WHAT argument about guns should be "won"?

Posit: The comparison between death/injury by automobiles v. firearms is facetious and misleading.

Tripping through the Way-Back Machine, I found this April 2018 article by Nicholas Kristof, one of my favorite Liberal (Anti-Gun) writers.

Opinion | How to Win an Argument About Guns - The New York Times:

You liberals are in a panic over guns, but look at the numbers. Any one gun is less likely to kill a person than any one vehicle. But we’re not traumatized by cars, and we don’t try to ban them. It’s true that any particular car is more likely to be involved in a fatality than any particular gun. But cars are actually a perfect example of the public health approach that we should apply to guns. We don’t ban cars, but we do work hard to take a dangerous product and regulate it to limit the damage.

(Emphasis Added:  Read the whole article to put this paragraph in the perspective of its author.)

The comparison suggests that since we've found ways to make cars less dangerous, we should be able to make guns less dangerous, too.

Well, that's just silly.
Although Nicky (who perhaps doesn't keep or carry firearms) conflates the two mechanical devices, he elides over the salient point:   Guns are dangerous because that is their purpose.

(Perhaps he proposes to "limit the damage" by making them more difficult to ... uh ... take the safety off?  Okay, that's silly, too.  I was just trying to imagine what measures Nicky was thinking of which would still keep them easily available in a self-defense situation.  I am confounded.     You think maybe Nicky didn't think it through? )

True, cars are intended for transportation.  But guns are designed to bore holes through their targets. 

Usually, that target is a piece of paper or some other inanimate object.  A tin can?   Often, a gun is used to kill an animal ... such as Bambi or The Easter Bunny. 

And once in a while a gun is used to dissuade a would-be felon from rape, mayhem, or murder.   In those cases, you don't want to piss on them, you want to step on them HARD!

Personally, I've never deliberately aimed a rifle or a pistol at a living human being; in Viet Nam, I preferred the M18 Claymore Mine or the M79 Granade Launcher ... More Bang For The Buck!
(My favorite weapon was the PRC-25 Radio, with which I could call in anything from mortar or artillery fire to an air strike.   Sorry, I digress.)

For personal/home defense, I have always preferred a 1911-style pistol in .45 ACP caliber.   Or 10mm. Or any caliber where the first digit was at least a "4".

(more overleaf)

Somebody needs to Get A Life

David Hogg to S&W: Donate $5 million annually to gun control or be destroyed - Guns.com 

... cites "Love and Economics" as the instruments of destruction.

Don't know why he bothers. Smith and Wesson has been mismanaging their business for years; sooner or later their corporate owners will cast them off as unprofitable.

But Hogg will milk this cow as long as he can, because he loves his spotlight.
(Although his "spotlight" is more like a "penlight".)

The gun control advocate, speaking at a protest at Smith & Wesson’s factory in Massachusetts over the weekend, had a list of demands. David Hogg, who catapulted to the national spotlight for his role in the March for Our Lives campaign following the Parkland, Florida school shooting earlier this year, was a featured speaker at a rally organized by 50 Miles More and the Boston chapter of March for Our Lives. With a crowd estimated by the Boston Herald to number about 100 on Sunday, Hogg helped voice the group’s demands for the gun maker to donate $5 million to gun violence research per year and halt the production of firearms outlawed under the state’s assault weapons ban.

Let me see, that would calculate to about $50,000 per protester.

Hog continues to ignore the fact that he was not at Parkland School when the atrocity occurred; his notoriety is based on his assertion that ... "I COULD have been there!"

Gun Control - in Arizona???!

Typical anti-gun hysteria, but not so common in Free States where the response time to a 911 call is typically measured in longer time units than "mere minutes away".

