Oh, so now it's OUR fault!

The Republican Party can't find electable candidates to retain control of Congress, and now it's the fault of "gun owners".

Incumbent House Losses Not a National Rebuke of ‘Trumpism’: U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- With the turnover of the House of Representatives to the Democrats in Tuesday’s midterm elections, those who predicted a “Blue Wave” are ecstatic and pointing to a national “thumbs down” for the Donald Trump administration and its policies. While a surface “analysis,” (meaning no real effort besides parroting “progressive” talking points) may look like that’s what happened, a closer look suggests Democrat “wins” owe plenty to gun owner apathy over turning out to reelect “RINO” squishes. That and changing demographics.

emphasis added

The fact is,  the Republican Party hasn't been able to find an 'electable' candidate for years.  President Trump was only elected because he "wasn't Hillary" and many of us had to hold our nose in order to vote for him (regardless of his vow to support the Second Amendment;  a sucker bet for Constitutionals ... which most gun owners are).

I'm personally insulted by the insinuation that a small, but significant, minority of Republican voters who happen to be firearms owners are accused of failing the Republican party's candidacy.  Perhaps it would have attracted more votes if they had been more attuned to the tenor of the party members. 

I'm half-way convinced that Trey Gowdey could have been a much stronger candidate than Trump, if he had been selected and supported by the GOP in the last election.

For that matter, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R, UT-3) who retired recently, may have been a viable Presidential Candidate; he had as much respect as Gowdy has.

Ammoland, rather than parrot accusations from political fault-finders, would better serve their customers by noting that gun owners are overwhelmingly the strongest constituency for the GOP.

And the GOP needs to grow a pair, if they want to remain the party of the Constitution.

Grounds for Impeachment?

No; he actually cannot do that.

Trump vows to end birthright citizenship with executive order:

President Donald Trump said in an interview that he plans to sign an executive order ending "birthright citizenship" for the children of non-American citizens who are born on U.S. soil, a move that would likely be challenged immediately in the courts over its constitutionality.

American Democrats have been waiting for President Trump to make a misstep, and he just tripped over his big mouth with this statement.

The office of the President is an "executive" position, which means he is responsible for executing the law.  He cannot make, change or delete laws ... which are based on the Constitution.

Trump's declaration that he can end "birthright citizenship" puts him in the political position of attempting to undermine the Constitution, and that might reasonably be grounds for a move for impeachment.

Which will certainly happen.

Impeachment isn't necessarily the same as removing him from office, but it certainly is justification for requiring him to resign (as did Nixon) with a sufficient number of responsible Republican Congressmen to reinforce the inevitable Democratic motion.

He has crossed the Rubicon, and he's not an American Caesar ... he's not strong enough to defeat all of his enemies when his own party concurs that he has overstepped his authority.

I voted for Trump on the basis that he was "Not Hillary"; but this move puts him in the same category as the power-mad Clinton family.

If there's a small town in America who is looking for a new dog-catcher, I can name a candidate.
Although it may offend the dogs.

Here's the bad news: his replacement is likely to be the vice president; and can anybody even remember HIS name?

Is it Ignorance .. or apathy?

Judge Kavanaugh no longer teaching at Harvard Law School

John Lott's Website: Seriously, only a little over 700 signatures by Monday with students and alumni who graduated from as far back as 1959. Harvard has about 500 entering students each year. Over say the last 30 years that would be 15,000 graduates. There are currently 1,990 enrolled law students. So the number of signers equals only about one-third of those currently enrolled, let alone all the alumni who have graduated over the decades.

As far as I know, this is "Breaking News".

I never wanted to get into this purely political free-for-all, but at this point the controversy over Judge Kavanaugh's Supreme Court selection has become the number one political issue ... and it should not be.

The Liberal issue seems to be over "Abortion Rights", or the rights of a woman to terminate a pregnancy.   I'm not aware of any other "political" issue which would suggest that Judge Kavanaugh might not be a viable Supreme Court Judge.

WTF do they care?  Most of the Liberal congresspersons are too old to beget congress-children.

And those who are not "Too old", have political issues in mind; issues which do not affect them personally.

While the "abortion" issue is a legitimate controversy, this seems to be an issue which is better handled in the courts; it's not a presidential issue until he makes it so, and Judge Kavanaugh does not strike me as an judiciary who is determined to rule by fiat.

So, what's left?  The Left just doesn't want another Conservative on the Supreme Court .. and that's a legitimate concern ("dead babies" not having a vote.)

 With an odd number of judges among the Supremes, it's no wonder that the Left is worried that The Court might demonstrate a powerful shift to the Right upon confirmation of Kavanaugh's addition to The Court.

