How many witches does it take to constitute a coven?

Apparently, within the Democratic party, the coven-quorum number is four:

Progressive lawmaker responds to President Trump's tweets.

In spirited remarks tinged with open animosity, (1) Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., standing side-by-side with Reps. (2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,(3) Ayanna Pressley and (4) Dashiki Tlaib, declared at a news conference Monday on Capitol Hill that "it is time for us to impeach this president" for "openly violating" his constitutional oath.

Well, that seems fair.   After all, the Republicans wanted to impeach President Clinton for (essentially) Moral Turpitude and Being A Democrat.

At least the Democrats learned that an impeachment movement needs something a little more "political" than a BJ in the West Wing.

Unfortunately, the Dems have just delivered the moral equivalent (although not in the West Wing) with the Progressive Movement to impeach Trump for "being Presidential".

As nearly as anyone who isn't a radical leftist can guess, the reason for the current impeachment movement us because  "... he's a Racist ..."!!!

(Oh, and he also made some unkind remarks about people he has never met.)(Also, he hurt their feelings.)

Most importantly, the Democrats are attempting to impeach Donald Trump for not being a Democrat. 

This political strategy has apparently been attempted only twice in American history (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) ... neither time successfully:impeached-3368130

There are only two impeached presidents in United States history, meaning only two presidents have been charged by the House of Representatives with committing "high crimes and misdemeanors."." Neither of the two impeached presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were convicted by the Senate. In fact, there has never been a president removed from office using the impeachment process.

(emphasis added)

Well, then there was John Tyler.  But he wasn't sufficiently colorful to show up in a quick internet search.   And Andrew Johnson.  (You can look them up yourself.)

Essentially, being impeached includes being accused, not being convicted of a charge which might ultimately resulted in the removal of a sitting president from office.   Yeah, like THAT'S gonna happen!  If they couldn't kick Nixon out, EVERYBODY is safe!

  (Oh!  Wait a minute ..... never mind.)

My guess is that Donald  Trump might be secretly pleased by any kind of impeachment proceedings against him.  He's a Glory Hound, and obviously loves the attention. 

BUT GETTING BACK TO THE MAIN THEME ... it takes only the accusation of a sitting member of congress (or two or three ... who knows?) to mount impeachable accusations against a current office holder.

It works out quite well for every one:

-- the accusers get their names in the newspapers (Headline Hogs)
.. the accused suddenly seems "colorful" to the Hoi Poloi.

In Trump's case, that's worth a good twelve to fourteen points in next week's Gallop Polls!

(Unless you're Richard Nixon)

Eric Swalwell touts gun-control reform

I think there's something basically wrong with a politician (especially a proposed candidate for the presidency) who espouses an infringement on our essential liberties.

Eric Swalwell touts gun-control reform in North Liberty – The Daily Iowan: NORTH LIBERTY — U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., rounded out his first visit to Iowa since announcing his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president with a house party event in North Liberty, where he called for a ban and buy back policy for assault rifles.

Well, he's a Californian, so we cannot fault him for being true to his Democratic principles of his culture and his party (Democratic).

Still, he's an American first, and one would hope that he is cognizant of the ...nuances .. of the Constitution of the United States. 

As in: "Shall Not Be Infringed".

I'm not picking on this candidate in particular, except that he has recently made public his disdain for the Constitutional rights which we all enjoy ... so far.

You want to conduct a "buy back campaign" for "assault rifles"?  (One wonders how he defines them.)  Fine.  As long as it's voluntary, rather than mandatory.

But we all know that he's just one more Democrat who thinks that if he has the power to enact laws which affect every citizen in America, he will do so with absolutely NO regard for the Constitution.

I'm disinclined to address his thoughts on non-constitutional rights such as "abortion" or "illegal immigrants" or "Water Rights in Parched Counties" (speaking off the top of my head); but when he openly espouses denying the rights of citizens to Constitutionally protected rights (aka: Second Amendment"), he self-identifies himself as someone who has no respect for his fellow citizens.

It seems redundant for me to encourage Californians to denounce him for his WRONG political philosophy; but those who are eligible to vote for a candidate in California might wonder what OTHER rights he is willing to throw under the political bus in furtherance of his candidacy.