Gun Control - Fryer for Arizona:

I agree with most Arizonans when I say: YES to a ban on semiautomatic guns, high capacity magazines and assault weapons. YES to criminal background checks on all gun sales and on transfers between private parties. YES to preserving and strengthening state concealed carry permitting systems, and limiting firearms in public places, including schools and college campuses. YES to buy back programs. YES to waiting periods. YES to smart guns, safety training, safe storage, and child access protection laws. YES to a ban on sales to terror watchlist, the mentally ill, stalker and domestic violence misdemeanants, and violent criminals. YES to community-based violence intervention programs. YES to requiring and investing in research into our gun violence epidemic.

Most curious that she ignores that "gun free zones" are the target of choice for people who have "mass murder" on their agenda.

Oh ... wait; Democrat.
Never mind, I understand now.   It's as if she actually believes that Criminals and Terrorists will be dissuaded by more gun laws. 

(Note to Arizonans: Anyone But Fryer! You don't have enough idiots making your life-dependent decisions for you?)

PS:   I've not been so impressed by the "Terrorist Watch List", since it's a Shadow Government thing.   I would think Democrats would be campaigning for more information on who gets listed, why and how.  But I suspect that they like it just the way it is, because it undermines the privacy and security on everyone that's listed there ... and as long as their name isn't on it, the Big-Government/Anti-Constitutional Democrats LIKE IT!

California DOJ BLINKS!

This is our "Once a Year Day"!

California yields to the simple logic that what they require is incapable of enforcement.

California DOJ Withdraws Regulation Requiring Registration of ‘Assault Weapons’ | The Daily Caller: The California Department of Justice withdrew a regulation Wednesday evening requiring California firearm owners to register so-called “assault weapons” following a lawsuit filed by a group of gun rights advocacy organizations

California politicians have established a "need" for an exceedingly complicated and expensive legal path toward compliance.   Except they have not the laws to enforce the law.   Which makes the entire exercise merely an amateurish attempt to frighten legal gun-owners by the imposition of penalties which do not exist in law.

As usual, the Liberal Gun-Grabbers had not the foresight to do their homework. 

(As teenagers, did their mothers make them do their homework before watching television?   Apparently, not!   That's once more difference between the Common People and The Anointed.)

Where Have All The Swimsuits Gone?

Miss America Beauty Contest has become the Miss America Politically Correct Competition.

America has finally hit the skids, when a beauty contest doesn't focus on feminine pulchritude.
("Pulchritude-ness"?) of the femininity of its contestants,

I stand with the author (see below) in my dismay that the "swimsuit competition:" has been eliminated as one of the essential elements of a beauty contest.

Let me say that loudly:

A BEAUTY CONTEST WITHOUT SWIMSUIT COMPETITION?  MADNESS!

Face, Figure, Form.  Okay, you can be a Rhodes Scholar and that helps, but it's still a BEAUTY CONTEST and how can you judge beauty without  ... oh, wait a minute.  Are they going to ask the contestants to model in the nude?

There's a Liberal theme here, and I'm against it.
And I'm not the only one:

Miss America Swimsuit Competition Eliminated: Political Correctness Gone Wild | National Review: The Miss America competition will now focus on ‘scholarship, social impact, talent and empowerment.’ Good luck with that. The Miss America Organization announced this week that it will no longer judge women on their “outward physical appearance.” To that end, the swimsuit competition is gone. “We are no longer a pageant,” Gretchen Carlson, the group’s head, explained. “Miss America will represent a new generation of female leaders focused on scholarship, social impact, talent and empowerment.” Before I go on, let me confess my shameful secret: I like looking at really beautiful women, including when they wear bikinis.

I'm with "That Guy".

As a reasonable comparison, what if the National Merit Scholarship Program decided to eliminate Grade Point Average of prospective candidates,

It would lose all of its supposed pertinence. 
Scholarship is defined as smartness; Beauty is defined as comeliness.

You want to eliminate the Swimsuit Competition from Beauty Contests?
Fine with me ... let them pose in the Nude Competition.

Heck, I might actually hook my television to the Cable outlet to watch that show.

Michael Bloomberg Wants To Be Gun Czar?

Anybody who listens to Michael Bloomberg is a damn fool.