Biden Confirms Suspicions; He IS A Dork

Dopey Joe Biden confirms all suspicions that he is, always has been, and remains as dumb as a stump.  (For any stumps which may be reading this, I apologize for the comparison, which denigrates the integrity and intellect of actual native-born stumps ... which are the remains of dead trees, as opposed to the remains of dead political careers.)

(See: "DORK")

"My mother believed and my father believed that if I wanted to be President of the United States, I could be, I could be Vice President!" said Vice President Joe Biden.  [source]

 Here, ex-vice president Biden blandly adopts an opinion and immediately refuses to justify his decision:

Biden Gave A Lengthy Endorsement Of Kavanaugh Accuser Until One Question Caused Him To Walk Away | The Daily Caller: Former Vice President Joe Biden emphatically supported Kavanaugh accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford Monday night, faltering only when a reporter asked him about the credibility of a claim made over 35 years ago. “What I’m going to do is I’m not going to answer any more questions,” Biden said, deflecting a reporter’s question asking whether it was significant that the assault claim refers to an incident that allegedly occurred when Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was 17 years old. “I’d be happy to talk about Ireland,” Biden added during his remarks to a group of reporters at Irish ambassador to the U.S. Dan Mulhall’s residence.

(But he's a master at changing the subject when asked questions which would require him to think.)

Perhaps Biden's most important contribution to American Society is that he provides material for late-night talk-show hosts.

ATTEMPT to make normal security measures appear paranoid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I thought *_I_* was disenchanted with Politicians!

As much as it pains me to agree with SALON ....

Democrats Latest News & Community | Salon: Diehard Trump fans and diehard Democrats are impossible to reason with.They’ve memorized all the talking points and they will argue with you endlessly. I see no sense in engaging with either.Both live in a Manichean world where one side is pure good and the other side is pure evil. In reality Republicans and Democrats differ only on hot-button social issues. Both cater to the economic elite. Both love war. Both have contempt for ordinary working people.  [emphasis added]

(I'm not convinced that "both love war", but that's a subject for another time.)

Most first-campaign politicians campaign for office in order to advance a cause which they consider important.   When elected, they soon discover that their voice as a "junior" legislative member is ignored and without power.  They haven't the support to pass the bills which they expected to improve the cause of their electorate.

Then they begin to enter  into coalitions with other members of the legislature, because they only way you can "change America" is to make your vote count. So you give a little, to get a little.

And there's always the PACs who support (and fund) anyone who will support THEIR political niche.

Eventually, you're voting to "make happen" some things that you would not normally support;  but you tell your constituents that "... it's a good bill..." even though you consider it not so good.  Because you owe people; people that didn't elect you.  This is also referred to as the "Slippery Slope".

And no ... I don't want to talk about the Lotharios in the Legislature ;

The Senator, the Governor, the Mayor ... et al.

NOTICE: This Is An "Anti-government" Website

Late last night (or early this morning ... I'm retired, who cares?) I did some research on my own website and discovered that mine was an "Anti-Government Website".

This is rewarding on at least two issues:

1. somebody still reads this blog!
2. somebody noticed that it's an "anti-government" blog!

I think that anyone who isn't at least a little "anti-government" isn't paying attention.  

Or he is a Democrat ... which amounts to about the same thing.  

Here is an example of how "Government" resolves societal problems.

Here's what I think:

If you want to hurt yourself, shoot yourself in the foot.If you want to REALLY hurt yourself, trust your Government.

Federal, state, county, local; it doesn't matter.   When you trust an anonymous group of professional bureaucrats (is there any other kind?)  to "govern" your personal life, you have conceded your fate to the whims of people who couldn't hold down a real job.

So .. yes, I am "Anti-Government" because whores are the only class of people who want to screw you for money AND NOT RUIN YOUR LIFE!   A whore will at least give you the option of wearing a condom;  politicians want to bare-back every time.   And whores are quite honest about what they're doing, and why.   Other than that, there's no easily defined difference between the two career paths.

I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I have actually voted for politicians who I thought were honest.

DEFINITION OF "AN HONEST POLITICIAN":

An Honest Politician is one who, once bought, stays bought.

Climbing the Stature of Liberty to protest Immigration Policies?

I can't say that I agree with her politics ...

Woman escorted down after scaling Statue of Liberty following anti-ICE protests | Fox News: A woman was escorted down from the Statue of Liberty on Wednesday after she scaled the bottom part of the national monument in protest of U.S. immigration policy, sparking a nearly four-hour standoff with authorities.

But I must admire her  dedication to a cause which is important to her!

Music: "We are climbing Jacob's Ladder (4 minutes)

Double Jeopardy? Or just a Pol who hasn't got her name in the news enough to peddle her career?