A "Buy-Back" policy?  That leaves it up to the individual firearms owner whether to yield his liberties to the state;

But a "BAN"?   That moves into the area where citizens of The State (here .. the Nation) have no alternative other than to yield to political pressure and conduct themselves according to a dictator who would undermine your RIGHTS ... whether or not you value them.

First a gun ban; what's next?  Would a Swalwell presidency require us to (for example)  present National Identity Cards when crossing state lines?

Who knows?  A President who feels comfortable with undermining one Constitutional right could conceivably segue to denying any other Constitutional right.

Just saying.

New Jersey not only bans guns, but tracks guns they don't ban!

Murphy makes yet another move to combat gun violence in N.J. | NJ.com:

New Jersey has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the country's lowest gun mortality rates. But Murphy has repeatedly cited how the majority of gun deaths in the state involved a firearm that came from out of state. 

This directive requires agencies to share information regarding the manufacturer, importer, dealer, and the first purchase for such crimes. That will allow the State Police to identify any patterns and identify those who have unlawfully sold or bought the guns, according to the attorney general's office.

Lotsa luck with that.  It only regulates honest firearms owners ... where is the law that criminals will obey when they bring illegal firearms into New Jersey?

Answer: It's just another load of Liberal feel-good legislation which will have NO effect on firears imported from out of state.

But politicians need feel-good laws, because .... somebody needs to feel that their state is protecting them ... when their state is powerless to protect them by merely passing laws that nobody will obey.

what a bunch of maroons!

Jack-booted Thugs? I think not.

Police and Gun Owners come in two flavors:   "Good People" and "Not-So-Good People".
As responsible Gun Owners, we have an obligation to each other to stay in the first flavor.

There are millions of Americans who believe that gun owners are inclined toward violence. 

You and I know that is not true ... gun owners are among the most peaceful people in America.   We don't need to over-react to perceived slights or injustice.  We believe in the Laws which protect our rights.

When we speak about our Second Amendment Rights, we need to be precise in the words we use, lest they be misconstrued by folks who "are not yet sure" what to think about us:

Stop Gun Confiscation Orders In Your State | Current Action Alerts:

 So here’s what happens when a Gun Confiscation Order is issued in your name: the police or SWAT team arrives at your door to ransack your home and, if you resist, to arrest or even shoot you and your family.

I know, it is a dramatic statement; one which emphasizes the question of "just how far ARE the police authorized to go when a citizen resists confiscation?"

It all depends on the definition of "resist".   

One can only assume that the term includes resistance by violence ... which puts an entirely different color on the word "resist".   This seems to be the definition implied by the author of the quote.

Most of us would assume that when we "resist" confiscation of our legally owned fire-arms, we intend vehemence in discussion and/or requiring the advocacy of a lawyer to protest an unjust persecution of the gun owner.   None of these legitimate modes of resistance would have dramatic consequences to the gun owners or their families.   Or the police, or the neighbors, or their children.

But when the word "resist" postulates violence on the part of Law Enforcement Officers, that would be justified only as a response to violence initiated by the gun owner.

 Rational people know better than to offer violence against police exercising their assigned duty.

If you're not a rational person, you should not be a gun owner.

It frightens the children, and makes the rest of us look bad.

"Gun Control" Movement Unmasked

Who says there isn't an Elitist message in the Gun Control Movement?

Dem OK With Only Rich People Having Guns | The Daily Caller: (March 01, 2018):

Illinois Democratic Rep. Danny Davis says it is acceptable for only wealthy individuals having access firearms if a 50 percent federal tax on all guns and ammunition becomes law.

There's nothing new about Liberals using taxation to undermine your constitutional rights:

This is reminiscent of Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan's 1993 movement to impose a draconian tax on firearms and ammunition:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 3— Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said today that he would insist that President Clinton's health-care plan include a huge increase in Federal taxes on handgun ammunition that would make some especially destructive bullets unaffordable.
The New York Democrat has often contended that the best way to attack gun violence would be to restrict the sale of ammunition, not guns. Today, for instance, he noted that the nation has a 200-year supply of guns but only a 4-year supply of ammunition.

