Obama’s Gun Control Proposal - and why NOT?

What’s in Obama’s Gun Control Proposal - NYTimes.com:

The initiative to reduce gun violence announced by President Obama on Wednesday includes both legislative proposals that would need to be acted on by Congress and executive actions he can do on his own. Many of the executive actions involve the president directing agencies to do a better job of sharing information.

The New York Times has (as nearly as I can tell) done an exemplary job of reporting the substance of Obama's Gun Control Bill.  Well ... in truth, it wasn't much of a challenge.  They just took the information provided on the "fact-sheet" handout, and published it.   However, it does help us to look at it in 'some detail so we can evaluate the cause, the effect, and the justification OR rejection of the talking points.

In 2008,  President ial Candidate Obama said:"I have no intention of taking away folks' guns".   (A 2008 article from FactCheck.org.. a notorious Liberal Democratic website, is the source for this and other quotes.  In the following discussion, that will be the source of unattributed Obama quotes.)

We should have paid closer attention to what he DID say, though;  at the time, he made it quite clear that the thought that the second amendment was talking about firearms appropriate to duck and deer hunting ... within certain limitations (yet to be defined ... until today).  But America took him at his word ... as they THOUGHT he meant it, not as he actually meant it.  Today, he has his revenge.  He will allow you to keep your guns, as long as they are not evil according to his own private interpretation.

(Is it tacky to say "I told you so"?  Perhaps .. but I did!)

Here's what the New York Times cited as the salient points of the President's proposed bill, along with various comments.  Note the prevalence of "cosmetic" and "already law" comments;  clearly, these reiterations of existing law serve no useful purpose but to enhance his own personal image as a "lawmaker".

Author's comments are [presented in red]

Proposed Congressional Actions

• Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.[Actually, the 'private sellers' provision has been an accepted "moot point" for the entire history of the country.  If this became law, my children could not legally inherit my firearms .. no matter what the characteristics of the firearm.]
• Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.[The "Assault Weapons Ban" was sunsetted after ten years because both parties in the legislature agreed during debate on the original bill that if after that legitimate trial period crime statistics could NOT prove that the measures inherent would reduce crime, they would agree that it was an unjustifiable imposition on the Second Amendment Rights of legitimate American Citizens, and should (and eventually was) rendered moot and not lawful.  Ten years of experience proved conclusive that the components of that law was essentially useless, and the law was allowed to laps by mutual agreement of both political parties.  Future references to this FACT will be cited as "PROVEN NOT HELPFUL 1994 - 2004"]
• Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.[PROVEN NOT HELPFUL 1994 - 2004]
• Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.[Already law]
• Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.[It's already illegal, penalties already include imprisonment; how would increases in 'penalties' be more effective?]
• Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.[Shouldn't be part of an 'assault weapons ban' .. and didn't Obama already promise this years ago?]
• Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.[The last guy he proposed for the post was a proven bungler; remember "Fast and Furious"?]
• Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.[... Which would NOT eliminate any weapons which fit into the current administrative definition of "Assault Weapons", except for full-automatic weapons which are .. you guessed it .. already fully regulated.]
• Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks. ["Throw money at it" .. typical Liberal solutions which have worked so well in Education, Health & Welfare, The Housing Lending Crisis, TARP, and other "bail-out" programs]
• Provide additional $20 million to help expand the a system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states. ["Throw money at it" ]
• Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans. ["Throw money at it"]
• Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people. ["Throw money at it"   Even worse ....opens the door for allowing Liberal Psychologists and Health Care Workers  to define people as "mentally ill' based on purely subjective graunds.]

Executive actions

• Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.  .[Already law]
• Addressing unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.[It's his administration.  If his administration isn't encouraging measures which are ALREADY LAW ... why not?]
• Improving incentives for states to share information with the background check system. .[Already law.  See above.]
• Directing the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. .[Already law.   See: "Fast and Furious"]
• Proposing a rule making to give law enforcement authorities the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. .[Already law]
• Publishing a letter from the A.T.F. to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers. .[Already law for dealers: again, see "grandfather laws" currently effect; my guns inherited by my children, etc.]
• Starting a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.["Publicity" .. like that's anything new]
• Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).[Cosmetic:  this has NEVER been shown to be an issue in gun crime]
• Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.[Already law]
• Releasing a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and making it widely available to law enforcement authorities.[Already usual practice]
• Nominating an A.T.F. director.[Asked and answered .. again, see "Fast and Furious".  Isn't this already the job of the president?  And hasn't he already mucked it up once?]
• Providing law enforcement authorities, first responders and school officials with proper training for armed attacks situations.  [This isn't already in effect?  I thought that was part of the FEMA job!]
• Maximizing enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.[Obviously, the cops are to blame!]
• Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.[They have been doing that for 50 years ... and they have been proven wrong about their conclusions for 50 years.]
• Directing the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenging the private sector to develop innovative technologies.[Cosmetic; the attorney general is an ineffective idiot OR a criminal, and he was Obama's choice; and the private sector (gun manufacturers and dealers) are already abiding by a near-overwhelming set of federal regulations]
• Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.[Great.  The doctors are now REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW to violate patient confidentiality?]
• Releasing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.[See above]
• Providing incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.[No problem; Education is already .. what, 70% of the national budget?]
• Developing model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.[Cosmetic]
• Releasing a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.[Cosmetic; anything that isn't, should already be there.  And hey, how about Medicare?]
• Finalizing regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within insurance exchanges. [Over-reaching;  or at least to vague to be helpful]
• Committing to finalizing mental health parity regulations.[What?  You've been president for four years and you still haven't made it clear to mental health professionals what their "REAL JOB" is?]
• Starting a national dialogue on mental health led by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.[Any measure which includes the name "Kathleen Sebelius" is automatically suspect.  As far as a "National Dialogue" .. that sounds both cosmetic and 'bogus' to me]

I recognize, acknowledge and accept that my responses seem to be both facetious and not terribly helpful.  And no, I don't care to cite specific counter-suggestions to address this terribly important National question.

Here's why:

• Anything that I ... or Obama .. can dream up is obviously going to be something in the nature of a band-aid.  I can't think of ANY Federal Legislation which is going to stop lunatics from shooting little girls.  And obviously, neither can Barry.   The difference is, I don't have to find a solution; I'm an old white guy, it's not my job.  It is, however, Barry's job.  He wanted it, he got it, and now he can't do his job.  Last time I couldn't do my job, my boss fired my ass.  So .. any suggestion I could make would probably be somewhere along those lines.
• Another thing:  What IS my job is to help Our Beloved Leader to do his job.  Even though I can't give him suggestions which are acceptable to him, the least I can do is to alert him when he is reverting to Political Bullshit.
• Barry, it is obvious to all of us that you are dancing as fast as you can; but .. it's just not going to cut it!  Why don't you get rid of the sycophants in your office and find some people who actually can  THINK!  For example, Ronald Reagan actually was as incompetent as your party (wrongly) said George W. Bush was .. but he was still one of our country's  greatest presidents.  And in fact, "W" didn't do as bad .. for the same reasons; they both found and hired people who were smarter than them, and they listened to their advisers.  Unfortunately, you have advisers who are smarter than you, and maybe you actually listen to them ... but just being 'smarter than you' doesn't mean 'smart enough'. [Knock Knock!]  Are you listening to me, Barry?
• The time for Political Bullshit is past.  Admit it; you can't find the people who are TRULY homicidally  deranged before they cap their mother and then drive-buy a schoolhouse.  There's got to be another way .. but nobody you're talking to has ever suggested .....
• LET YOUR PEOPLE GO!  It's going to cost somebody (eventually .. me) a TON of money to hire armed school guards  We can't afford it.  Why don't you just let your teachers carry concealed weapons?  It worked for the Israeli's?  (Of course, their enemies resorted to bombs, but no plan is perfect.)

All I am saying is, give a piece a chance.  We've already seen that gun-free zones are considered (by maniacal would-be mass murders) to be nothing more than a target-rich environment.

Maybe .. just maybe, if you follow the Israeli Protocol (which combines armed  citizens with intelligent profiling) you could cut down on the number of nut-jobs who are allowed .. by YOU! ... to walk into a structure and blast away without fear of consequence.

Talk about your 'common sense gun control law'!

Remember: Gun Control means "Hitting what you're shooting at".

Why should the Bad Guys be the only ones who understand this?