So let me get this straight:  In where-ever this is (I presume some backwards state like Arkansas), you not only get prosecuted for violating the law, you also get prosecuted for violating the law that makes it a violation to violate the law?

Senate bill introduced to make gun trafficking a felony: Gillibrand contends there is no federal crime that specifically recognizes gun trafficking. Her bill would modify current law to make it a felony to transfer two or more guns in an instance where there is a reasonable belief that doing so would be in violation of the law. The crime would extend to those directing or assisting others in such transfers. Penalties for those convicted could run as high as 20 years with ringleaders facing 25.

To my great chagrin, reading back on the original article I discover that this was not presented in "a backward state like Arkansas", but in the totally dark-ages state of ... New York!

The measure, proposed by U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, would make it a crime to sell two or more guns to someone whom the seller knows is prohibited from legally possessing them. It is a repeat of legislation proposed by Gillibrand in 2013 and 2015 that never made it out of committee.

(Just another example of a politician building a career on submitting one bill a year, to show she's really "doing something", even though the same bill has been rejected every dam time)



I offer most abject apologies to the fine folks in the great State of Arkansas.  I have done you a GRAVE INJUSTICE in comparing you unfairly with the backward folks in New York.

I have worked with Arkansans.  They were fine folks.  I never understood a word they said, but they said it with gravitas and great sincerity.  Whatever it was they said. 

Oregon Forest Service, Summer of 1967 ... we fought forest fires.  Very very tiny ones.  In between, we surveyed the hills around South Central Oregon (off Broken Top Mountain) for a road.  Great way to work your way through college .. even if you fuck up didn't get the measurements just right, nobody cared.  We all knew it would never be built, but we got paid over two dollars an hour for our work. (50 years later, there's still no road in those mountains.)

 My Friend, Mark from Arkansas, ate Spam Samwiches for lunch me for 3 months and never once complained.  I think his name  was Mark ... he pronounced it using some vowels I had never heard before, so I always just called him "Mark", and he always said "Whe's thet Staiik Samwich y' mek f' m' dinneh?"   

*That's a rough translation; either that, or he was spitting out the chaw he'd been working on all morning (mawnin) into the shirt pocket.  Either way, I made lunch, and he paid for Dinner at "Maw's Steakhouse in Bend".

That was great; when I got to Viet Nam, I though "C-Rations" were excellent cuisine, compared to lunch at Central Oregon.  (Maw's Steakhouse Saved My Life ... great food, even when we couldn't afford to spend $5 for a steak dinner!)

Growing boys ... what you learn when you're 19 may save your life when your 22.

McClang Defends the Second Amendment

Senator John McCain McClang interrupted a Senate hearing on the appointment of a Defense Department nominee because the candidate's politics seemed dismissive of Americans' Civil Rights.

Who knew that Ol' John still had a pair?  I'm calling him "Senator McClang" for the sound they make when he walks.

Senate panel stalls nominee who called assault rifle sales 'insane' | TheHill: The Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday declined to move forward with a top Defense Department nominee after he made bold comments on gun control and military abortion policy during a committee hearing earlier this week. Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told reporters that lawmakers still “have a number of questions” — specifically on “guns and abortions” — for Dean Winslow, the nominee for assistant secretary of Defense for health affairs. Winslow during a Tuesday hearing said he thinks it’s “insane” that civilians can buy assault rifles in the United States. That remark came just days after a deadly mass shooting in Texas. McCain at the time interrupted Winslow, telling him, “I don't think that's in your area of responsibility or expertise.”

Politicians Presume to Instruct the public on Gun Control

(A Republican lent his weight to this travesty?  Oh ..  a New York "Republican".  Never mind.)

Thompson, King propose ‘anti-criminal, pro-Second Amendment’ gun control bill:

 U.S. Reps. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) and Peter King (R-NY) on Friday introduced a bill aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill. H.R. 4240, the bipartisan Thompson-King background check legislation — officially known as the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2017 * — expands the existing background check system to cover all commercial firearm sales, including those at gun shows, over the internet or in classified ads, Thompson’s office staff said. It does so while providing reasonable exceptions for family and friend transfers, they said.

*(emphasis added)

I wonder how they propose to track private transactions. Oh ... they'll pass a law!  Sure, that'll do it!

The funny thing about Politicians is the they can't stop themselves from pontificating, even if they don't know what they're talking about.   Their job is to pass laws ... usually (as in this case) laws which regulate private transactions which are already regulated.   Well, if they don't pass a law every year or so, people won't re-elect them (or so they think).

[Personally, if I ever meet a politician who has completed his/her entire term of office without imposing another law restricting my civil rights, I'll vote for him/her every time!]