So .. it's okay that you can have a GUN .. you just can't have AMMUNITION.

Factcheck.org offered  some expanded details on this theme in June of 1999:

We can’t say what might be proposed in the future. And in the past, there have been proposals to raise the tax on ammunition. In 1993, for example, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat from New York, proposed to raise the tax to 50 percent on most handgun ammunition, and to more than 10,000 percent on 9-millimeter hollow-tipped Black Talon cartridges, which were advertised as having a bullet that expanded "to expose razor-sharp reinforced jacket petals." However, his plan would not have raised taxes on .22-caliber ammunition, which is used for target shooting. He proposed these increases to help finance the health care plan then being proposed by President Clinton, but the proposal was ultimately rejected.

"They" weren't after the .22 caliber ammunition, so target shooting is okay?
And after all, the taxes on non-22 ammo went for a good cause. 

Which doesn't mean that, after we have digested this first step toward Gun Control, the (small increment), then the Second Step will not be more unconstitutional. 

And that's why we will not give an inch to those who would undermine our rights.

Here's how this incremental attack on your freedoms actually works:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

TRANSLATION:

First the came for the Full-Autos, and I did not speak out because I did have a machine gun.
Then they came for the semi-auto rifles, and I did not speak out because I did not have a semi-auto rifle.
Then the came for the high-capacity magazines, and I did not speak out because I did not have a high-capacity magazine.
Then they came for the large-caliber pistols, and I did not speak out because I did not have a large-caliber pistol.
Then they came for the "snub-nosed, concealable pistols" and I did not speak out because I did have a 'snubby".
Then they came for the magazine-fed large caliber rifles, and I did not speak out because I did not have a magazine fed rifle.
Then the came for the sniper rifles, and I had a bolt-action .223 varmint rifle with a 10 power scope, and there was no one left to speak out for me..

Las Vegas Trade Show

Gun industry converges near Las Vegas mass shooting site:

The gun industry is holding its biggest annual trade show this week just a few miles from the site where a gunman slaughtered 58 concertgoers outside his high-rise Las Vegas hotel room in October using a display case worth of weapons, many fitted with bump stocks that enabled them to mimic fully automatic fire. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, pointed to the irony of the location and planned a protest to renew calls for tighter gun sale regulations, including expanded background checks.

Vegas has been the site of firearms trade shows for decades ... for the sponsors of the show to change the venue at the last minute because of the recent massacre by a crazed man would generate even more press, and at the same time validate the insane political statement (whatever it was) he gave his life to make.

To cancel the show would have the same effect.

But to continue with the planned schedule and venue sent the message that firearms were not the issue in his maniacal massacre; any effort to depict the private ownership of firearms in a negative light was ignored as not being worth the effort.  The Second Amendment stands on its own, even when the rights acknowledged are abuse by maniacs.

Molan Labe

California Lt. Gov Gavin Newsome to NRA: "We ARE Coming for Your Guns":

 “We have a message for the NRA – National Rifle Association of America: If you hurt people, we ARE coming for your guns,” wrote Newsome. The message was accompanied by a video featuring Newsome speaking on how the only thing more certain than another mass shooting is the “moral cowardice” of Republicans who ignore it.

Hat Tip: Red State


What in the  WORLD is this asshole talking about?

What ever gave him the idea that NRA members want to "hurt people"?

I have no information which suggests that the NRA, or members of this organization, have ever  (Individually or as a group) deliberately hurt people except in defense of  innocents who were arbitrarily attacked by other  people.  So I don't know what this means.

And what has all this to do with "Mass Shootings".  Has he information about NRA membership of murderers in the news, recently?  If so, I've not been privy to that news.

The charge of "moral cowardice" is equally as confusing;. As far as I know, the only moral cowardice possible is the dis-inclination to defend self, home and family against assault by those who choose to attack those who they assume are unarmed ... Lord knows the attackers are never, ever, members of the NRA! 

Is he accusing Republicans of "Moral Cowardice" because of their political affiliation?  Someone should tell the Republican Party that their membership is composed of "Moral Cowards".  I'm sure that would be news to them!

I am currently a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA); but the moral equivalence of the NRA has never been an issue; if anything, I sometimes feel that the NRA is insufficiently supportive of the Second Amendment.