"There's no leadership" on gun reform, says Michael Bloomberg - CBS News:

"I think all of us have a responsibility between now and then, call your congressman, call your senator, and say we want you to do something about this. I don't want to have my child at risk. I don't want to personally be at risk from crazy people with -- should, who shouldn't have guns," Bloomberg said.

The crazy thing about "calling your congressman ...." and saying "..we want you to do something about this" (speaking of Gun Control legislature) is that your congress-critter has no better idea what to "Do About This" than does Bloomberg, who thinks crazy people are those who don't agree with him.

Well ... except "Mister and Mrs America, Turn 'em All In!"

(Sorry ... a Nancy Pelosi moment; I'm just overwhelmed with emotion. Give me a minute?)

Thanks ... I feel better now.

But (CONFISCATION) is the only possible solution to the "Gun Control Problem".  As long as one single private citizen has access to a firearm, the gun deaths will just keep rolling in.    You know it's true; Nancy Pelosi said so!

The solution is to make guns illegal.   That way nobody will ever get shot again.

Except that the people who turn in their guns will have no defense against criminals, who  have this evil smirk on their faces, hoping that civilians will voluntarily render themselves defenseless against predation.  Because criminals don't NEED guns to assault the weaker members of our society ... such as old people, like me.   Guns just make their jobs so much easier, as long as they are the "Only Ones" who have guns.

So if you give up your guns ... well, you do the math.   The guns will be melted down, Ford will buy the slag and build 10 million cars that nobody wants, and you will be unable to outrun a bullet from the guy who carjacks your Ford Fiesta.  Because for DAMN sure, he didn't give up HIS gun! (Except why anyone wants to own a Ford Fiesta I'll never know ... do they even make them any more?

Here's where Nancy Pelosi's advice becomes useful:  "Mr and Mrs America, Give Up Your Ford Fiestas ... Give 'Em All Up!"

(If gun control works, wait until the Liberals follow up with "Knife Control"!
 See how well that has worked in Not-So-Great Britain!)

This is your future:

Lies, but without even the courtesy of statistics or a "thank You Ma'am"!

NRA hijacks bipartisan gun bill. Now it's too dangerous to pass.:

Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul. As a package, “Fix NICS” would keep guns from domestic abusers — while “Concealed Carry Reciprocity” would force states to allow people to carry concealed guns in public even if they are domestic abusers, have other dangerous histories, or lack even the most basic safety training to carry concealed guns in public.

USA Today is among the many public forums which have deliberately lied about current  (and proposed)  firearms legislation, and their agenda is to completely disallow the free exercise of the Second Amendment.

There are no state or federal laws, currently active or proposed, which would:
"force states to allow people to carry concealed guns in public even if they are domestic abusers, have other dangerous histories, or lack even the most basic safety training to carry concealed guns in public. "

There are NO states which have enacted gun-control laws which "force states" to allow convicted felons or domestic abusers to be allowed to carry concealed firearms.    That's just stupid!

How many times must this point be emphasized, to deny the false hoods engendered by public forums?

Intelligent people would probably read the statement, and dismiss it without needing to cite other resources.

Stupid people will read the USA TODAY article, and take it at face value; after all, it's USA TODAY And they wouldn't lie to us!

The Big Lie

There was a propaganda technique (often utilized by the Russians in the 20th century) which proposed that if you tell a lie which is so obviously WRONG ... many people will believe it because "who would tell such a horrible lie, if it was not true???"

Well, many people use The Big Lie to argue against facts which are obviously true, and unfortunately it is all-to-often accepted as "TRUE" because who would lie about that so disingenuously?

Answer: people who think you are stupid enough to believe obvious lies.

There are no states which allow convicted domestic abusers to possess firearms, let along "force" them to do so. 

Second Amendment Supporters recognize that there are a sub-genre of people who are not responsible to carry firearms, and domestic abusers have proven their poor judgement.

