempt by an anti-gun website to undermine the 2nd Amendment by implying that armed citizens are guilty of moral terpitude if they are unwilling to risk their own life by protecting others.

One wonders what the author of the CNN article would do, if presented with the challenge of protecting self or others against an armed aggressor.   But that is a problem for his laundry service.

How to become your own worst nightmare

Getting the Gun | The Huffington Post:
(2013)

Following the Newtown massacre in December the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, told the country, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” I wondered what would it be like to be that good guy with a gun? What would it be like to get that gun, live with that gun, be out and about with that gun and finally, what happens when you don’t want that gun any more? I decided to find out.

The author of this article, Heidi Newman, goes on to describe how EASY it was to "get a gun", despite the facts that she had never had a gun, had no idea how to use it, and it scared the pee-wadding out of herself to even hold it in her hand.

She had become a gun owner, she was eminently unqualified to own one,  and apparently wrote the article to illustrate how easy it was for an ignorant (not stupid, just not knowledgeable) person to "Get A Gun".

This is what I love about the Huff 'n Puff Post; there is no limit to the extremes to which their contributors will go, to prove their political point.  In this case that guns are evil and unqualified people shouldn't own one.

Or two.  Or heck, why stop there?

Actually, I agree with Heidi.   If you aren't trained, if you are afraid of guns, you probably shouldn't own one .... unless, of course, you make the basic minimum of finding a qualified trainer who will help you decide if  'having a gun' is right for you.

In much of America, it's not difficult to find training.
My local club (Albany Rifle and Pistol Club) provides regular classes for new gun owners.  And some classes for experience gun owners, as well; I teach one of them.  

In Oregon, gun laws are what Heidi and her Friends would call "Lax".  I would call them "Constitutional".  
If you're not a convicted felon, or an alien, or legally insane, or under the age of your majority --- you're assumed to be a legal  ADULT citizen.  Yes, the second Amendment applies to you!

So the experience that Heidi describes is something of her own making.

She hadn't purchased a firearm because she wished to exercise her Constitutional Right to be armed; her goal wasn't hunting, home/self defense, or competition.  

She was making a political statement, which the Leftists among us typically describe as: "I have a right not to be frightened because people around me might be carrying guns, and I don't trust them to have the sense to not be a jackass while they are armed!"

Given the details of Heidi's private experiment in exercising her civil rights, there's some justification to that attitude.

Heidi, you're a jackass.

You were sold a gun without training (although I'm quite certain that you had to pass an FBI Background Check proving that you're not legally insane or a felon or an alien) and you frightened yourself.  And you did so deliberately, for the SHOCK VALUE of creating a "publishable article".
 (Read: you could sell it to the Huffington Post)

You frightened me, too; you were irresponsible and inexperienced,  Those were not what frightened me; you put yourself in that situation deliberately, to provide material for a "Scare Article" in order to undermine the freedoms guaranteed to you by a bunch of privileged white men hundreds of years ago.

I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers had weak-sister women (and men) in their community, and their fair share of idiots and crack-pots.   I'm not sure they had so many as to combine all three in-admirable character flaws in one pamphleteer;  on the other hand, in the 18th century it generally required that a pamphleteer pay printing costs, and publishing this article cost you no more than your monthly internet access ... which suggests that you took advantage of both the 2nd Amendment and the 1st Amendment to publish your screed.

Sigh.

It doesn't matter.  I happen to support your Second Amendment Right to own a firearm.
I also support your First Amendment right to write and publish an article intended to undermine the Second Amendment under the protection of the First Amendment

"I do not agree with [or "I disapprove  of ... "] what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"

That statement is commonly ascribed to Voltaire, but it was probably penned by Evelyn Beatrice Hall; and the gender of the author is unimportant but noticed.

I think, Heidi (may I call you Heidi?  You may call me Geek!) that you have demonstrated bad judgement in your constitutional experimentation.   The fact that you voice discomfort is not proof that American Constitution Law is not sufficiently cognizant of the fact that some people are frightened by Too Much Freedom.