An "armed society" is a "respectful society".  So saith the memorable author Robert Heinlein, and more people know his name than know the name of Gavin Knowsless!

And not all members of the NRA are "Republicans" who "ignore"  ... well, the original article is lacking in the definition of moral fiber which is, in his view, ignored by NRA members.  Many of our members are Democrats, and members of other policies; our common ground is to just be left alone to enjoy a day hunting, or shooting a match on the range.

God knows that our intention is not to "hurt people"!

Newsome speaks of "Moral Cowardice", but I'm sure that my brothers who are armed are as astounded as I am to learn that we are so charged.   Many of us are veterans, as I am, and whatever cowardice we may rightfully be accused of is to go to a foreign country and fight a war for a cause which we did not agree ... but we went there, and fought a war we did not believe in, only because our National Leaders decreed that we should do so.

So to my mind, the only "Moral Cowardice" of which we may be accused, is the we didn't emigrate to Canada instead of allowing ourselves to be drafted.  Did Newsome ever face such a moral quandary?

Newsome, you've spent too much time in The Land of Fruits and Nuts.  You should get out more.  Go visit folks in flyover country and discover America.  You may be surprised to learn that most Americans love their country more than their state or their selves, and are willing to get shot at when they are drafted into that "Crazy Asian War" which you so conveniently missed.

Newsome's entire screed is based on disrespect for his country, his people, and anyone whose political viewpoint differs from his.

I lived in California for a couple of years in the 1970's; The weather was great, but  I sure am glad I  moved out of there before people like THIS nimrod came into power!

Democrats Lie because The Truth Is Unpalatable

All politicians lie, some are more skillful or subtle than others, but Diane Feinstein takes to lying like a pig to mud; it's her natural domain and she likes it.

Her recent press release (see below) admits that she will not be able to get a gun ban law past the Senate, because they tried it once and it didn't work .. after a 10 year "trial run" it bumped into the Sunset Provision which Republicans required before agreeing to that odious plan.

Feinstein argued then, and now argues again, that anti-gun laws would limit crimes with guns if they just get the 'military style assault weapons' off the streets.   *

* (Or if all firearms owners would shoot each other, with the last remaining gun ownerwho  would explode an atomic bomb rendering him/her to a fine mist along with all the guns in the world ... at which time the firearms industry would bootstrap itself because EVERYBODY WANTS A GUN!)

In 1994, she (and elected partners-in-crime) put American Citizens who own firearms through a decade of turmoil and trouble, and for no better purpose but to massage her ego.

She now claims: "we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war.

The truth (which is a stranger to the not-so-honorable Senator from California) is that her earlier plan *the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban* proved that the laws which she forced upon honest Americans did not significantly reduce the rate of people murdered or otherwise assaulted, which was the promise used to justify passage of the law ... provisionally.  It was accepted for a period of 10 years, with the agreement that Conservatives had no confidence in the plan but would ALLOW IT TO BECOME LAW;  but Liberals would, in return, allow the law to expire after ten years if it did not accomplish the goals which were the justification for the law.

After ten years, the Sunset Provision took effect:  The law didn't have any affect on violent crime rates, but it imposed an enormous (and unpalatable) burden on legal firearms owners.   The Senate agreed over steaks and drinks at The Capital Hill Hotel that the whole idea was a f*cking Flop and nobody wanted to be known as the Senator Who Trampled the Second Amendment.

And so, the law was repealed.

(Diane was not invited to the dinner; and hasn't had a dinner with a republican ... ever!) 

The NRA had little need to politicize the act, which all agreed was clearly a really bad idea.


Even the Washington Post had to admit that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban failed:

Did the law have an effect on crime or gun violence? While gun violence did fall in the 1990s, this was likely due to other factors. Here's the UPenn study again: "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."

One reason is that assault weapons were never a huge factor in gun violence to begin with. They were  used in only 2 percent to 8 percent of gun crimes. Large-capacity magazines were more important — used in as many as a quarter of gun crimes. But, again, the 1994 law left more than 24 million magazines untouched, so the impact was blunted.