Dumb and Dumber: "Gun Control" and ... "The Sandy Hook Shooting Conspiracy Theory"

The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed - YouTube

 You may not need to SEE this video, but you do need to be aware of its existence.

The following is a 30-minute video on YouTube which purports to point out inconsistencies in the media presentations of stories which describe the circumstances of the massacre of children in the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Ct  on December 14, 2012.





All the pertinent points depicted in this video have been 'debunked' by snopes.com .... an online "HOAX" research resource which I have depended upon for years,

Frankly, I'm more inclinded to rely upon information compiled by Snopes than I am to accept the interpretations of an unknown YouTube contributor.

(And yes, I am also a contributor to YouTube.  I hope that my videos may be considered more objective, however, since they almost invariably depict IPSC/USPSA competitors as they participate in various legitimate and registered shooting matches.)

On the same YouTube page upon which this video is presented, there are links to other postings which seem to imply a governmental conspiracy.  I haven't bothered to view them.

The crux  of the issue may be that this tragedy seems to have triggered (pardon the expression) a nation-wide drive to impose increasingly onerous restrictions on the private ownership of firearms.

You may be aware that I am a strong .. if not vehement .. supporter of the Second Amendment.

In recent days, as I watch our government (not only federal, but stage governmental agencies as well) seriously describe "gun control" measures which I personally consider to be "not helpful", I have been  critical [okay,: "vociferously contemptuous"] of the political reactions which have been reported.  I'll probably soon be discussing the bill recently signed by New York State Governor Cuomo,  (which I have already discussed) is frighteningly similar to proposals presented by President Obama.

Most of the proposals include measures which already exist; or have already been proven not to be effective in curbing crime; or are patently cosmetic only, or otherwise nonsensical.  NONE of the proposals have anything 'new' to offer.
 
I'm strongly opposed to the misguided, draconian, knee-jerk liberal attempts to enact laws for the sole purpose (as i see it)  of appealing to a certain frightened segment of our population.  I don't really believe that even the people who proposed the bills, let alone legislators who will (or have) voted for them, really believe that they will make a difference in the crime rate.

However, in reference to the video, I think that the people who present this sort of facile crap under the guise of .. we can only hope it's "private investigative journalism" rather than 'self-aggrandizement" ... are serving NO useful purpose.

My only reason for presenting it here is to demonstrate that people can be sufficiently self-delusional as to present ANY 'argument' in support of their own private and/or political agenda. (Which applies not only to youtube contributors, but to legislators on any level of government.)

As William Shakespeare (in "Romeo and Juliet") may have said ... although the quote is variously interpreted:

"A plague on both their houses!"

NRA shooting game no longer for preschoolers

NRA shooting game no longer for preschoolers | Political Headlines | Comcast:

WASHINGTON — A new shooting game for mobile devices by the National Rifle Association is no longer being labeled suitable for preschoolers. "NRA: Practice Range" changed its age recommendation on Tuesday from 4 years and up to at least 12 years of age with an added warning that the game depicts "intense" and "realistic" violence. The move came amid pushback from liberal organizations that called the game tasteless and its timing politically motivated. It was released Sunday. This week is the one-month anniversary of the shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that left 20 children and six adults dead, and the same week President Barack Obama is expected to announce his plan for curbing gun violence.

What's this all about?
A progressive advocacy organization, Courage Campaign, on Tuesday circulated an online petition asking Apple to drop the free mobile application from its store.

"This is a classic example of everything that is wrong with the NRA. Instead of coming to the table with constructive ideas to reduce gun violence, the NRA is instead developing a video game that glorifies guns and gun violence," said Adam Bink, director of the group's online programs.

Isn't that special?  Here's a "Progressive Advocacy Orginization" chiding the NRA about being constructive.  Apparently, all they can do is to be critical.

Being knee-jerk reactive to any effort which reflects negativity on the Second Amendment, I went to the Courage Campaign website to see who and what they are all about.  I had the impression that their goal was to encourage abused children to speak out about their abuse.

What I found was ... not much about child abuse.   I guess they have been distracted. They are very Pro-Obama, and the "Assault Weapon Ban" seems to be Number One With A Bullet.

Eh, but I found some other issues which they espouse, and I admit (if grudgingly) that they have found a few subjects (not many, but a few) which probably need to be addressed. I'm not going to be sending them a check; and I'm not going to be terribly harsh in criticizing them, either.
___________________________________________________________________________

I'm upset ... well, lets say "concerned ... about their espousal for the "Assault Weapons Ban", mostly because I think the whole thing is overplayed politically and ineffective practically.  A few of their other issues, I just don't find that interesting (there's a dead horse somewhere whose beaters are allowing themselves to be distracted from their REAL job!).  A few other causes just seem silly, to me.  But I'm an Old White Guy, and not expected to politically aware.

Frankly, when I look at the original article, I don't see a problem. Kids get to knock down some targets online?  It would probably be overlooked if they were using darts ... or stones ... but in the scenarion they are (presumably) knocking down targets using The Evil Gun! 

Can yoiu say:

(Good for you, I knew you could)

You know, a lot of people seem to be determined to milk the "GUN CONTROL" issue because it's high visibility and low-risk subject.   Politically speaking, that is, and "Advocacy Organizations" seem to have a choice between supporting their community, and making political hay while the sun shines on their ..... issues.

It's not so much that I mind that they provide jobs for people who need the work;  it's more that they seem all-too willing to interfere with the lives of other people because of goals which I don't feel particularly inclined to support.

Yes, it's a political thing.

We didn't make it so; they did.  And frankly, it just pisses me off that folks whose job it is to support people seem to find it entirely justifiable that they can undermine MY rights in order to achieve THEIR goals.  These folks are trying to help people?  They think they can do it by walking on MY lawn?

Get outta town!

Every year I take a week driving to San Diego to visit my kids and my grand kids.  I can't really afford it, but it's the only way I can keep at least a minimal personal contact with my family.

They wonder why I choose to stay in rainy ol' Oregon, instead of moving closer to them.

Well, I still live in the state where I was born, and where my children were born.  I lived for a few years in California, and I was so glad to leave there and move back to where the grass is green and the Budweiser Border Guards keep their retirees from moving up here to enjoy their Golden Ages.

This is the kind of thing which reinforces my determination to be my own man.  I really, really don't want to be preached to by a bunch of "Progressive" idiots about how I should think and how I should feel.

My own daughter is a "Community Advocate", and she's a darned good one.

She would never fall for the political self-serving demonstrated here.

Assault Weapons Ban .. .my ass!

NY gun bill would toughen already strict law

NY gun bill would toughen already strict law | General Headlines | Comcast: ALBANY, N.Y. —

The New York gun control provisions passed by the Senate late Monday and being considered by the Assembly on Tuesday cover several fronts. Gov. Andrew Cuomo said the proposals would:

 (Okay, I'm going to list the proposed "restrictions" and talk about them individually.  This severely pisses me off ... and I live clear across the country from this Martinet!)


_Further restrict assault weapons to define them by a single feature, such as a pistol grip. Current law requires two features.

 Typically, the term "Assault Weapon" is a bogus means of identifying "offending" firearms by features which are entirely cosmetic.  This measure is a proliferation of meaningless identifiers, which include: pistol grip, flash suppressors (which "suppress" NOTHING) barrel shrouds, and the color "Black".   None of these
"features" have anything to do with the efficacy of the firearm; they're just  talking points which Liberal scare-mongers use to justify their unconstitutional tactics.  BTW .. if these ARE features which have nothing to do with shooting geese and instead increase the efficiency of Military Weapons?  Military weapons are the MOST protected versions under the provisions of the Second Amendment.

Reducing the 'number of features" which allows gun-grabbers to impose more regulation is not more effective;  it's merely more egregious.

_Make the unsafe storage of assault weapons a misdemeanor.

This refers back to the definition of "assault weapons".  Cosmetic differences do NOT define an "assault weapon", which is properly defined as "a rifle-caliber shoulder-fired firearm capable of full-auto functionality".  It does NOT define, for example, an A$-15 or its antecedents or derivations.  Further references to "Assault Weapons" will fall under the same logical rebuttal by the statement: "See Above".. 

_Mandate a police registry of assault weapons.

See Above.

_Establish a state registry for all private sales, with a background check done through a licensed dealer for a fee, excluding sales to immediate relatives.