USA TODAY is just one of the public forums which abuse their privilege to report the news, in order to publish their bias on social issues ... about which they are insufficiently informed.

I Had Never Touched a Gun . Then I Bought One.

Fascinating article for a self-professed "Snowflake", examining the angst and trauma of an gun-control proponent.

The author walks us through the trials and tribulations of buying, and becoming familiar with, a handgun in the wilds of Seattle.

I Had Never Touched a Gun Before the Las Vegas Massacre. Then I Bought One. - Features - The Stranger:

A liberal snowflake gets to know gun culture from the inside.

The author walks us through every detail of his decision to 'find out' what the attraction of firearms might be.   And during the trip, he pays much attention to detailing how upsetting ... yet fascinating ... the journey has been.

As I read through the article (excellent written, atypically "fair and balanced" as they say", I began to wonder about his motivation.  If he finds guns so fearful, why did do this.    True, it's a fine example of expository skills; and though it's rather long, it's not a waste of time and I hope he received a fat check for his efforts.

But still .. he harps on the fear he felt.   Why the fear?   Was there something special which made the 'experiment' particularly dreadful for him?

Then toward the end of the article, *under the header "TRIGGER WARNING"* he provides full exposure: 

He has a suicidal tendency which he has fought years; he controls it by medication.

There Are Some People Who Simply Should Not Have A Gun

I have made this point in my writings over the past ten years here.   To my mind the sorts of people who should not have a gun include:

1. Violent Criminals
2. People who are either incompetent, untrained, or unable to comprehend the lethality
3. Mentally Unstable People

There is obviously some overlap in these three major categories, plus sub-categories not defined here.

But a person who is admittedly suicidal, and who requires medication to control suicidal urges, is certainly playing a life-and-death game with himself.   This author qualifies in the second and third categories, although he makes a stringent effort to describe why he shouldn't be included in the second (and lacking a felony conviction, he has not qualified for the first category).

Although I admired his work, and still have my copy of "Hunting with Hemingway", I lost my respect for Ernest Hemingway when he took his own life.

And you, sir, are no Hemingway.

Please follow up with your better judgement, and remove that damn Glock from your life, rather than to remove your life with the Glock.

The Giffords Sue The Donald

Gee ... who knew that the President was a hireling of the Evil NRA?
I just may renew my annual membership, after all!

Trump administration sued by gun control group founded by Gabby Giffords:

A gun control group founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., is suing the Trump administration for failing to disclose documents revealing the National Rifle Association’s influence on Trump’s views towards gun policies. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives earlier this week, accusing the ATF of failing to comply to various Freedom of Information Act requests for documents concerning communications between the NRA and the administration.

Personally, I think that "The Giffords" should start their own television program.  It would be like "The Jeffersons" except without the humor.   Should they hire someone to say "Dy-No-Mite!" every time a bad joke needs a punchline?

You can tell that a gun-control group is not receiving contributions when they resort to "Shock-Jock" tactics to keep their name in the headlines.

Conservative Speech on Liberal Campus

One of the other more difficult transitions to College (besides  not living at home with Mom and Dad, who are leveling influences and are readily available to offer you advice which you probably won't consider for another decade or so) is to assimilate dramatically different social and moral values from what you learned in Podunk, USA.

Ben Shapiro New York Times Op-Ed Response | National Review:

In an op-ed published in the New York Times, Jane Coaston accuses conservative commentator Ben Shapiro of exhibiting “hollow bravery” during his much-publicized speeches on campus. Coaston outlines what she considers to be Shapiro’s trick: Set up a speech in a progressive bastion, ideally a college campus full of coastal elites who have never left their bubble. Spar with snowflakes who are offended by something he says about race or gender and perhaps even believe he never should have been invited in the first place. Post the exchange on the internet and use it as proof that the cultural consensus is stacked dramatically against conservatives.

Grasping At Straws: Baltimore Gerrymanders Gun Rights.