This "Second Amendment Rights Protection Act" doesn't do a darned thing to protect the Second Amendment, but it adds a "suspenders on top of belt" level of legislation to impose a background check on top of background checks which are already in place, in most states.

To be more emphatic, the awkward (and inaccurate) title assigned to the bill doesn't do a damn thing to "protect" our Second Amendment Rights; but what it DOES is impose another layer of oversight on  transfers of firearms ownership which are already regulated on a state level.

Now, what do you think the National Instant Check System (NICS) does?

People who own firearms know that EVERY GUN SHOW IN THE COUNTRY already processes firearms transactions through NICS.

And "private transactions"?

"Gee, officer, I never knew that if I sold my shotgun to my neighbor, I needed to ask permission from the Guvmint!"

Bunch of self-righteous, smirking politicians. They haven't had a good day at the office until they've patted their secretary's fanny or infringed the civil rights of their constituents.

(Those Fat Bottom Girls have no idea how much they contribute to America's Freedoms ... a helluva lot more than their bosses, that's for sure!)

"High Capacity Magazines"

 I can reload my pistol from magazine carriers on my belt  in two seconds.  That's almost the time it takes me to draw my pistol from my belt holster and engage a target ... and hit it ... at point-blank range.

Which makes this Democratically (of course!) proposed law " even more laughable:

Democrats propose ban on high-capacity magazines in wake of Las Vegas attack | US news | The Guardian:

 Democrats are planning to introduce legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines in the wake of the Las Vegas attack that left at least 59 people dead and nearly 500 more injured. The proposed ban on the transfer, importation, or possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition follows separate legislation to ban “bump stocks”, the novelty device that Stephen Paddock appears to have used to make semi-automatic rifles mimic the rapid fire of a fully automatic weapon.

I currently own magazines of over 10 rounds ... had them for decades.  They're legal today.
Am I going to be subjected to ex post facto laws?  That's simple possession, right?

The Guardian Article:

Gun rights advocates say the pause to reload when changing magazines is very brief and unlikely to have a significant impact on casualties, and that arbitrarily restricting magazine size to 10 rounds would be costly and inconvenient.
These advocates say it is not hard to make larger capacity magazines by hand, even if they’re not available for legal purchase. Chris Koper, the researcher who evaluated the 1994 assault weapon ban, estimated that renewed limits on the size of ammunition magazines might contribute, in the long-term, to a 1% reduction in shootings each year. This was only a “reasonable ballpark estimate”, he cautioned.

Every thing old is new again, and that's especially true of the "latest" (and 'oldest") proposed Democratic ban on "high capacity magazines".  Various states have imposed bans on sale or transfer of magazines capable of retaining more than six, eight or ten rounds.  This is the first time I'e heard that simple possession might be illegal

If they can't even agree on magazine limits, why should we presume that the various states understand the consequences of their arbitrary laws?

What's the "right" number of rounds which should be permissible in a magazine?  For decades, Anti-Second Amendment activists have grappled with this quandary, and they can't quite seem to get the "right number" of rounds which will stop mass shootings.

The funny thing is:
,,, this is not the first time this "law" has been suggested.  It didn't meet any arbitrarily determined criteria the last time (because it was difficult to define, and impossible to enforce) and it won't accomplish any imaginary goal of "preventing gun crime" this time.

These people, who know nothing about guns and gun-users, have brought back a question that they don't know how to define and that nobody knows how to  accomplish.

In the example of the Las Vegas shooting, the "sniper" was not operating under a time constraint: nobody knew where he was, and he could reload under absolutely no pressure.  He had magazines which are (unreliably) reported to be of "100 round capacity" (which I doubt), but that was never an issue.

Using that specific instance to justify the rejuvenation of an historically fallacious argument toward a provably unproductive end is just a bunch of horse doodie.   People will do what they do, and will always  find ways to get around any arbitrary restrictions which serve no legitimate purpose.

Ex Post Facto Laws:
There are too many (literally .. MILLIONS!) "High Capacity Magazines" in private hands today to make any arbitrary restriction viable; and people who own  them will not give them up, because it's a stupid law to try to impose on people who already own them. Do the states which impose these arbitrary limits intend to confiscate "illegal" (previously owned legally) magazines without compensating their owners for their investment? Doesn't the fifth amendment* of the Constitution have something to say about that?

*(|No confiscation without compensation")

What are they going to do?  Track down everyone who own a 30-round magazine?  They can't do it: magazines are not identified by serial numbers ... it's not a matter of record who owns what  magazines!  And trying to enforce such a law is a waste of time for people (Law Enforcement Offers) who have better things to do with their time.   It's not enforceable, and cops know that!