Registration IS the first stage toward confiscation.  California established a "registration" program in 1999; this quickly resulted in 'registered' firearms being confiscated without compensation to the owners.  This was a wake-up call for every legal firearms owner.  They didn't take guns owned by criminals, they took ALL guns.  And New York is using the same play-book now.

_Require a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally to report the threat to a mental health director who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.

This sounds reasonable, even laudable.  But it opens the door to subjective interpretation.  We don't know who's "crazy", and who demands their rights under the constitution.  This kind of legislation is subject to interpretation by health-care providers ... who are not regulated to the same extent as are firearms owners today.

_Ban the Internet sale of assault weapons.

Already illegal .. only black-powder firearms are legally available for sale by ANY means other than in-person visits to a registered firearms dealer, who MUST perform a background check under federal law which has been in effect since 1995.  This "feature" is cosmetic only!

_Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current national standard of 10. Current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. Someone caught with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

This has absolutely no effect on the effectiveness of a firearm in a 'mass murder' situation.  Even a .45 caliber 1911 "army pistol" can accept magazines capable of holding eight or ten rounds. "Requiring" a murderer to conform to this kind of law presumes that the fine would dissuade his evil intent.  In truth, he is already contemplating the murder of innocents; if it is intended to assuage the effects of murderous intent, it is shamefully ineffective.

_Require that stolen guns be reported within 24 hours. Otherwise, the owner would face a possible misdemeanor.

What if the owner is not aware that he has been burgled?  This makes the victim appear to be either irresponsible, or commiserate with the person who has stolen his property.

_Increase sentences for gun crimes including for taking a gun on school property.

Actually, there are justifications for 'taking a gun on school property' .. including (for example) a teacher who is aware that schools are often "Gun Free Zones", which is a euphemism for "Kill Me Her Zones".  Murderers love areas where they can be assured that nobody is armed, because it is illegal!  Only law-abiding persons are likely to obey such ridiculous laws.  Murders glory in the fact that they are the only people who recognize that these laws are unenforceable, if their intent is to kill innocents.

_Increase penalties for shooting first responders, called the "Webster provision." Two firefighters were killed when shot by a person who set a fire in the western New York town of Webster last month. The crime would be punishable by life in prison without parole.

Oh?  And if 'shooting first responders' constitutes MURDER, then how much more punitive can this law be?   Redundancy serves no purpose other than the  glorification of the grandstanding politician.

_Limit the state records law to protect handgun owners from being identified publicly. The provision would allow a handgun permit holder a means to maintain privacy under the Freedom of Information law.

This is 'almost' the single legitimate proposition.  Concealed Carry License holders have infamously been 'outed', to their detriment, for years. Forgive me if I suggest that this provision serves no purpose except to imprint the patina of legitimacy on a series of otherwise useless proposals.

_Require pistol permit holders or those who will be registered as owners of assault rifles to be recertified at least every five years to make sure they are still legally able to own the guns.

I don't know how it is in YOUR state, but in MY state (Oregon), this is already a feature of Concealed Carry legislation.  I don't have to go through the entire process of finding three non-felons to certify that I am a 'good citizen', and I don't have to give them another sample of my fingerprints, but I do have to pay a fee and they already do a State Database Search to find out whether or not I have committed a felony in the recent years.
As a Concealed Firearms Permit holder, I accept and  approve of these laws; I do not want to be grouped with people who may have committed a felony.
And please note, in Oregon the process is restricted to people with Concealed Firearems Permits.  We don't heed no stinkin' bahdges!

It is my understanding that New York is one of the most restrictive states in the country, when it comes to firearms ownership.

"Outing" the names of Registered Gun Owners

Judge Jeanine Pirro Calls Out “Cowards” at The Journal News for Hiding After Publishing Names of Gun Owners | Fox News Insider:

The Journal News continues to face serious backlash after publishing the names of legal gun permit owners in New York. 

Publisher of the paper, Janet Hasson, cited the reason for doing so in a statement. She said, “We felt … sharing has much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings.” 

Judge Jeanine Pirro has reached out for a comment from the newspaper to no avail. She slammed those at the paper for going into hiding, and even hiring bodyguards to protect themselves. [emphasis added]  She reacted on her show, saying, “In the aftermath of the shooting of innocent children, you, The Journal News think it’s important to what — to out us? […] How dare you connect law-abiding citizens who’ve gone through rigorous background checks, who’ve been fingerprinted, investigated and received judicial approval to exercise their Second Amendment right.”

IS this a legitimate complaint?

The people involved (gun owners whose names have been published) seem to feel that they have been ranked with "Pedophilias", as if their decision to own guns .. which have been registered in accordance with state laws .....make them appear to their friends and neighbors as some kind of socially perverse sub-culture,

Their concerns may not be entirely unfounded.  They are concerned that their homes may be targeted by  burglars, and other sorts of home-invaders, if only because they are KNOWN to keep firearms in their homes.

That may be a legitimate complaint; and so may their concern be that they will not only be burglarized, but assaulted only because they have been identified as gun owners.

For many of the iconoclized few, however, the unspoken concern may be ...  they worry that their neighbors may come to fear them because they are known "gun owners".

That denomination alone  (or should it be demonization?)  is less important.  Essentially, by identifying them selves as owners of defensive weapons, they become (in their eyes) more of a target then are their neighbors.

That was certainly not their goal, when they (a) decided that they need to take an active role in defending themselves, their family and their home; and (b) determined that the 'best way' to do so was to abide entirely with state law.

That is: they registered themselves as "firearms owners".
_____________________________________

One might presume that when one has taken 'extraordinary measures" (in this case, at least, to actually abide by the law), one might legitimately be recognized as people who are law-abiding according to all definitions of the term.

Do their neighbors feel that way?

Let's get back to that;

But, does their local newspaper feel that way?

No, "The Journal" obviously does not.
"The paper defended itself by arguing that the names of people who hold handgun licenses is public and freely available."

In other words: if the information is available to the general public, the newspaper feels justified in publishing the information of "WHO" owns a gun, and "WHERE" they live.

(We don't yet know if the newspaper has delved into the reasons WHY they felt obliged to own a gun, WHAT kind of gun they owned ... although they might also includedthe information about about WHAT KIND of gun they owned

.  Not having the information about  WHERE the article resides online, we can't give you that information

However, recent news articles suggest that the information provided by The Journal may have been instrumental it at least one recent robbery which appeared to have been targeting the gun which was supposedly owned (and stored safely) by at least one person mentioned in the article.

I can't tell you whether the burglary was planned upon the information provided by The Journal, nor can I confirm that the gun was safely stored (although it appears that it was.)

(Isn't it interesting, that while the newspaper published the details of the private citizens in their community, that same newspaper can't provide the information which might make sense of the story?  Who is the responsible party here?)

I can only tell you that the publication of this information put the owners at risk.

It was as if the publishers acquired a list of 'snitches' for the local police department, and published their names.  Whether or not it should have been a matter of Public Information; whether or not any other citizen would have researched the information;  whether or not that information, once discovered, should have been published in a public (and widely distributed) document ... we don't know that, either.

All we know is that the people "outed" had suggested a variety of ways in which they may be put at risk due to the actions of "The Journal", and at least one of those scenarios have been proven to be true:  one person WAS targeted, and the goal of the scum-bags clearly seems to have been to acquire a weapon.

Who are we to blame, for the introduction of another illegally acquired gun upon the  streets?

The owner?  The scum-bag who stole the gun?  Or the newspaper who made the four-way connection between the owner, the address, the gun and the robber?
 
I know in which direction my finger is pointing.

Oh? You think it couldn't happen to YOU?

What Does the Georgia Mom’s Shooting of a Home Intruder Mean for the Gun Control Debate? | Fox News Insider:

The NRA is now pointing to the case of the Georgia mom who shot a home intruder to make the point that private gun ownership is necessary for protection.

Yep, it's true.  The anecdotally evident "Home Intrusion" scenario can happen to anybody.... even to you.

Two points:

1. it's okay to hide in the closet when the man breaks down your door.  It won't help .. he WILL find you .. but it's still "okay"
2. when the man breaks down your door ...  shoot him. Shoot him a lot.  Shoot him again!