Baltimore gives initial nod to proposed mandatory minimums for illegal guns:

The measure originally aimed to criminalize the carry or transport of a handgun, either openly or concealed, within 100 yards of a public building, park, church, school, or “other place of public assembly” with a mandatory penalty of one-year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.

A flawed bill, for two reasons:

First, assuming the phrase "other place of public assembly" is not explicitly defined in the actual bill, that could mean a movie theater ... or almost any place where the public assembles.   Example: A Shopping Mall.

Second, assuming the phrase "transport of a handgun" means having a handgun in your car as you drive through town, it's almost impossible to chart a "safe" route through town on your way to or from (for example) a Shooting Range.

To illustrate the complexity of this problem, you should avail yourself of a map of a city, municipality, etc. and identify and mark the locations of every " public building, park, church, school, or “other place of public assembly”.

I couldn't do that with 100% confidence in my home town, or even a small town.
Hell, I live within 100 yards of both a church and a park.   I couldn't even leave my driveway without violating such a law.

It is idiosyncratic of politicians (not just Liberals, but all of them) to resolve every problem by throwing a law at it.  Plan "B" is to throw money at it.   That's their entire toolbox.   It is reasonable to expect no more effective plans from a group of people who are elected by popular votes.

I would give Baltimore politicians credit for at least trying to resolve their high-mortality rate of Gangsters with Guns, but passing new laws like this one only serves to criminalize law-abiding citizens.

Society's Child in ToonTown

We didn't have enough Psychopaths in America, so we decided to import them.

20-Time Deportee Moves to Sanctuary City, Allegedly Rapes 65-Year-Old Woman: Police officers in the sanctuary city of Portland [Oregon] arrested Sergio Jose Martinez, 31, after he allegedly broke into the home of a 65-year-old woman, tied her up, held her at knifepoint and raped her, KOIN CBS6 reported. Court records revealed Martinez has a long criminal history that includes burglary, battery, and multiple deportations.

It's not "Sanctuary", it's a Hunting Ground

Following his alleged attack on the 65-year-old woman in her home where she gave him her Prius to get him to leave, police responded to a call about a man attacking a woman in the basement of a parking garage below a building. There, police discovered Martinez allegedly sexually assaulting another woman and holding her at knifepoint. Martinez fled on foot and officers chased him through a neighborhood, capturing him in a nearby apartment, KOINS reported.

Sanctuary Cities need to take responsibility for encouraging these maniacs, who migrate to places like Portland which encourage rapine and murder by their permissive social policies.

Martinez had been deported at least TWENTY TIMES, and he kept coming back because he (like all of his perverted kind) knew that the worst he could expect was a slap on the wrist, and a plethora of Social Justice Warriors who will weep for his poor degenerate self.

What kind of community allows encourages feral creatures to predate its citizens?

Time After Time: Democrats and Gun Control Outrage

Political grandstanding at its best.

For Every $1 the NRA Gave Paul Ryan, I'll Name a Gun Victim | Time.com:

Representative Robin Kelly:

Despite every effort, including a historic sit-in, we’ve failed to force Speaker Paul Ryan and his leadership team to hold a single vote on legislation to save American lives from gun violence. I was going to try again, and I was going to go after the root of the problem: the millions that the National Rifle Association spends to ensure the Speaker’s silence and inaction.

(Kelly represents Illinois' 2nd district in the United States Congress, is a vice chair of the Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and was an organizer of the 2016 House of Representatives sit-in to end gun violence.)

Representative Kelly seems outraged at the "millions" that the NRA spent to "ensure the Speaker's silence and inaction".   (One would almost wonder how many millions of dollars Representative Kelly's supporters and PACs paid for his elections over the years.   Shee talks as if she's outraged that Ryan enjoys the perks of the ruling party ... which would not be the Democrats.)

Despite every effort, including a historic sit-in, we’ve failed to force Speaker Paul Ryan and his leadership team to hold a single vote on legislation to save American lives from gun violence.

Surely, Rep. Kelly, you know you can't force a majority.  This is rhetoric.