Politicians who think they have to pass laws to show their constituents that they are "doing something" are idiots and/or fools; politicians who even suggest such an unenforceable law are the object of ridicule from the Law Enforcement Officers who would be required to enforce it.

Are the politicians going to require the cops to go from door to door to search for "illegal magazines"?  Good luck with that!

It makes you wonder how idiots are elected to office.   But I suppose it's in the 'usual' way:  Graft.

"if you're going to shoot, shoot! Don't talk!"

Law abiding firearms owners are demeaned, castigated, and insulted on a daily basis by liberal "pundits" who suggest (and too often specifically state) that we are shills for "The Gun Lobby", "Firearms Manufacturers", and the NRA.

It's demeaning to read Internet articles which suggest that we are irresponsible, infantile, and are unduly influenced by money-grubbing industry sharpies with the immoral purpose of taking advantage of our lack of civil and moral values.

It's convenient when a Gun Grabber  Gun Control shill Gun Safety Advocate comes out in the open about their agenda:

What to Bring to the Gun Fight | Crooked Media:

Last week, Republicans rejoiced, and some Democrats winced privately, when Nancy Pelosi said she hoped regulation of bump stocks—the device the Las Vegas shooter used to make his weapon more deadly—would be a “slippery slope” to further regulation. Democrats were concerned that Pelosi had handed the NRA a political cudgel the group would brandish against every one of them. But Pelosi was right, and I would like to see more Democrats find her courage, because the alternative is to surrender our ideals, and the moral high ground, for no discernible upside.

I fail to understand where the "moral high ground" lies in undermining the Constitution and abrogating the civil rights of Americans.

We could lay the death of progress at the feet of the Republican Party, which has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association, but that would ultimately be a cop out. 

[emphasis added]

Or the Republican party might be defined as that political group which protect the Constitution;   all of it.    And it could be than many firearms owners are Republicans because the alternative ... to elect Democratic representatives to high office ... would compromise our own civil priorities and moral values.   And since too many Democratic Officials are ignorant of the term "Democratic" (representing ALL, equally) ...

The speaker for the Democratic Opposition to Civil Rights continues:

But when it comes to firearms we routinely fail. We are now in the midst of another gun debate that we will almost certainly lose.  The majority of Americans support stricter gun laws; less than 40 percent of Americans live in a house with a gun; consensus Democratic gun control proposals like requiring universal background checks and banning assault weapons poll above 80 percent; and yet the idea that even trivial legislation will reach the president’s desk remains a fantasy.

"40 percent of Americans" vs Democratic Polls

(See Below The Fold for a short discussion of "DEMOCRATIC")
It's a strange thing about the Constitution.  Each  generation of Liberals fails to understand that the point is to avoid the "tyranny of the majority".   In this case, the author conveniently fails to cite the source of his statistics.   Which I wouldn't believe even if he did.

If you were asked to respond to a telephone "poll" asking if you had firearms in your house, how would you answer?   My own unofficial poll is that 100% of Americans who own guns would decline to answer in the affirmative.   But I'm more honest than the author; I only asked myself.

It's nobody's business whether I own firearms.  I freely acknowledge here that I do, because it's obvious; not because some nosy reporter asked me to become a statistic.

"... another gun debate that we will almost certainly lose ..."
... and rightly so.   People who want to undermine my Constitution have no moral stance here.   It is immoral for one person to demand that a law-abiding American citizen be denied his right to defense of family, self, home and property.

The author suggests asserts that the Republican Party ... has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association, which is misleading at best, disingenuous at worst.

The National Rifle Association  (NRA) is a representative organization which is supported by its (approximately 5 million) members, who are firearms owners.   Contributions and support are generously sourced by business interests (which in turn are supported by the purchases made by firearms owners); but the corporate interests would go out of business if NOT for the support of firearms owners and other sportsmen.   The NRA would not exist without its (relatively small) membership.

Note: Political Party Membership varies in the United States, with about 45% in each major party (changes annually).  Membership in the NRA seems relatively miniscule compared to major political party membership, which is somewhere in the area of 100 million members; give or take 5 million.

It's as disingenuous to suggest that the members of the NRA are controlled by the NRA, as to suggest that the NRA is controlled by the firearms industry.   It's a tripartite relationship, each wing as dependent on the others.

And firearms laws would not be enacted by our elected representatives if they were not voted into office.   Note here that the power of the NRA does not come from financial contributions, but by the VOTES OF LEGAL FIREARMS OWNERS.   Politics is funded by money, but it is decided by votes.   Firearms owners are often single-issue voters, and both parties are aware of this.

BELOW THE FOLD: DEMOCRATIC

Ignoring the 500 pound gorilla in the room ... and expecting a solution

Somebody is pointing their finger in the wrong direction!