NOTE: this was the advice the lady-in-the-closet received from her husband when she was "sheltering"  there with her child, her cell phone .. and a gun.  She shot the dude several times .. sometimes in the face .. and now the home invader is dead and she and her child are NOT!

She called her husband, and while he was talking to 911 on another line he was actively and vehemently encouraging her to shoot that son-of-a-bitch "again"!

Oh man, I love it when a plan comes together.   And I feel this soft part in my heart go all pitty-patty when a man tells his wife "SHOOT HIM!  SHOOT HIM AGAIN!"

I'm thinking: bad guy = zero; wife and child 1,000.  They're alive, he's dead, and hey!  He's the guy who decided to break into their home while they were THERE!

What kind of guy breaks into an occupied home, and then tracks down the (female and child) occupants and starts banging on the doorof the closet they're hiding in .. from him?

Did he just want to keys to their car?

I don't THINK so!

Nota Bene:  "Real People" see this is as A Good Thing: Liberals see this as another opportunity to turn the dialogue from "defending your home" to "there is no justification for allowing people to own assault  weapons".     (Not a direct quote: a paraphrase)  No, I don't follow the logic path all that well, either.

This is exactly the kind of heart-warming story which (once again) convinces me that the RIGHT to have a firearm available at all times not only (a) protects your family and (b) ensures the continuity of a "everybody is still alive" life-style that we all know and love, but (c) provides a Darwinian Solution to the question of "should we allow a predator to live .. I Don't Think So!".

EVERY time I read another touchy-feely news story about how we shouldn't allow ANYBODY to have a gun, I don't have to search very long to find a contradictory story . .... like this one ....   which demonstrates that gun-rights advocates are right and gun-control advocates are assholes.

(Sorry.  I know, I must get over the knee-jerk reactionary thing that causes me to refer to to "gun-control advocates" as ASSHOLES!  But it's hard to be humble, when you're right.)

A 'gun rights' person is one who has ever been threatened, and has resorted to a firearm to protect his/her life, family or continued state of good health.

On the other hand, those to whom the whole "protect your life, family, continued state of good health and property" is (trough sheer Good Luck) is merely an intellectual exercise?  Most folks refer to those people as 'gun-control advocates'.  Notice how the word "rights" never appears in their lexicon?  That's because, according to the ASSHOLES .... you have no rights.

Okay, I don't have any problem with referring to them as ASSHOLES, when their subsequent political viewpoint will result in taking the guns away from "Real People".

You have my permission to refer to them as "Gun Control Advocates", if you please.

That charming  (if naive) attitude will disappear as soon as someone  breaks into your home and threatens your spouse, and/or your child.

"SHOOT HIM!  SHOOT HIM AGAIN!"


Works for me!

Obama Elected? Guns are Selected!

Americans Are Voting With Their Wallets On Guns, Ammo, and Concealed Carry:

No matter where you look, the news is the same--guns are flying off the shelves, bulk ammo can't be found, and applications for concealed permits are going up, up, up. In short, Americans have weighed in on the gun debate and the winners are the right to keep and bear arms and the duty of self-defense.

The news is the same all over:

Every time Obama is elected to his current Presidential Stature, Americans ... well, how can I say i t?

They freak out!

During the 2004 election, Obama was oh-so-careful to emphasize that he didn't want to take our guns away.  And for four full years, he kept that promise.

Do you know the difference between a first-term president and a Lam Duck president?

The former wants to get re-elected, so he tends to keep his promises.

The latter ... the "Lame Duck" ...  doesn't expect anything from his constituency, so he can do anything he wants.

Guess what we have to deal with for the next four years?

That's right: we have a man in the Oval Office who can do anything he pleases .. and he doesn't have to face the consequences because he KNOWS he can't get elected to the Presidency again.

If he so wishes .. he can impose (by presidential order, if nothing else) any restriction on our constitutional rights which please him.  It may not stand up to judicial or even legislative pressure, but it IS his Presidential Prerogative to open the ball.  If the Legislature and the Supreme Court don't want to dance to his music, then they have to take specific actions to abrogate his fiat;  they can't just sit back and let "the other guy: do it.  And we don't know just how difficult it is for the Supreme Court to countermand a Presidential Order.  (I'm not sure if the Legislature can stop it;  sure enough, it wouldn't be easy.)

Obama has watched as Americans vote with their wallets at gun stores, ammo dealers, and gun shows. He knows that every passing day without new gun control legislation is a day in which other news gets the chance to drown out the gun control mantra Obama sycophants in the media have pushed since Sandy Hook.

Isn't it funny?  Isn't it strange?

Americans have not often recognized that they live in a Republic, rather than a Democracy.  Somehow, they have got the impression that if their President enacts a rule/law/Order against the values (for example) which they hold most dear, then all they have to do is to Write Your Congressman!!!!

Sorry, Charley; it ain't that easy.

Way back in September of 2012, I encouraged folks to vote against the Liberal candidate by voting for the "conservative" candidate. Unfortunately, the "Conservative candidate" didn't look all that Conservative, so a huge number of Conservative Voters just ... didn't vote.

See where that got you? Are you happy with your 'opt out' decision?

You think I'm kidding you, don't you.  There are people who think that Obama is not only able, but willing, to use his Presidential Orders powers to circumvent the 2nd Amendment:

In a gun-grabbing scheme as desperate as it is wrong, President Obama is threatening to bypass Congress and go it alone via Executive Orders if legislators don’t move fast.
The sudden rush to Executive Orders comes as Obama sees the writing on the wall: the American people do not want more gun control, and the Republican Congress is listening to the people.

 If you are a person who genuinely cares about your Second Amendment Rights; if you an American who thinks it's your RIGHT to protect your family even if it means doiing something whic would otherwise be odious to you ... you need to take a close second look at your President and decide if that's the kind of person who you think should be making decisions about how you should live your life .. and protect your home and family.

Jerry The (next time I tell you to oppose "this guy" .. listen!)  Geek

8-year-old British girl visiting family in Jamaica killed when gunman opens fire, 3 injured

8-year-old British girl visiting family in Jamaica killed when gunman opens fire, 3 injured | Fox News:

A British schoolgirl visiting relatives in a tiny rural village in northern Jamaica was fatally shot when a lone gunman opened fire on a group of family members as they gathered at a roadside shop, officials said Sunday. Imani Green, 8, of Balham in south London, was standing inside a clapboard grocery store and bar with relatives on Friday evening when a gunman wearing a hoodie shot the child in the head and shoulder before also shooting three adult members of her family.

Individual (civilian) ownership of firearms are, of course, forbidden by law in both Great Britain and Jamaica.

That worked out will, didn't it?

I'm sure that the family of this young girl felt entirely "safe", knowing that the tropical garden spot which is Jamaica was an islandic "Gun Free Zone:", where nothing could possibly go wrong.

If it's not too insensitive to mention, it's not just that they were in Jamaica, the home of the infamous machine-gunning incident on the Golf course.     The same thing could have happened  at her home in England.

Neither states allow private ownership of firearms.

The presumption is that .. if you just keep people from being able to own firearms, nobody will shoot anyone else.

Guns don't kill people: people kill people.

The Big Picture

NRA says Congress will not pass weapons ban | Political Headlines | Comcast:

WASHINGTON — The powerful gun lobby is gauging enough support in Congress to block a law that would ban assault weapons, despite promises from the White House and senior lawmakers to make such a measure a reality. Senators plan to introduce a bill that would ban assault weapons and limit the size of ammunition magazines, like the one used in the December shooting massacre that killed 27 people, most of them children, in Newtown, Conn. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California has promised to push for a renewal of expired legislation. The National Rifle Association has so far prevented passage of another assault weapons ban like the one that expired in 2004. But some lawmakers say the Newtown tragedy has transformed the country, and Americans are ready for stricter gun laws. President Barack Obama has made gun control a top priority. And on Tuesday Vice President Joe Biden is expected to give Obama a comprehensive package of recommendations for curbing gun violence. Still, the NRA has faith that Congress would prevent a new weapons ban.

 Oh.

This is not a simple issue.

Articles such as this make the NRA sound like Captain Queeg (Humphrey Bogard in movie version of "The Caine Mutiny Court Marshall", where Queeg sounded like an idiot because he claimed to be able to prove "conclusively" that the strawberry ice cream had been stolen by his officers.