And the Democratic Photo Moment (historic sit-in), Ms. Kelly, is not something that a reasonable man would choose to keep before those who might be his future constituents. WIth respect, you all look like bobble-heads.   Or kindergarteners having been told "It's Nap Time"

Actually, a large part of the NRA's contributions probably went more often to Donald Trump's Presidential Campaign than Paul Ryan's;  and they were donated to defeat the odious Hillary Clinton, whose campaign promise to undermine the Second Amendment Rights of free Americans made her the primary target of millions of us.

Ryan won the post of Speaker of the House because the House, the Senate, and the President are all Republicans.

You know Republicans.  They're the people who get to appoint their party members to high position, right? The people who win elections because they look and act like responsible adults?

Ms. Kelly would do well to remember that Americans love their freedoms, and they cannot abide a politician who promises to undermine their Constitutional Rights.

Remember Al Gore?  Well, neither do most folks, except when they research "Electoral Vote" vs "Popular Vote".

Remember Hillary Clinton?  Well, neither do most folks.
(Well, they do .. but with a sigh of relief as in "Wow, we dodged THAT bullet!  Sigh!")
Now that we're safe from her.

Both of these democratic candidates ran on the platform of undermining the Second Amendment.  Both of them lost.  Coincidence?

Undermining the Constitution is NOT the best route to the White House.  It is, in fact, the fastest route to obscurity.  Unless you don't consider losing power and prestige and respect a sign of obscurity.

On the other

• A vote on a jobs bill that creates opportunity so kids pick up pencils and books instead of guns, ....

That's something that EVERYBODY could get behind.  We want our kids to grow up to be responsible, productive citizens.   We do NOT want them to be known only as statistics in urban warfare ... or names on a tomb known only to their family.

"We didn't do NUTTIN' to him!"

Naw, honest, officer.  We didn't do NUTTIN to him!
We wuz just out here playing a little B-Ball, and this white dude just started to AK us.   We never seen him before, we don't even know why he even be here.

Me and my bro's just wanted to catch a few rays and get in a little practice.  We got a big game coming up wit' other guys in da hood, you know?  Alla sudden this honky asshole dude starts blazing away ...  we dint know who or why, we jest hunkered down and tried to get small behind the fence.  One of my homies got shot in the ASS, y'know?

We in the PARK, y'know?  Ever'body knows you don't mess wit' folks in da PARK!
Lucky t'ing, one a the guys had his homies wit him?  And they started blazing back at the honky wit' the AK.  Y'know?  Dat honky gots what he deserved, y'know?  We got RULZ in dis hood, the park is whatcha call it ... off limits, y'know? 

Yeah, I glad they nined his ass.   He got no RIGHT   Y'know?

Could of been worse.  The assailant might have attacked U.S. Congressmen.

Imagine how fraught with political implications that would have been.

Why ... something might even have been done!

'Love me, Love my gun'

Lawmakers move to close national 'hate crime loophole':

Democrats on Capitol Hill introduced legislation Thursday backed by gun control groups to strip Second Amendment rights from those who commit misdemeanor hate crimes.

Another non-starter bill introduced solely to make some Democratic Stooge appear to be "Doing Something".    Too many laws are imposed on the American people for no better reason, but this one doesn't take away a "privilege", but an Enumerated Right.

Hell, if you really want to "Do Something", why not take away the Drivers License of people who are convicted of the non-crime of uttering the undefinable "Hate Speech"  ... which is a "Hate Crime".

If the explanation is that 'people who commit hate crimes are those who kill people with guns', remember that Cars are the new Guns; if you take away their drivers license, surely they won't be able to drive a truck onto a crowded NYC sidewalk any more!  (See how easy to extend the 'thought process of a Democrat' to its logical absurdity!)

The Supreme Court can't even define "Obscenity".   How are they going to handle the first case that reaches their docket and they have to apply a standard to "Hate Speech"?

"What Did I Do Wrong?"