How gun control advocates could break the NRA's blockade - CNNPolitics:

Since early in Bill Clinton's first term as president, the National Rifle Association and its legislative allies have effectively stymied meaningful federal gun control legislation. That blockade has held for two decades despite a succession of mass shootings over so horrific they have become known simply by their location: Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, San Bernardino, Orlando and now Las Vegas.

Nobody is forgetting the massacres which make the headlines, but everyone is forgetting the true cost of firearms violence.  It's not the crazy-man-with-a-gun that we need to deal with; they're crazy, you can't do anything about them but lock them up after the fact.

The REAL problem is the everyday low-key violence which occurs in urban ghettos.   And while you remain too shy *(or too politically correct)* to identify the real problem, all of your solutions will fail to stop the greatest number of firearms deaths in America.

What is the Real Problem?

Most of the 'firearms violence' incidents, those which continue to rack up high body counts on a daily basis, don't occur in the white-bread high schools in our nation.

Why is it that young black men are being murdered by the dozens on a weekly basis with nobody paying much attention to it; but when one young white man goes crazy in a 'fly-over' state, the pontificating political left acts as if the world is coming to an end?

After the Columbine high school shooting, Clinton pushed in 1999 for legislation centered on closing the so-called "gun show loophole."

Where was Bill Clinton before that seminal moment?  Was he stretching his legs under his desk in the Oval Office, perhaps experiencing his own seminal moment?

There has never been any sign of a National Leadership willing to pay attention to the problems with the urban poor, and ... yes, the young black men who weekly slaughter each other more regularly than all of the Las Vegas and Columbine tragedies, which occur on a relatively rare frequency?

Where is the call from the Federal government for a solution to the SOCIETAL problem which is the true progenitor of Urban Firearms Violence?

Does America choose to ignore the slaughter in Chicago, Baltimore, even D.C. merely because both the victims and the murderers are usually BLACK?

 The more consequential change since the 1990s has been the willingness of more Congressional Republicans with large white-collar and suburban constituencies to vote with the NRA.

Why is there an emphasis on "... large white-collar and suburban constituencies ..." when the violence is not usually perpetrated on, nor by, white-collar and suburban constituencies?


Most urban firearms violence involves a strong racial bias.    It isn't because both killer and victim are black; its because they live in a neighborhood where economic opportunities are lacking for young black men with no marketable skills.   .

They're not shooting each other because there are too many guns, Dammit.  They're shooting each other because they have nothing better to do!

The mothers of these young men are often unmarried, trying to support their family, and there is no father-figure to teach their sons how to be a man.  The daughters have only their mother as a role model ...  sometimes the children have no father in common.  These children often have no incentive to get a good education.  New business opportunities won't establish themselves where the violence is too fearful to attract workers who are NOT young local untrained men and women.

It's because poverty and neglect are so common in these communities that there IS no sense of community, except that "Whitey is going to keep us down!"   (And they are right!)

It's because our  National Leadership is ignoring that particular gorilla, because the headlines are full of Las Vegas and Washington and which Republican Senator is dissing which Republican Party Hack this week.

When we read articles such as the one in the headline, we should cringe.

REPUBLICANS AREN'T TURNING ON TRUMP, THEY'RE TURNING ON EACH OTHER

(They have nothing better to do.)

Chipping Away at the Second Amendment

The anti-Second Amendment folks have a script that they all read from, and the line at the top is:

"Nobody is trying to take your guns away"

There's this thing about undermining the constitution; it's hard to do when you openly state "We Don't Think You Deserve These Rights Because We Don't Trust You", so these folks say other things, like :

"Gee, I know YOU wouldn't abuse this gun, but obviously other people will, so let's just agree that it's A Good Idea to make it illegal for anybody to own it".

Here is a prime example:

The Cancer in the Constitution - The New York Times:

All of his weapons were legal but should not be by any rational reading of the Second Amendment.

What Constitutional Scholar made that decision? The NYT writer didn't say.

UPDATE: 3 hours later ... I've been usurped ... someone else is already writing my article!

Bump-Stock?  WTF is that?

Like most people, I didn't know what a Bump Stock was until the Vegas shooting.  If I had heard of it, I would have shrugged my shoulder and thought "what a dorky idea".

Here's what it looks like:



Now we have politicians lining up to claim that they're against it ... whatever it is.   Well, maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong.  But a gun stock is not a firearm, and it is not protected by the Constitution.   So they can make a lot of noise and a lot of headlines and won't have to worry about the Constitutional Rights of their constituents.   What a great day to be a Politician in front of a microphone!   Hell, if they had scruples, they would have retired from Congress.