No matter that Queeg's officers HAD stolen the ice cream;, he was still the nut-job.  The point was, that Queeg was so focused on the details that he was psychologically unable to see "The Big Picture".  (Something about "winning the war" .. I don't know.)

 Here, and now, we see that the MSM portrays the determination to protect civilian rights to " .. keep and bear arms ..." as a quixotic fascination which ignores the 'reality' of The War.  Here .. the War Against Gun Violence.

So to speak.

Apparantly, the NRA and it's supporters are a bunch of nut-jobs who seem to be unable to see The Big Picture; specifically, that people are shooting people, and we damn well need to stop it!  The National Rifle Association ("NRA") is  apparently the sole voice against pending (but not yet officially accepted) legislation to do so by providing even more restrictions on the ownership of firearms.

One has only to ask the question: "We already have tens of thousands of laws restricting the ownership of firearms .. what else can we do?"


The answer, of course, is that since the "common sense gun laws" haven't worked, we need to impose ever more "common sense gun laws".

Well, that's just common sense!

The problem is that the 'common sense gun laws' proposed don't keep insane people from buying guns (already illegal) or felons from buying guns (already illegal) or terrorists from buying guns (already illegal).

The existing laws don't keep anyone from stealing guns (already illegal).

So, what DO the proposed laws do?

They keep sane, non-felonious people from owning or buying guns.

Oh, like THAT is going to work!

So, the next time an idiot brings a gun into a mall (already illegal), 'normal people' can't defend themselves.
The next time someone breaks into your home, you can't defend yourself, or your family.
The next time someone steals your car, with your child in a safety chair in the back seat, you can't defend yourself, your property or your child.
The next time you're mugged on the street by a hood with a knife, you can't defend yourself.

Here's an alternative option:
Carry a fake wallet with expired credit cards and driver's license, and five dollars; when you're mugged, give that up to them.   I'm sure they aren't aware of that ploy, and they won't get mad and beat you up.

The next time someone carjacks you, be sure to mention that your child is in the back seat, and may you please remove your child before they steal your car?  Carjackers are famous for their human decency; I'm sure they will be willing to stand around for several minutes while you gently remove your child.

And the next time someone breaks into your home to hold you and your family hostage with guns while they beat you, rob you blind, and rape everyone in sight, all you have to do is bend over and grab your ankles.  I'm sure that everything will turn out all right.


Oh.  You're right, of course.  These sort of things NEVER happen to Honest, Law Abiding Citizens.  You're perfectly safe.  Your local police department will protect you.

Your Senators and Representatives, of course, will NOT protect you.  Their priority is getting re-elected, not protecting you and your family.  So they will make laws removing your ability to protect yourself.  They are confident that fewer of you will be raped than will protect their families, and if you DO protect yourself and your family and your home?  Well, you're just another nut-job who over-reacted to a situation which did not HAVE to devolve to violence.  

And the people who DO decide to protect themselves?

Well, they (we) have the NRA to look to for protection.

Everyone knows, the NRA is just a bunch of nut-jobs.

That IS.. The Big Picture.

Tougher Oregon gun laws get Gov. John Kitzhaber's support | OregonLive.com

Tougher Oregon gun laws get Gov. John Kitzhaber's support | OregonLive.com: SALEM --

Gov. John Kitzhaber says he won't lead the charge on tougher gun control laws in Oregon, but he expects the Legislature to take up the issue and will support what he considers to be reasonable changes. ......."   [emphasis added]

Nonetheless, he said, he has no objections to laws aimed at restricting the kinds of weapons and ammunition used in the shootings at the Clackamas Town Center mall and the Connecticut elementary school. "I don't know why anyone would need an assault rifle in this day and age," Kitzhaber said. "I don't know why anyone would resist a ban on guns in schools."

I am so disappointed by the way that Oregon has skewed its perception about how to live.

This is my state. This is the state where I was born, where I grew up, and where my family has loved for the better part of a century.

Let me give you some sense of what the political climate in Oregon USE to be:

During The Depression (and this is my family's Oral History), my grandfathers and my  father and my uncles use to go out during the fall and kill elk, and deer .. regardless of whether they had a "tag" ... which was the state's official permission to take game in the wild.

They poached game.  They did so on a regular basis.  And when the "Revenuers" ..  the state employees, the Fish and Game Wardens .. came to search their homes, they lied for each other.  It's not as if they were actually making alcoholic beverages. What they were doing was, they were feeding their families.

Times were hard then.  They ... my family .. were providing sustenance for their wives, and their children.  This was before I was born, but not before it might have been such a terrible economic situation that I may not have survived if my mother had not been able to get enough food to sustain the lives of my self and my sisters, as fetuses.

Men did what they had to do, and they passively resisted governmental regulations, because the alternative was literally too frightful for them to accept.

They were men, and they did what they had to do.

I know, this all sounds terribly "John Wayne-ish" ...  but perhaps you did not grow up on stories of what extreme measures men were willing to adopt to ensure the survival of their progeny.

---------------------

It's not all that different today.

Today, we see men and women and children being murdered .. either during their most product years, or during their youth ... by men who are senselessly slaughtering total strangers in public places.

I don't know who they are, I don't know way they do it; I only know that they are animals who need to be taken down to preserve the lives of children .. perhaps children yet unborn.

My father found himself obliged to poach game "off-season" to feed his wife and his children.

Today, we .... you and I ... discover that we are faced with similar difficult choices; whether we must use firearms  to preserve the lives of our mates, and our children... Either the children we already have, or the children which we may someday have.

And The State is conscientiously determining for us that the steps we must take to achieve this genetic goal are not, in fact, legal.

Governor Kitzhaber is much younger than I am, and perhaps his family history is different.  Perhaps he doesn't KNOW how powerful the urge to preserve your family is.  Maybe he doesn't realize that laws, and law-enforcers, are  not always merely enforcing "the Rule of Law" but are, in fact, undermining the ability of the citizens of Oregon .. which he took an oath to protect and preserve ... to protect their families.

All *_I_* know is that my father did what he had to do to provide an environment which produced me, and my sister .. my older brother died as an infant, and I have never been told why.  I can't say that it was because he (my father) was, for a while, unable or unwilling to feed his family.

But what if that WAS the reason, and the cause, for the death of my brother?

Or, what if it could have been?

Wouldn't that have been justification for ignoring laws which undermined the proliferation of The Family?
_________________________________

I don't know what's right and what's wrong.  I only know that because my sister and I survived, our 21 children and grandchildren are alive today.  I only suspect that laws which protect game rather than allowing men to feed their families are .. not WRONG, but worthy of being ignored for the benefit of the families.

I also know that laws which deprive  honest, God-fearing people, from having to do the unmentionable aggressive necessaries,  are -- not WRONG, but worthy of being ignored for the same reasons.

Our lives are not threatened by my uncles, and men like them.   They're threatened by men who are driven to insanity, and insane acts.  We cannot predict them, we cannot intervene.  We can only react to them, and stop them cold.  Dead.

We cannot act against these insane people if we are rendered defenseless by The State ... which promises faithfully  to protect (and serve) us, but which cannot deliver in a timely fashion.

And .. hey, Oregonians?  

The next time this person  who professes to love guns, but who obviously disposes his fellow citizens ... comes up for re-election?

Let's vote for the other person, instead of this Total Asshole.  

As the Democrats say "Do it for the children" ...

Okay?

No .. do it for OUR children!  We're better than he is, and we deserve better leadership!

E15 may kill your car?

AAA issues warning on E15 gas - News - Tire Business - The Tire Dealer's No. 1 News Source:

Only about 12 million out of the more than 240 million light-duty vehicles on the roads today are approved by manufacturers to use E15 gasoline, based on a survey of auto manufacturers conducted by AAA. The group said its automotive engineering experts "also have reviewed the available research and believe that sustained use of E15 in both newer and older vehicles could result in significant problems, such as accelerated engine wear and failure, fuel-system damage and false 'check engine' lights for any vehicle not approved by its manufacturer to use E15." "It is clear that millions of Americans are unfamiliar with E15, which means there is a strong possibility that many motorists may improperly fill up using this gasoline and damage their vehicle," said AAA President & CEO Robert Darbelnet. "Bringing E15 to the market without adequate safeguards does not responsibly meet the needs of consumers."

"E15" (fuel which is 85% gasoline and 15% Ethanol) is dramatically different from "E10" .. gasoline which is 10% Ethanol and 90% gasoline).