It's proof  that you have exceeded your natural good judgement in order to write a publishable article.

That you couldn't get it published in a more responsible venue than The Huffington Post suggests that you either couldn't get adequate readership through your own blog, or that you deliberately chose a venue which you knew would agree with, and publish, your article because it supports their anti-constitutional opinions.

Heidi ... you're such a rebel.  I like that.
I don't agree with you, I don't support your political views.

So, you want to go out for a cup of coffee some time?

(You won't have to 'carry'.)

Why Am I Not Surprised?

HRC is a known and proven imaginative re-interpreter of facts Professional Politician..

It only stands to reason that her co-conspirators supporters are known bottom-feeding from time to time caught in the act convicted of "corruption".

Former Rep. Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), who was a superdelegate for failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, has reported to prison to begin his 10-year sentence stemming from numerous corruption charges.

Just draining the swamp, Boss. Move on, nothing new here.

Except ... apparently we ARE judged by the company we keep.

Please don't let the screen door hit you in the rear on your way out!

"IF TRUMP WINS THE ELECTION, I WILL LEAVE THE COUNTRY!"

(a list of Liberal Celebrities who think we care whether they stay or leave)

There are a plethora of other websites which have published lists of prospective "Ex Patriots", but they are largely redundant and this list seems to include most of them.

The funny thing (and I mean funny in the sense of 'amusing', not 'odd' is that there are no follow-up stories of "Celebrities Who Have Actually Left The Country Since Trump Won!"

These 23 Celebrities Said They'll Leave The Country If Trump Wins - Catherine Dunn:  *
   1, Jon Stewart 
   2. Chelsea Handler 
   3. Neve Campbell 
   4. Barry Diller 
   5. Lena Dunham 
   6. Keegan-Michael Key 
   7. Chlo Sevigny 
   8. Al Sharpton 
   9. Natasha Lyonne 
 10. Eddie Griffin. 
 11. Spike Lee
 12. Amber Rose   
 13. Samuel L. Jackson 
 14. Cher  
 15. George Lopez  
 16. Barbra Streisand 
 17. Raven-Symon
 18. Whoopi Goldberg  
 19. Omari Hardwick
 20. Miley Cyrus 
 21. Ruth Bader Ginsburg  
 22. Amy Schumer 
 23. Katie Hopkins

I recall a similar list when "W" won the presidency, and as far as I can tell nobody actually left then, either.

One funny thing about this list, is that I don't see Alec Baldwin on the list;
he was on the "George W. Bush Ex-patriot list"  back then.
He didn't leave either.   In fact, he disavowed the rumors!

I wonder how many of the current list of Bail-Out Big Names will follow in Baldwin's "Flunk-out Footsteps" this year?


* I make no claims to the veracity of the reporting.  In fact, I don't even know who half of these people ARE or why anyone cares whether they stay, or leave  (I recognize 11 names).
 But I do find it amusing that all of them are Democrats.   I don't recall any Republicans "threatening" to leave America if a Democrat was elected to the highest office in the land.   I may be mistaken, but I'm never wrong.

Also, it's interesting that the article cites "23 celebrities", but the LINK cites "10 celebrities".  My guess is that the list grew as other opportunists jumped on the non-committal Band Wagon.

Baby Steps

Maine Ballot Initiative Requires Background Check to Borrow Gun for Hunting - Breitbart:

The Maine ballot initiative labeled Question 3 requires individuals to go through background checks before borrowing a gun from a friend for the purposes of hunting.

See, this is because if your friend is a felon and you don't know it, this law would make sure that before you lend him a hunting rifle so he can go hunting with you,  you can ... uh ...

I'm not sure.

Personally, I've never gone hunting with anyone I didn't know well enough that I believed it was safe to .. you know ... trust him with a loaded firearm?

I've never knowingly gone hunting with a felon.   Obviously, Maine thinks that anyone who wants to go hunting is an idiot.

But ... MAINE?
Really?

What I HAVE known  is that sometimes you get in the woods before you realize that there is a functional problem with your rifle.  Rare, but it happens.