I think that the immediate reactions to Vegas are beginning to get a bit too strident.    And I wonder whether, in all the confusion, the anti-gun folks are going to take the ball and run with it until they make it illegal to own anything that isn't "specifically permitted" by currently existing law.

Here's a currently existing law:   "Shall Not Be Infringed"


The Celebrity Class is all over this tragedy like Stink on Shit.   I read an article today where somebody whose name isn't in the papers often enough to suit her career said "the murderous members of the NRA should face a firing squad".  If she had the integrity of her father, she wouldn't be so eager to lump ordinary, law-abiding citizens into the same class with a man who had  too much money, too much time on his hands, and no morals. (I'm referring here to the mass murderer, not the singer.)

UNDER THE FOLD: "Any Sporting Purpose"

Trump Angst

During the Election Season last year, I admitted online that I was conflicted about my presidential vote.  Should I give my vote to "The Donald", who knows how to make money but is relatively clueless about how to be a president?

Or should I give my vote to "The Hillary Beast", who knows how to run a country but would run it in a direction I could not accept?

Ultimately, I voted for "Not Hillary".   And now I ... and the rest of America who faced the same difficult choice ... are paying the price.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump's frightening and tightening legal noose | Fox News:

The Donald Trump I know is a smart guy who often thinks a few steps ahead of those whose will he is trying to bend. But I lately wonder whether he grasps the gravity of the legal peril that is beginning to show up around him. In the past week, we learned of an unfiltered public confession of frustration and weakness among his lawyers and we learned that his former chief confidant and campaign manager is about to be indicted. This is very bad news for President Trump.

I'm disappointed in President Trump, and I'm angry when people criticize him for his (so far) poor performance as a president.   I agree, though, that this is one of the most inept presidents we've been saddled with since ... oh, I don't know ... the Peanut Farmer?
(Jimmy Carter)

Considering the alternative, though, I continue to believe that Trumps failures to live up to his promises is the less painful outcome, compared with a potential Hillary-beast presidency.

Trump fails to live up to his promise; if Hillary had lived up to HER promise, it would be an even more grim America.

There's an old mantra about the balance between competence vs intelligence, and the mantrix I found was in reference to military officers. Generally, it looks like this:

 In self-help books I have repeatedly seen a two-by-two matrix used to evaluate individuals. The four elements in the matrix were labeled: Brilliant & Lazy, Brilliant & Energetic, Dumb & Lazy, and Dumb & Energetic. Curiously, the brilliant and lazy were extolled above all others.

Politically speaking, you can substitute "Industrious" with "Ambitious", and "Stupid" with

Generally speaking:

Any officer who is clever and industrious is destined to positions of great responsibility, while an officer who is clever but lazy will do no great harm because he won't seek a position of responsibility.

An officer who is stupid but lazy will not have the desire (or energy) to do harm.  (In the political field, they will not run for high public office ... nor be elected; usually.)

But an officer who is stupid but Industrious will have the will to make changes, but lack the wit to avoid endangering his men.

Trump, I believe, falls under the "Smart and Industrious".   He chose to make money, and used his fiscal position to achieve positions of great power.

Hillary falls under "Stupid and Industrious".  

She chose to make her mark in the political scene, which gave her a similar position of great power. But as much as people tend to consider her 'smart' ... she took the easy route to power; she chose to seek popularity rather than industriousness.

She did not create wealth; it was donated to her.

Hillary did not create wealth for herself or others (except for the wealth she acquired which came from political contributions)

Politics is a Funny Game:

You can win it in one of two ways:
1: you can win it with Money, which Trump did;
2: or you can win it with the cult of your personality, which Hillary almost did.

But the difference is ... the Thinking Voters have to TRUST the candidate.

Nobody trusted Hillary.

Nobody trusted Trump, either,  but Hillary's history of lies and deceits worked against her so strongly that she could not escape her own past actions.

Ultimately, Donald Trump is President of the United States not because he was trusted, but because he was Not Hillary!

Personally, I would have voted for The Man In The Moon before I voted for Hillary, because she had no political or moral compass, and her past actions proved that she was not the right person to lead our country in the coming years.

Does Trump have the moral values to deserve this high office?  I don't know.

But I do know who does NOT have sufficient moral values to represent my birth nation; and she lost.

Arrogance Repaid

SOUR GRAPES: Hillary Clinton Trashes Trump as a 'Deplorable' 'Reality TV Star': “

Well, I thought Trump was behaving in a deplorable manner. I thought a lot of his appeals to voters were deplorable. I thought his behavior as we saw on the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape was deplorable,” Clinton told CBS’s “Sunday Morning.” “And there were a large number of people who didn’t care. It did not matter to them. And he turned out to be a very effective reality TV star,” she added. Clinton referred to her previous statements trashing Trump and his supporters on the 2016 campaign trail, doubling down on her claims that Trump voters are a “basket of deplorables” who are “irredeemable.”