The difference is, apparently, not minor.

If I understand this correctly, the main problem is that the 'E15' portion of fuel in your tank separates with time.  Eventually, the ethanol proportion becomes much more predominate, so you are are actually burning a much higher degree of ethanol than gasoline.

This (again, this is my understanding) means that vehicles made before 2012 cannot burn high-percentage Ethanol without damage to your engine.

In news reports (besides those published from the American Automible Association) we see headlines such as (from USA Today): "BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota and VW have said their warranties will not cover fuel-related claims caused by E15. Ford, Honda, Kia, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo have said E15 use will void warranties ... citing potential corrosive damage to fuel lines, gaskets and other engine components."

Why are these petroleum products being promulgated upon the American Public?  (Somebody please say "Nice Alliteration, Geek!)?

Because the Federal government strongly supports E15.

Disclaimer?  Ethanol producers strongly disclaims the claims because the claimants are biased.  (Okay, maybe I'm being just a little facetious here .. but just because I'm mean, that doesn't mean I'm Bad.)

Ethanol supporter-reaction to the AAA report warning consumers about E15 was swift, and included automotive expert Bobby Likis. “I’m both surprised and disappointed in the entire premise of the AAA E15 article in USA Today,” the car-talk host said in a statement. “In the 41 years I have been—and still am—hands-on in the diagnosis, service and repair of cars, I find the repeating of an already dispelled myth that E15 ruins engines distasteful and contrary to the results found in extensive EPA and university studies, as well as in my first-hand experience with over 175,000 cars that have rolled through my service shop. In 41 years, we have not diagnosed a single 'ruined' engine due to ethanol."

Here's what Fox Business has to say:


Me?  *_I_* don't know what's right.  I remember several years ago when the decision was made (by people we elected .. remember that?) to require us all to accept E10 (10 percent Ethanol/gasoline fuel) .. we were told ... 'do it for the environment, and because the only way we can get enough gasoline for all of us is to accept some 'natural' fuel elements to expand our fuel availability' ... we were also told that we would probably have to change all of our fuel filters because E10 would stir up the sediment of our fuel tanks.  To a degree.

So we're now all running on E10, and sediment is not a problem?

Is it true that now the problem is not the sediment clogging our fuel problems, but the degradation of mechanical components which may now be a problem if we are trying to burn 15% Ethanol?

Where will it end?

You know, I'm only mildly upset that the Federal Government is telling us that we "must" accept this new fuel standard.  We bitched about Ethanol years ago, and it didn't turn out to be so bad; does that mean that we should accept an 'escalation' of the Ethanol Standard?

Okay, forget that.  I'm old and cranky, and I tire easily .. especially when the effort to single-handedly rage against the predations of the Federal Government makes me look more like a Curmudgeon than the "Social Critic"  which I picture myself to be.

Umm .. no. On second thought, DON'T forget that.  I'm a cranky old man .. .make that "Cranky Old Man"! ... and my opinion may not be 'right' but I'm still entitled to my opinion.

Tell me, where in the Constitution does it say that the Feds get to tell me what kind of fuel I can/may/would/SHOULD poke into my gas tank?

(Nota Bene:  at this point, the discussion gets WAY beyond the original premise;  You Have Been Warned!)

The Left is pretty good about saying that the Constitution may be misinterpreted about the Second Amendment, but they have no objections to interpreting the Commerce Clause in any manner which best suits their political agenda.

Can't we do the same?

(Probably not .. which pisses me off to no end!)

But, other than the Leftist free-based interpretations, the constitution doesn't 'really' tell us what kind of fuel we must pour into our tank.  And it doesn't 'really'  tell us that the EPA can dictate to us.

Second Amendment:
On the other hand, the constitution doesn't apply to the 2nd amendment:  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

According to The Political Left, the Founding Fathers didn't envision "Assault Weapons", so we shouldn't accept Black Guns as being 'legitimate' because that refers to a Future Technology.  The Founding Fathers never envisioned high-capacity magazines as opposed to muskets which must be laboriously (and time/labor dependently) reloaded to facilitate even a second shot, let along 20+ shots as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Well, I think that E15 refers to "a Future Technology", too.   And the Feds don't have any right to mandate what kind of fuel we should/may/must use to fill the tanks of our motorcars .. which technology also did not exist in the 18th Century.

See .. the thing about the Political Left is that they feel that they are allowed to pick and choose which interpretations of the American Constitution they may use to advance their own political platforms.  So, they think that they can say "not 18th Century technology, does not apply, enough said" when the subject is firearms.  But when it applies to automobiles, they are entirely silent vis-a-vis Constitutional issues/priviliges/issues.

(When you started reading this, you didn't expect that I would turn the discussion from The Commerce Clause to the Second Amendment, did you?  I'm feeling just a little smug, here.)

I'm thinking .. we need to find some kind of  'meeting of the minds' where the Left and the Right agree which issues are applicable to the U.S. Constitution, and which do not.  No, I don't really expect that to happen, but it would be very nice is someone .. say, the Supreme Court ... would chip in here and say WAIT A MINUTE!

That IS covered by the Constitution.  It says what you can do, and ... gee! .. if it doesn't say you can do that, you cannot!

It seems to me that the Commerce Clause (intended to prevent imposition of trade between the states) is being over-worked by the Political Left.  As an example, it has been cited as a means to limit transfer of firearms, and (a failed attempt) to impose liabilities on firearms manufacturers when their product is used to commit crimes .... an onus which, by the way, is not imposed on automobiles which are also used to commit felonious crimes.

By now, you are probably wondering how I'm going to tie this all into a single neat knot.  Commerce clause v. Second Amendment.  E15 v AR15   Liberal v. Conservative interpretation of the Constitution.  Executive Branch v. Judicial Branch v. Legislative Branch of the Federal government.

The sad truth is .. I can't do that.

Oh, I COULD do that, using my own egocentric view of what I think the relative responsibilities should be between the branches of the government.  But in case you haven't  noticed, the Federal Government (and probably every governmental entity from President to Alderman) is composed of  [ptahhhh!] Politicians.  All they want is to be re-elected.  Giving us the finest form of government possible is not only not their primary priority, it doesn't even show up on their electoral horizon.

This E15 issue is really 'small potatoes' for our elected representatives. It only matters to "The Little Man" who just wants to full up his tank without breaking his car.

Suppose you tell me how much faith you have in YOUR elected representative, at any level, really cares whether his administrative fiat breaks your car?

The reasonable answers vary between "Oh, I think my political leaders REALLY care!" to "Fuck All".

Actually, I don't think there's much to be considered in the Mediocre Middle.

PS:
The definition of Curmudgeon is:  "a bad-tempered, difficult, cantankerous person.".  The definition makes no distinction between one who is entitled to be bad-tempered in opposition to the imposition of unrealistic administrative fiat, and one who is consistently and unrealistically oppose to being told what to do  .. even if the "what to do" part is objectively realistic.

I became a curmudgeon the day I first learned that "no gun zones" were typically imposed on public meeting places; a condition which eventually became endemic to mass murders.  The only relationship between "E15" and "Assault Weapons" is that E15, which is patently bad for us, is mandated.

Do the math.

UPDATE: January 7, 2013:
See the comments.  The question is not why the Federal Government needs to introduce :"feel good" legislation in response to every social situation that catches their attention.

The question is why the Federal Government is performing it's constitutionally mandated responsibilities by simply enacting more laws which restrict our rights as citizens.

Go back and read the Constitution.  And think again about the question stated earlier:
" ... we need to find some kind of  'meeting of the minds' where the Left and the Right agree which issues are applicable to the U.S. Constitution, and which do not."

Jack Reacher

Tom Cruise in Jack Reacher


"Funny ... I thought you would be taller."

I've been reading Lee Child books since "The Killing Floor".   I often wonder how the author can keep the 'franchise' going, but I'm never disappointed.  As is the case with Vince Flynn's "Mitch Rapp" series, the author seems always able to maintain the impetus ... somehow.

I think the secret is that each author has defined his iconic character so thoroughly that their readers know what to expect and they are never disappointed.