And Feinstein's statement that "The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004" is an outright lie. That odious piece-of-shit law was never instrumental in the goals it was based on; it only affected law-abiding people, It never even inconvenienced the criminals, although it might have made the black-market for guns more profitable.   Feinstein was "off-target", focusing on weapons which had never been a major factor in American crime rates: she wanted them banned then, and she wants them banned now, for no better reason than that she doesn't like them.

Since when has American law been predicated on a Senator's personal distaste for an inanimate object?  And why does California continue to elect a lunatic to the Senate? 

(Oh, sorry; that's what they do there.  I can't complain, my elected senators are not much more rational than California's, but they haven't been messing with my Constitutional Rights!)

---------------------------------------- supplemental references ---------------------------------------

Feinstein Press Release:

Senators Introduce Assault Weapons Ban - Press Releases - United States Senator for California: Senator Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement: “We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote. “This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004. Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere. “To those who say now isn’t the time, they’re right—we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war. To my colleagues in Congress, I say do your job.

"Common Ground" on the Second Amendment?

Three Ways to Find Common Ground of Guns

Democrats want longer waiting periods to buy a gun, a limit on gun magazines, a ban on “assault weapons” (though most have trouble describing them), a limit on the number of firearms you can own, etc.   Second Amendment supporters staunchly oppose all of those things.

uh huh.

Like that's gonna happen!
 Bunch of know-nothing libtards who are willing to give up ANY Constitutional Rights that they're not currently using.  Wait until their FIRST Amendment Rights are infringed!

Blessed are the peace-makers?

More like "Damned if they do/Dammed if they don't"!

For the Liberal anti-gunners, Vegas is just another talking point.  The rest of us damn the asshole with a gun all to hell.  He killed good people and at the same time provided yet another excuse for "Gun Control"  (hiss!) 

As if laws are going to stop an outlaw.

The Second Amendment is, always has been, always will be the most tendentious/controversial part of the Constitution ... and for good reason.

People who own guns are for it; people who don't own guns are against it.

Both sides have their reasons, present their arguments (sometimes reasonably; more often emotionally) and "... never the twain shall meet".

People who are determined to kill innocents won't be deterred by any law; that's why they're called OUTLAWS!
------------------------------------ *the bulk of the article is below the fold* --------------

Moms Say The Darndest Things!

[Video] Oops! 'Moms' say laws would not have prevented Vegas shooting - The Gun Feed: [Video]

Just because you're a "Moms Opposed" doesn't mean you're not a Racist.

* See the last video clip* (18 minute video ... it's the same feed you would find by clicking on the title marked [Video])

(Obvious Hat Tip: The Gun Feed)

Oregon, Oh Oregon ...

The Senate of my favorite state (Oregon) has  been very busy lately:  two actions prove that they're "doing their job and earning their pay!"

First ...Oregon To Decriminalize Meth, Cocaine | The Daily Caller:

The Oregon legislature passed two bills Thursday decriminalizing small amounts of six hard drugs, including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and ecstasy. The first of the two bills now headed to the governor’s desk, HB 2355, decriminalizes possession of the drugs so long as the offender has neither a felony nor more than two prior drug convictions on record, according to the Lund Report. The second, HB 3078, reduces drug-related property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.

Isn't that special?   Now we can't keep druggies off the streets long enough for them to get past their addiction.

SECOND ... Oregon Passes GOP Senator's Bill Allowing Gun Seizure Order Without Gun Owner's Knowledge:

Oregon lawmakers passed legislation co-sponsored by Sen. Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) that allows a judge to issue an ex parte ruling for the confiscation of an individual’s firearms. The bill is SB 719, and it has now passed Oregon’s House and Senate. It creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order, which forces the subject of the order to hand over all firearms, as well as his concealed carry permit if he possesses one.

Personally, I didn't understand what "ex parte" meant until I read this article:

The ex parte aspect of the law means the bill does not require the gun owner to be present for part of the hearing in which the judge decides whether guns should be taken from him.

(Can you say: "Kangaroo Court", Captain?)

I had ranted against discussed this bill a few times in the past ... once night I raved before I went to bed, and raved the same subject the next morning.  (I deleted one; one overkill is a week is enough.)