During the latest Presidential campaign, I blogged that I was truly torn about which candidate to vote against;   I was not impressed by either Trump or Clinton.

The bottom line for me was their contrasting views on the Second Amendment;  Trump vowed to honor the Constitution, while Clinton considered the Supreme Court's support of the RKBA to be "wrong".

What is it about Liberal Democrats, who are their own worst enemies?

The arrogance of Clinton was enough to make a lot of people choose Trump, who might never have been elected had he been opposed by any other American than Hillary Clinton.

(Well ... or Bill Clinton, who can't keep his zipper up.   Or Al Gore, an idiot who couldn't even carry his own home state.  Or George Clooney, who can at least look pretty in front of the camera.  Or Barbra Streisand, who at least can sing.   Or ... never mind.)

The Best Decision Hillary Ever Made

Hillary Says She’ll Never Run for Office Again  - Breitbart:

 Sunday on “CBS This Morning,” former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she would never run for office again. Clinton said, “I am done with being a candidate but I am not done with politics because I literally believe that our country’s future is at stake”

Hallelujah!    Our country's future is brighter for that decision.

(Is it too much to ask her to move to Tanzania?)

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.

Polls are cra-zee! (So are Politicians!)

99% of Americans don't believe polls. That's the result of at least one poll.

I don't believe in polls.  I pay no attention to them except in passing.

Polls can be so misinterpreted that they not only do not add to the "Discussion", but they usually add so many confusing 'facts' (which can usually not be examined by the casual observer), they often provide more controversy than verifiable fact.

Poll: Majority approve of Congress’ handling of shooting - POLITICO:

 Congress received mostly high marks for its response to a shooting last week at a Republican baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, according to a new poll released Monday, although those surveyed said overall civility in political debate has deteriorated.  (The poll dialogue continues with more statistics, but who cares?)

I offer this ... dissertation ... only to makethe point that when the subject is politics, there is nothing THERE, there!

Can you read the above quote and tell me what it said? (Go to the original version at the link.)

They quoted lots of statistics from POLITICO, but they mean nothing.  If anything, they obfuscated any issue which you and I might have wished to have clarified.

Here's my interpretation of the statement, and I realize that whatever I say, it was probably wrong.

Congress has decided that they did the "right thing", whatever it was, and the politicians in power agree. Most people think that politicians are nice people, and everyone mostly agrees.  

Balderdash!  Nobody likes Congress, or Politicians of any stripe.  This is an entirely self-serving quote which only serves to prove that Congress has no clue, and they're dancing as fast as they can.

("Whatever it was".  we haven't been told, yet, and we probably never will.)

I don't know yet what was the point under discussion, or how Congress reached this conclusion.

Anything that results in 5 public political people being SHOT is not likely to be gladly accepted by The Common Man.  When people get shot, there's something drastically wrong here.  Glossing over the consequences of politics serves no meaningful purpose.

Sweeping it all under the rug doesn't resolve the obvious problems of political dissent becoming radicalized.

I don't have a solution, but I have a lot of questions; none of which have been addressed in this political statement.

The people who have spoken publicly to explain away the issue?

They are all a bunch of morons.

I may be wrong, but I don't think you can address a major political assassination attempt by saying "... they did the "right thing", whatever it was, and the politicians have proven their ability to rise above the worst thing that could have happened and ... just shrug it off

Polls don't mean shit; most folks think there is something rotten in Denmark (to quote a phrase).  You cannot dismiss an assassination attempt with soft words and calm assurances. Unless there is an obvious effort to re-evaluate the current political contretemps, and to resolve the image which the public has of a failed national leadership, this shit will keep going on.

If that doesn't frighten you, nothing will.  Assassination as "just a part of the process"?  Absurd!

And I do not LIKE it when my country .. which I love far more than I love the politicians which have promised to protect us .. is under attack by anonymous mouse people.

.\They cannot even protect themselves ... even though they are surrounded by armed security guards and we are not.  How can we trust them to protect US?

I have no confidence in the incompetent idiots politicians who are replete with smiles, soft words, and $400 haircuts.  Anyone can get elected by promising Bread and Circuses; the Romans proved that a thousand years ago, and the formula remains unchanged and still useful.

Those who have the presence and gilt to be elected are rarely competent to lead.
They're just real good at smiling at the right times, and saying the right things to the right people.
Leadership Skills are not an issue.

That's all I have to say about that.

And people ask me why I'm apolitical.

PS: I HATE WRITING POLITICAL SCREEDS!