The late (and sorely missed) author John D. McDonald scored similarly with his "Travis McGee" series, and in 1983 one of his novels was made into a movie starred Sam Elliot (who in 1979 co-starred with Tom Selleck .. see below .. in "The Sacketts") in a thoroughly believable character.   Elliot LOOKED like he could outsmart and out-tough anyone he came across ... maybe that's why he was so believable playing opposite Patrick Swayze in "Roadhouse"?  (Note that as late as 2011, people were still trying to make movies out of Travis McGee novels.)

 Robert B. Parker ("Spenser For Hire", "Jesse Stone") was able to establish characters who were successfully translated to television series not once, but twice.  True, Robert Urich seemed a bit baby-faced for the part of Spenser, but his inimitably playful style translated wonderfully well the late-20th century "neo-Tec" persona of Parker's deranged dreams.  And casting Tom Selleck as Jesse Stone?  (Note that The Jessee Stone" series seems to be losing popularity; Selleck bought rights to the whole series before Parker died, and he's  the one who is not only starring in and producing the series but will finally decide when ... or if .. to pull the plug.)  Frankly, Selleck has always looked a little "lost" to my eye.   Works for me!

But .. Tom CRUISE as the 6'4" Reacher?

From a movie review:

When it was announced that Cruise had been cast to play Reacher - who is described as being 6’5” - many fans of the books voiced their displeasure as how could an actor who is almost a foot shorter  pull off the role, including us. But we were pleasantly surprised by Cruise’s portrayal. While he did miss the mark on a number of Reacher’s mannerisms, he still offers a decent enough performance once you get past the slight ego that creeps in every now and then.

Okay, I may actually go see the movie, just to get a better perspective on the finished product.  I admit to being at least dubious about it.  I was able to accept Mark Wahlberg as Bob Lee Swagger in a bowdlerized version of "Point of Impact" in "The Shooter" (I even bought the DVD), so I guess I can manage to watch "Jack Reacher" as long as I am careful to avoid attending the movie too soon after I have eaten a full meal.  I don't promise not to hurl, but I'll try.
 ...

Actually, whenever I find an author who has the guts and the stamina to produce a viable series of novels, I inevitably begin to wonder how it would play in a movie.  That's probably the reason why I am more accepting than I (in my curmudgeonly mood) am dismissive when I hear that one of 'my' authors has allowed his work to be filmed.  I am certain that the movie or television series will not be true to the originals, and I am prepared to be disappointed.   A teen-age girl may accept a blind date from a guy she expects to be a total nerd; she's still thrilled to be asked out.  In that way,  I'm so pleased that someone has agreed with me that the stories are worthy of an interpretation, I don't mind all that much that their vision may turn out to be entirely different from mine.

In passing, I may note that the "Spenser For Hire" television-movie series was written so closely to the original novels that I'm determined to believe it's not impossible to do a workable movie directly from a book.

I just try hard not to expect it.

Okay?  Have I eaten enough crow?

So, let's talk about how Hollywood is going to screw up the entire Mitch Rapp series!

"American Assassin"   as a book, and as a movie.

Who's going to play Mitch Rapp?

 Thor?

As of November 9, 2012, that's not going to happen.   Cris Hemsworth turned down the role.  This project is so tentative that they can't even find anyone to play him.  When I read the series, I'm thinking 24 hours star  Kiefer Southerland.  The trouble is,  although this book came out in 2010, it was a 'flashback' of Rapp's entry into the Assassination Biz, which means that the character must be played by an actor who is believably being recruited out of college.  That means that the actor must be young; which in turn suggests this is the reason why this particular Mitch Rapp story was chosen --- to appeal to a younger audience.

I can't wait to see how Bruce Willis fits into the story; I'm not familiar with his character (well, he's the guy who trains Mitch and is shown up and put down in the process), so I guess my next thing is to re-read the book, THEN go see the movie.  Although, it might be better if I see the movie first;  I may be less disappointed if I'm not fixated on how "it ought to look".

The plan for now is to wait until I know more about the lead, so I can feel more comfortable expounding on the many reasons why he is entirely unsuitable for the role.    [Yes, that is a joke.  It's not easy being me.]

So many books, so many movies, so little time.
It's probably a good thing that I'm retired.

PS:
If you aren't familiar with either Lee Child or Vince Flynn (or John D. McDonald or Robert B. Parker .. .both of whom will be writing no more books), here's my recommendation in a two-step sobriety format:

1. Watch the movie first
2. Then buy, and read, the books.  Don't cheat; don't borrow them from the library. Feed the author, buy the books if only to encourage them to write more of 'em.

Unless you just cannot afford it, always buy the books; they're cheap  enough in paperback or from used-book stores (or yechy Kindal) and eventually you may find that you .... as I do .. will be pre-ordering the hardbounds before they're actually published.  There's something immensely satisfying about holding a brand new just-published book and knowing that all of your friends, family and co-workers are counting on you to read it quickly so you can loan it to them.

Then .. make them buy their own damn books.  

Feed the author!

PPS:  why buy books?  So you can re-read them any time you want to.

PPPS:  if it's a new book, put in a request to your local library for the book.  That way, they'll buy more books and feed the author even more ... and encourage more people to read and eventually buy the books --- and feed the author.

"Man, you guys are STRICT!

How the Corvallis police charged $952 for a loud party:

On Wednesday, Aug. 8, the Corvallis Police Department received a loud party complaint for an apartment on Southwest Leonard Street.

The police report noted that the department had experienced previous problems at that address. The officer parked one block away and heard the sound of loud music and thumping bass. Voices could be heard above the sound of the music. The officer was 300 feet away.

It was 11:24 p.m. Officers would remain at that site for nearly four hours, interviewing witnesses and neighbors and arresting four people in the apartment.

At the end of the night, the party had racked up a bill from the police for $952.65.

I live in a college town.  I sleep with my window open.  Almost all of the residences in my neighborhood are rentals.  And on New Year's Eve the parties were in full swing by 8pm, running until almost 5am.

Since I didn't expect to sleep well, I turned on the fan in my window to help blot out at least some of the noise. 

Really boring, except that I had noticed this article in the local paper ten days ago and I've been hanging onto it today so I could drag it out as background for the expected story about how my neighbors kept me awake all night.

Guess what?  By 3am, it was quiet in my neighborhood!  I don't know whether my neighborhood Student Princes read the story and were scared off, or if they're just more mature (or more wimpy) than those of previous years.

On Cinco de Mayo a few years ago .. which fell on a Thursday ... I actually paid a visit to a neighbor who lived in the one-floor apartment complex just over my back fence.  There were teenagers dancing in the parking lot, fighting, the doors to the 'host' apartment were wide open and the music was playing at full volume.  Mariachi music .. unsafe at any speed!

I found the host; he was a patriotic Mexican citizen and about twice my size.  Also, very drunk.  When I identified myself as his neighbor, and asked him to PLEASE quiet down the party because I had to be at work the morning (and I needed some sleep!), he started puffing up.  He looked like he was going to throw a punch, until his girl-friend pointed out that I was paying him the courtesy of asking him, instead of just phoning the police.   She talked him down, the party went back inside, and although it was still loud the noise was at least muffled.  I could live with that.
 
There was a moment there when I actually regretted my decision NOT  to carry when I went to 'visit my neighbor'.  (Two days later he woke up the neighborhood at 5am playing "El Deguello".  I ignored it.  He moved out the next month, at the end of the term.   Too much partying to maintain his GPA?  I never knew.)

That was the last time I ever actually paid a call on my neighbors.  I realized that when a party gets that far out of control, a Good Neighbor policy isn't always appreciated.

In fact, this town has a separate phone number for 'loud party' calls, just to keep their 911 line clear.

Judging from this article, I'm not the only resident who has learned that it's better to call the police than to be what might be considered "confrontational".  Perhaps we permanent residents are just getting old.  Or wiser.

(Actually, the police policy isn't all that strict. It's applied when a resident has a VERY loud party, they've been visited by the police more than once 'recently' for similar reasons, and there are extenuating factors such as minors present ... especially if the minors are drinking.  Then the hosts are billed for police salaries, use of police cars, and other city services.)
__________________________________________________

I DO remember when I was one of those students who were either hosting or attending parties.  It was a long time ago.  Great memories of young girls dancing The Frug and vomiting on the patio while people were jumping full-dressed into the pool.  My landlady wasn't happy with me, but I did clean up the mess in the morning and the neighbors didn't complain.  Maybe I was a wimpy student?