I'm not sure which of the Oregon Senate's two actions offended me the most:  more rights for drug users who break the law (they can't work, so they steal to support their habit) ... or less rights for the hard-working law-abiding firearms owner.  (We don't have to break the law for the state to confiscate our property; we only need to know someone who holds a grudge.)

Well, we all make our choices.   It seems clear to me now that I have made a wrong choice of which vice to pursue ... it's safer in Oregon to be a heroin addict than a firearms owner.

Welcome to Oregon!   Bring Drugs and Money!

"Oh, Lah ... See How Diverse We Are?"

London Police Chief: Terror Victims Show How Diverse We Are | The Daily Caller:

London Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick touted the diversity of the London attack victims in a Saturday interview with the Associated Press. “It’s desperately sad and poignant but among those who died is someone who’s British, there are French, Australian, Canadian, Spanish,” Dick declared.“We believe of course that that’s what makes our city so great,” she continued, adding “It’s a place where the vast majority of time it’s incredibly integrated and that diversity gives us strength.”

Yes, well, your vaunted diversity includes terrorist bombers, doesn't it?

You know what would make your city really great, Ms Dick?

If you could protect your citizens from these unknown and undocumented murdering asshats  your country admits EVERY DAY!

You won't even arm your First Responders, you blathering blob of British Political Correctness!

PC should stand for Police Constable.   Or hasn't anyone bothered to explain that to you yet?


(H/T: IRONS)

What the heck is a "Tyrranophile"?

Maloney’s Stupid ‘Smart Gun’ Bill an Unintended Gift to Gun Owners | Oath Keepers:

Because it shows Maloney for the sick tyrranophile that she is. It takes away the arguments that gun owner rights advocates are “paranoid” and that “No one wants to take your guns.”

I pride myself on my vocabulary, but when David Codrea calls Maloney a "Tyrranophile" I admit that I'm just guessing:

Tyrannosaurus Rex   ["Tyrant Lizard King"?] is the king of cretaceous-era carnivorous monster  "Tyrant" lizard, and "Phile" is "one who loves" so I assume that this makes Carolyn Maloney a tyrant lover.   

Having said all that:

Maloney's proposition that ALL firearms must be "Retrofitted" to apply "Smart-Gun Technology" is the purest political polyglotism 

 It is a twice-told tale full full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Wisconsin: We Don't Have Enough Redundant Gun Laws!

In Wisconsin, you can lose your Second Amendment rights if you're convicted of 3 misdemeanors according to a new bill proposed by "a group of Wisconsin legislators.

"They say the measure would make Milwaukee safer."

I don't know what that word ("misdemeanor") means in Wisconsin law, so I looked it up.

A misdemeanor is a crime which is punishable by less than a year in jail or prison.

So ... you can be treated as a felon if you have already been convicted of (for example):

• Resisting or obstructing an officer
• Hazing
• Trespassing
• Conducting a Lottery
• Vagrancy
• Deer hunting violations
• Various food regulation violations

... plus other enumerated 'misdemeanors': any combination of three.   

Apparently,  any three misdemeanor convictions during your lifetime count; the accumulation of your criminal history is not bounded by any specific time line.  (I haven't read the proposed law or found a link)

CORRECTION: rereading the original article (always a good idea) I note the sentence reads:

The bill would make it a felony for people to possess a gun if they've had three misdemeanor convictions in five years.

I apologize for the mistake, The corrected reading makes more sense.
It still does not establish a legitimate precedence for undermining a citizen's Second Amendment rights for misdemeanors.

There are also reference to 'other felonies' included (straw buyers, etc.) which are already illegal under Federal law ... which makes the proposed Wisconsin law redundant in fact.

I don't know how boring it is in Wisconsin in the Winter, but these three bozos seem to have way too much free time on their hands.   I suggest they seek a second job, one which might be more inclined to keep them too busy to perform their legislative mischief.

I hear Burger King is hiring.

(see below for the original article)

Bait & Switch: Liberal Style

It's the same old story: Dems Demand Action, but 'Publicans pay the bills'.

Democrats decreed that ObamaCare would save the world; Republicans cried "It Won't Work!"
Dems said "Sure it will, just watch us!" and forced ObamaCare on America.