WATCH: “Shattered” co-author Amie Parnes on the many mistakes that doomed Hillary Clinton’s campaign - Salon.com:

In “Shattered,” the first must-read book to emerge from the 2016 presidential election, political reporters Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes provide a detailed autopsy of what their subtitle calls “Hillary Clinton’s doomed campaign.” Their account — drawn from background interviews with numerous people who worked in or around the Clinton campaign — is controversial for many reasons. As they admit in their introduction, Allen and Parnes assumed all along that Clinton would win, and that for all her strategic missteps and messaging problems they were probably chronicling the election of America’s first female president. Only on the night of last Nov. 8, they write, did the full meaning of their reporting become clear.

Dear Hillary;
Let me tell you the story of a man named Job  [cue banjo theme song]

Job was a poor man, barely kept his family fed.  He observed the sabbath and kept it holy, paid his tithe faithfully, was diligent in his work and never spoke ill of any man.
Then one day his daughter turns up pregnant.
His son runs away with someone named "Maurice".
His wife admits that she has contracted a social disease, and she's not sure from whom.
The sky clouds over, the rains pour down, washing his crops away.
His oxen are struck by lightening.
His barn burns down.
He develops running pustules on his face.
And all of his neighbors turn their backs to him

.
Job falls to his knees, looks up into the stormy skies, and weeps:
"Lord, why hast thou forsaken me?"
The rains stop for a minute.   The clouds part, a beam of brilliant golden sunlight catches job, and a deep voice booms out:

There's something about you, Job, that just pisses me off!

Trump Jr.’s Montana prairie dog hunt prompts backlash

Trump Jr.’s Montana prairie dog hunt prompts backlash:

The Humane Society of the United States condemned Trump’s hunting plans, saying prairie dogs are an important species for the Great Plains because more than 100 other animals depend on the prairie dog either as food or move into the burrows they dig, said Lindsey Sterling Krank, the organization’s director for its Prairie Dog Coalition.

Let them dig their own darn holes.

And let the weepy tree-huggers cry for the cattle who break their legs in prairie dog holes, and suffer in agony until the rancher finds a lamed heifer and has to put her down .. often leaving a orphan calf ("Dogie") to die because no other heifer will adopt him.

Ranchers ... who grow the hamburgers that the Humane Society probably eats at their fund-raising BBQ's ... have two ways of minimizing the Prairie Dog Menace:  Poison, or shooting.  Trapping is not an effective means of killing of Prairie Dogs (who are the victims of Coyotes ... who will gleefully take down a calf or a nursing cow).

Poisoning either Prairie Dogs or Coyotes is not a good alternative, because the carcass will end up being eaten by scavenger, such as the Bald Eagle (our national symbol) and they die from the effects of "secondary poisoning".  

And then some other scavenger eats their body, and the strychnine moves on.

There is a good reason why Prairie Dogs are also called "Prairie Rats".

Hunting them is the most humane method of keeping the rodent population down to manageable levels.  When coyotes find a dead prairie dog, their pack feeds for a day.

 And the ecological benefit of the coyote?

They eat lamed cows.   If the rancher doesn't find the cow first, coyotes don't bother to kill the cows, they just start on the hind legs and keep eating until they get to the vital parts.    They particularly enjoy eating the intestines of cattle before they are dead.   I've seen parts of cattle spread over a half-acre when a pack of coyotes finds one that can't keep up with the herd.   The cow just drags herself along on three legs while the dogs snarl and bite and rips raw flesh from the living animal.  THAT is pitiful, and cruel.

Cattle are a lot easier to catch than Prairie Dogs, and there's enough there for a pack to feed for three days.

If you don't know the ecology of the prairie, you probably aren't qualified to opine about the poor prairie dog.

California Firearms Legislation: Still Crazy After All These Years!

California legislatures are at it again, bringing up tired old laws which are impossible to obey.