(Once a friend brought the 'wrong ammunition' which didn't work in his rifle; I had a backup-rifle and ammunition, and he took home a fine 3-point buck that year.   His wife invited me to dinner the next month ... tender eating, and I was glad I was able to help out.)

So WHY does Maine think this is A Good Idea?

It is not because they think you are an idiot, or because they think your friends are felons.
It's not just because of "Gun Control".

It's because of "CONTROL".  This is another of those niggling 'baby steps' that Gun Control Fanatics "Advocates" take take to subtly undermine your (and my) Constitutional Rights.

They just cannot believe, let alone accept, that The Common Man has sufficient reasoning ability to judge the value of his friends.   They, and they alone, have the power to judge whether you are making the right decisions in your daily life.

I don't know anything about the politics in Maine, but I would be willing to bet my next two months Social Security checks against your weekly paycheck that every legislator in Maine who voted for this inane restriction has a "D" after his or her name.

The Camel's Nose Is Under Your Tent:

Control of your ability to judge whether your friends should handle a firearm is just the tip of their agenda.  Eventually, they want to control your rights to make every life decision.

But for the same reason that the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone which protects every other Constitutional Right, these yahoos attack it first.

And that's what they are doing,

They don't have to win every question, but citizens DO .. because when WE lose a talking point, we will never get it back.  They have the power to attack our rights; we only have the vote in response.

They don't expect this to pass, but they plant the proposal to position themselves for the next egregious imposition on your rights.

Every time you don't vote, someone undermines your life style.

VOTE!

NRA using childrens' games to teach about gun safety - ouch!

Oh, the horror!

Hasbro caught in crossfire of NRA's Candy Land campaign | PR Week:

The gun-loving association has turned Candy Land and Battleship into games about shooting targets, prompting social media users to say the marketing campaign is geared towards children.

[H/T: Shall Not Be Questioned]

Um ... excuse me? Two points:

(1) The assumption here is that the NRA is conducting a "marketing campaign".
(2) The presentation is "geared towards children".

I'm not sure that the first assumption is warranted.   To me, that website looks like an educational tool,  They're not even selling the target designs; they've put the images in open-source (so to speak) internet website where anyone can download and print the targets.
The NRA realizes no financial profit.  It's a poor marketing campaign which realizes no fiscal benefit.  (Liar Liar Pants On Fire!)

Anyone who actually goes to the NRA website sees that the display is a number of different designs of targets.  These target designs are intended to make target practice more interesting and rewarding to young target shooters.

The presumption that the presentation is "geared towards children" is ... childishly obvious.

Of course it is (or at least, it's provided to the parents for the benefit of their children),
So why so serious?

Targets are the best way to teach the safe, accurate operation of firearms to shooters of any age.
And people like shooting at targets.  Ever go to a carnival?   See that shooting gallery?  For a quarter (probably more expensive now) you can shoot at tin ducks and win a kewpie doll.

Oh, the horror!

One of the most impelling arguments that Gun Grabbers present is that guns are a danger when there are children in the house.  Why?  Because guns are what lawyers call "an attractive nuisance".   Which means kids can always find a way to get to a gun in the home and play with it.

The life lesson for most gun-owners with children in the house is to de-mystify the gun.   They take their kids to the range, let them shoot their .22 plinker rifles at targets, and in the process teach safe gun-handling habits.

Kids can learn to safely handle guns?  That's entirely contrary to the gun-grabber mantra.   These people who would deny our children to responsibly exercise their constitutional rights would have you believe that there is no POSITIVE aspect of firearms ownership.

They don't understand that one reason why people like to shoot guns is because ... it's FUN!

Oh, the horror!

The gun grabbers are as quick to castigate responsible gun owners who teach their kids to handle guns safely, as they are to point out that it's irresponsible of parents to have guns in the home because kids can't resist the lure of playing with guns.

But now the NRA has offered another tool to parents which positively allows training to their children, and at the same time make it fun!