But now?  Guess who is the Bad Guy:

Democratic governors warn Congress on health care repeal:

Dec. 21, 2016 @7:50 PM ET WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic governors Wednesday warned top Republicans in Congress that repealing the Obama health care law would stick states with billions of dollars in costs for providing medical care to residents made newly uninsured.
-
Signing the letter were Govs. Dan Malloy of Connecticut, Jay Inslee of Washington, and Andrew Cuomo of New York, who dubbed the GOP's 'repeal and replace' strategy "nothing more than a Washington, D.C. bait-and-switch." 

It's just one more example of why the Pie-In-The-Sky Democrats should let The Grown-ups balance the checkbook.

Sheriff David Clarke called a Terrorist? *NSFW*

I knew they were nasty, but I had no idea that they considered ANYTHING they might say was "okay by me!"

Here's how Liberals confront their political opposition .. not with a word, but with the T-Bomb!

* Turn your computer volume UP ... this is a badly edited film clip *( foul language alert!) *

CNN Angela Rye Calls Sheriff David Clarke a Terrorist on Live TV and Don Lemon says nothing - YouTube

Published on Nov 12, 2016 I can't help it think how Don would have reacted if it was a republican saying that about a prominent Democrat. He would have cut off the mic and that person would have their contract with CNN ripped up. But on CNN it's just another day at the office.Un fuckin believable

I don't agree with all the opinions voiced by the spokesperson, but I do agree that a "counter" opinion should accompany Ms. Rye's comments.

Up next: Angela Rye cries on CNN about Donald Trump as president !

Ultimate Benefits of TRUMP Election

My angst over the need to vote for Donald Trump (as the only alternative to "That Person") has been relieved.

Anything that pisses off the Liberal Left is worth the effort.

Michael Moore calls on Donald Trump to step down before joining protesters in New York | Daily Mail Online:

Film-maker Michael Moore has called on Donald Trump to step down as President-elect before he even takes office.

Leave it to the insufferable Michael Moore to provide perspective.

And that goes double for Amy Schumer!

The Democratic Party decided that there was no longer a threat to their re-election chances from the Second Amendment voters, so they went ahead and made that an important plank in their campaigns.

That didn't help them after all.

I think that this Day-By-Day cartoon said it best, though.

Rachael Maddow bemoans Donald Trump’s US election success

US ELECTION: MSNBC host bemoans Donald Trump’s US election success | World | News | Daily Express:

“ You're Awake. You’re not having a terrible, terrible dream. Also you’re not dead and you haven’t gone to hell. “This is your life now, this is our election now, this is us, this is our country – it’s real.”

Thank you, Rachael Maddow.

Way to celebrate the democratic process.

Napolitano: What if you needed permission?

Published on Oct 20, 2016

 Judge exposes the “Big Deception”!

(Judge And NSA “The Big Deception” and "Constitutional Chaos" )

(Pretty Radical stuff!)

Note this sequence includes more than one video, and the transition is not obvious.

The Rest Of The Story

US authorities fault gun background-check system | Daily Mail Online:

 A US Justice Department report faulted local authorities Wednesday for failing to update a federal database used in background checks for gun sales, sometimes with "tragic consequences." The inspector general's report cited the June 2015 mass slaying at a black church in Charleston, South Carolina as one such case. Dylan Roof, a white supremacist who shot and killed nine churchgoers in cold blood, should not have been authorized to buy guns since he had been arrested previously for a drug offense.

Roof had not been convicted of a crime (drug habituation) at the time, so he was not YET identified as a person who should not be allowed to own a firearm.  Also, the background-check was (reportedly) delayed .. perhaps for that reason ... for more than the statuary limit of time.

The local authorities could not identify Roof as a felon because of the lack of conviction.  He was, in fact, only accused of a crime.  At the point where he received a firearm, he was not legally constrained from firearms ownership.  "Local Authorities" could not identify him as a person who was a danger to his community, lacking a conviction.   This might explain, at least in part, the delay which resulted in his not being identified as a "person" who should not possess a firearm.

Calls for an 'Australian Style" Gun Control Process would probably not have affected his possession.