California Supreme Court to rule on gun law - SFGate:
March 22, 2017

The state Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether gun manufacturers have the right to challenge a California law requiring identifying microstamps on bullets fired from semiautomatic pistols, a requirement the manufacturers claim can’t be met with current technology.
A state appeals court had ruled in December that gun groups could present evidence to support their suit seeking to overturn the law, an exception to the usual requirement that statutes can be struck down only if they are unconstitutional.
But the state Supreme Court voted Wednesday to grant a hearing to defenders of the law, which remains in effect while the case is pending. Six of the seven justices, all but Ming Chin, voted to review the appeal by the state’s lawyers.

I've been writing about this bizarre twist of "logic" (ala California) since 1985.

In fact, I've written about 30 articles on the subject, although not all of them referenced California's efforts to impose draconian laws on firearms manufacturers.  Other states (eg: New York) have attempted to strangle the second amendment by fiat.

(Example from 1993: at one time a New York Senator proposed to "tax ammunition out of existence".)

Money for Nothin'; Chicks For Free!

Universal Basic Income Is Our Best Weapon Against The Rising Far Right | The Huffington Post:

LONDON ― A groundbreaking pilot project launched this week in Finland. The government is going to give a randomly selected group of 2,000 unemployed citizens a monthly income of $587 with no strings attached and no need to report how they spend it. The project aims to test the feasibility of a program ― called basic income ― that’s worked in earlier pilot projects elsewhere in the world.

Um ... unemployed?  And there is no "Societal Safety Net" already in place in Socialist Finland?

Well, that's really going to encourage the beneficiaries to go out and find a job.

Interesting, the comment that it has "... worked ... elsewhere...".
More interesting, there is no definition of the term "worked".

The bad thing about this kind of program is that it may constitute a "disincentive" to active job-seeking.  No word on how the recipients of this milk from the societal teat were selected, but one hopes that priority is given to those who are unable to find work because of age or infirmity or lack of training in marketable skills, rather than a disinclination to get up in the morning and earn their daily bread.

And if lack of marketable skills, wouldn't it be useful to use this funding to support unemployed persons while they are actively engaged in training which might lead to employment?   As in ... an incentive to learn to work?

That whole "no strings attached" thing stinks of Leftest Fantasies.

But then, this IS the Huffington Post, and that IS what they do best.

(Hat Tip: Codrea)

Limousine Lawyers vs 2nd Amendment

A Pro Bono Dream Team Takes On the N.R.A. - The New York Times:
(NY Times Editorial . 12/17/2016)

A promising new force in the fight for gun control has arrived on the scene. A coalition that includes corporate litigators from seven of the nation’s leading law firms is taking aim at some of the most glaring flaws in gun safety. One is Congress’s restriction of the government’s ability to conduct basic public health research on gun deaths. The lawyers will also seek ways to challenge state lawmakers who have invited millions of citizens to pack guns in public buildings and businesses.

The Coalition of Liberal Lawyers have a head start in their initial announcement to the Egregiously Liberal New York Times.

The article takes a preliminary poke at "...  Congress’s decision in 2005 to shield the arms industry from damage suits — an outrageous protection no other industry has."

 It's no surprise that they came out swinging for the low blows.  This is an obvious First Strike at the PLCAA  (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act).

The legal fight has been made difficult by Congress’s decision in 2005 to shield the arms industry from damage suits — an outrageous protection no other industry has. But the coalition is considering new approaches, drawing upon public safety, antitrust and property laws to tackle problems like the widespread legalization of guns in public places and commercial establishments. Another concern is the pre-emption of local gun ordinances by state laws approved by politicians in the sway of the gun lobby.

I warned about this on my December 15, 2016 article  which initially noted the support of National Public Radio for anti-Second Amendment movements.  

What do 'they' have on their side?

Untold numbers of Limousine Lawyers looking to make a name for themselves.

What do 'we' have on our side?

Not much.

Only the Constitution of the United States of America.

Oh. And Bette Davis:



(H/T: David Codrea at Ammoland)