And these same idiots who have a political agenda cannot abide the realization that "Firearms Families"  can, and will, teach their children ... and the NRA (the original goal of which organization was to promote firearms safety) are doing their share.

The nasty part of this story is that we're told that firearms owners are irresponsible because their children can't be trusted around guns .. but when the NRA takes steps to provide firearms owners
with a valuable took in child-rearing, we meet nothing but continued criticism.

Could it be possible that there is NOTHING that Americans can do to promote gun safety, without being castigated in the popular press?

Oh, the horror!

It's childishly simple.

Feeling the Pulse of the Nation ... NOT!

Yesterday I noted that the fire of politicians' resentment was curiously missing from this year's Electoral Experience.   Nobody has said: "If Trump Wins, I'm Leaving The Country", or "If Hillary Wins, I'm Leaving The Country".

Forgive my smug assertion.   Apparently I wasn't paying attention.

There are about the same proportion of politicians (and celebrities who consider themselves gurus of politics ... aka Barba Streisand) who have dredged up the entire sore-loser mantra as if they had invented it!

By the way, doesn't anyone remember when Barbra chided the professional politicians because they weren't running the world the way she thought they should?  (In 2001, the Dems weren't hitting Bush hard enough;  in 2011, Republicans were on "the wrong side of history".)

Don't get me wrong, I love Barbra's music.  But she should only open her mouth to sing ... without an orchestra, she's alternatively a political embarrassment, or an idiot.   Sometimes, both.

Well, Barbra frequently embarrasses, but she never disappoints.    Except that, she continues to make those wild claims but has she left the country yet?  NOOOoooooooo!

(Okay, so she DOES disappoint ... but she's still consistent!)

For those who have made this "promise",
... *(many of whom I have never heard of; none of whom I would miss)* .......     here are a few tips.

My personal advice?   GO!   I would cheerfully donate five dollars to your travel fund!  *

If you're so shallow that you can't endure a president you don't like, we don't need you.   I don't like either candidate.  It's not the first time America has had an unpopular president.

We have endured Nixon, Carter, Clinton Senior, Obama, FDR.  We're still here,
We don't have to like it.  We can endure either Clinton Junior or Trump.

* uh ... that's five dollars CANADIAN, not American.
At the current exchange rate of 0.7470, that is only $3.59 American
Get use to it.

Gauging Candidate Popularity

Does anyone remember how many Democrats (Alec Baldwin ... where are you now?) declared back in 2000 that "If George Bush Wins The Presidency, I will leave the country"?

(Here's a 'short list' from Salon: September 20, 2000)

Well, I took an informal poll by using Norton Safe Search software based on the search argument:
"IF BUSH WINS I WILL LEAVE".

 2,680,000 results :  That's not a link, that's just how many hits I got.

As a comparison of the 2000 and 2016 elections, I ran searches on HILLARY and TRUMP

"IF HILLARY WINS I WILL LEAVE"  garnered 12,600,000 hits

"IF TRUMP WINS I WILL LEAVE" garnered 18,400,000 hits

I'm not about to offer any kind of statistical analysis between the popularity of 'Dubya' and the current candidates, because the world has changes so much and the blogosphere has gone hog wild.

This neither proves that Hillary is a more acceptable presidential candidate, or that Democrats are more emotional.  You could argue either way, and I couldn't refute you.

But suffice it to say the the George W. Bush candidacy excited a lot of people.

Today there are two candidates in the same statistical realm, and the most comfortable with the current democratic candidate among us are 12 to 18 LESS people over-reacting about HILLARY as a president. than about TRUMP as a president.

OR IS THAT A VALID EVALUATION?

Could it just be that Democrats are more emotional, more prone to over-react or make extreme statements?

I think that it might be possible to make a case for that premise.  You do recall that George Walker Bush's competitor in 2000 was Al Gore?  (also know as "Al Sore-Loser")

Well, to provide a balanced 'research project" I also ran a search for:

"IF GORE WINS I WILL LEAVE"
....    and I didn't get a single hit.

Maybe nobody thought Al "I Invented The Internet" Gore was much of a challenge?