But it was a learning experience for me.
I haven't mixed soft drinks with alcohol since 1967.  I had thought it would keep me from getting drunk; instead, it just made me sick to my stomach.  Any drink that tastes better going down than it does coming back up is A Bad Idea.

I know:  Too Much Information.

Mayan Joke

One Mayan shows another his new batch of tequila and encourages him to drop what he's doing and drink some.

 

The other Mayan says, "Sure - I guess if I don't finish this calendar it won't be the end of the world..."

(Thanks and a HatTip to The G-Man)

Whew!
So .. I guess 2012 really IS only the end of the Mayan calendar, and not necessarily TEOTWAWKI.

The good news is ... well, see above.

The bad news is .. I hope nobody ever actually DRANK the kool-aid!

(Ordinarily, this would be a cue for me to research and write a Geek-Length essay about people who suicided based on their doomsday beliefs.  EG: Johnstown  and those flying-saucer believers.   But then I found that the "Heaven's Gate" webpage is still active online, and I decided that I'll just let you go there if you want to.)

For myself, I've always wanted to know what tomorrow brings, and I can't wait to see it.

On these days when the world does NOT end .. wow!  I'm really pleased about this.  I actually bought the movie 2012 to see what it might look like, and discovered that the first part is much more interesting than the last part.

CAMDEN, N.J. - Is the Latest City Asking Its Residents to Voluntarily Surrender Their Firearms for Cash | TheBlaze.com

This Is the Latest City Asking Its Residents to Voluntarily Surrender Their Firearms for Cash | TheBlaze.com:

TheBlaze previously reported on the gun buyback program conducted by the city of Camden, N.J., where residents turned in about 1,137 guns — a new record for the city. Now, in New York, the Ithaca Police Department and Tompkins County Sheriff’s Office are asking their residents to give up their guns to decrease the number of guns on the streets, the Post-Standard reports.

“The goal of the program is to remove unwanted guns from our community before they fall into the hands of those that may do harm,” a law enforcement source said.
The purpose of the buyback program is apparently to encourage Americans to voluntarily surrender their guns in exchange for immediate cash, including as much as $200 for some semi-automatic rifles.

 Oh, DO go to the comments section to see what people in the area think about this!  My own personal take is .. oh dear, are you next going to give up your right to write letters to your grandchildren?

People who think that the Second Amendment should be abrogated .. or outright deleted .. would be "Up In Arms" if the same restrictions were applied to their right to SPEAK. 

Oh, but "Up In Arms" wouldn't be valid any more, would it?

I guess most folks don't realize that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is supported .. and made feasible .. by the Second Amendment.

When I was a child, there was a movement (not locally, but it only affected me that way) for children to turn in  their comic books which were violent, in return for more "acceptable" books.  I tried to take advantage of the program (I've talked about this before) but unfortunately they were all out of dinosaur books so I took all my Rin Tin Tin and Roy Rogers comic books back home.  (I know, I have written about this before.)
 In later years, I bought my OWN fricking Rinny and Roy books .. and kept the comic books I already owned.  Some of them .. like the Lone Ranger comics .. had been given to me by my sister for Christmas.  In later years, I lost track of them; but I never lost track of how glad I was that I didn't give them up for some stupid dinosaurs who didn't do nothing!

This 'gun trade-in for toaster ovens' movement is nothing better.  Some people decided that what I had wasn't politically acceptable, so they offer valueless trivia from China in return for .... whatever.  When I was a child, comic books were as valuable to me as firearms are today.  Junkers, or important tools; a part of American History or stuff that I didn't really want or need any more.  It's all the same.  It's more valuable to ME than it is to them, except for the 'this is bad stuff' iconicism to which they ascribe my 'stuff'.

I fell for it fifty years ago (okay, a little bit further back than fifty years), but I couldn't be persuaded today.

I can't tell you how  the families of New Jersey are responding to this offer, but I strongly advise you to go look at the comments.  Most of the folks talking about this are from "out of town".  Still, their voice needs to be heard:

"The goal of the program is to remove unwanted guns from our community before they fall into the hands of those that may do harm,””……I call B.S….The goal is to disarm the public PERIOD…"

and ...
 

This is all I need to know about gun control: our FOUNDERS were FOR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS – TYRANTS AND DESPOTS Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Obama ARE AGAINST. I don’t own a gun, don’t want a gun – but I darn sure want every law abiding citizen to be able to fully exercise their right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Constitution.
The left has an agenda to drive this culture in a direction designed to destroy it. Gun control is just one of their weapons. The cadre of intellectuals that have trained Gramsci shock troops of teachers and media hacks to take this which was a Judeo/Chrsitan culture down from within…
Things are much more duplicitous then either you know or you admit:

and ....

Ummm. Prosecution from what? They could turn their guns in without fear of prosecution? Sounds like a call to criminals. Yep. You get a pass on murder. You got a gun you killed someone with? No Problem! We’ll take care of it for you! We don’t want you, we want responsible gun owners. They scare us!… Gird your loins, people. Take on the armor of God. These people are nuts

and ..
  

They state the guns owned by law abiding citizens will eventually end up in the hands of criminals. The only way mine will is if I’m dead. I guess they believe the criminals are going to prevail. Hunh. Think about that.

Yup, this sounds like a successful gun buy-back program; just like every other "successful gun buy-back program" ever promulgated in the most sorrowful states.

This sounds SO "progressive" to the Liberals, but they don't have a clue how it looks to the participants. Got a murder gun?  Sell it!  Got Papa's old POS pistol?  Sell it.  It's not like they will ever be used again, and nobody is about to track the tuns anyway.   Don't have a gun? Steal one!  Sell it. No pain; you'll steal two and sell one.  Piece of cake!

I swear, these people just don't have a single clue about how the Real World works.  They have these pie-in-the-sky notions, and they think that everybody is honest.  "It's my grandfather's gun" they claim ... and they are believed.

Yeah, like your grandfather bought that Glock 17 because it was a War Memorial.

What a bunch of maroons!

Obama gun ban list leaked

Report: Obama gun ban list leaked - Virginia Beach Conservative | Examiner.com:

On Monday, Alan Korwin, 2nd Amendment activist and author of Gun Laws of America, published a preliminary list of firearms and firearms accessories to be included in the yet-to-be announced, but much anticipated new version of the so-called Assault Weapons Ban.

The chief sponsor of the last ban, Sen. Diane Feinstein is said to be crafting new legislation now, which, if passed, President Obama would undoubtedly sign.

(The list is published as part of the original Virginia Beach Conservative article ... see the link at the beginning of this post.   Korwin's "Gun Laws of America" is available from Amazon here. )

In the immortal words of William Bendix, in "The Life Of Riley" television show in the 1960's:

"What a revoltin' development this is!"

This is not entirely a surprise, of course, to those of us who never expected anything less from this administration.

Oh the other hand, the word is that (in at least early versions), is that there will be no "Grandfather Clause".  It won't be "you can't buy these guns", but "you can't OWN these guns". Or magazine, ammunition, accessories  .. whatever.

For IPSC competitors, for example, it might be "no compensators".  Never mine magazine capacity over 10 rounds.   Any gun that can take a compensator might be modified to take a 'silencer'.

Compensation for confiscated firearms?  We can hope for the best, but expect the worst.  As Canada has already demonstrated, it's a multi-BILLION dollar proposition to compensate owners for confiscated firearms.   It would be "in the best interest of the American economy" to refuse compensation for confiscated guns.  (Not that this administration has demonstrated much respect for National Indebtedness .. witness the Health Care Bill ... but if this is accomplished by fiat there is no reason why the the general American Public wouldn't consider this sort of draconian measure to be "more acceptable" if they were sure it wouldn't cost them anything.)

Don't worry any more about The Gun Show Loophole; no "private-to-private" transfers; that's on the block.  No 'giving' guns to your children.

I hope that I'm being unnecessarily phobic here, but the sad fact is that Business in America  (I'm not talking about "Big Business"; the small businesses have been threatened even more by an erratic Federal leadership) has learned that we cannot rely on a reasonable, consistent administration of Federal regulations. Not for the next four years, at least.   I was never all that fond of Mitt Romney, but at least if he had been elected we wouldn't have been forced to cope with an out-of-control, Lame Duck President.

Who knows what tomorrow will bring?  I sure don't  It's a sad commentary when we no longer distrust our government.  Today, too many Americans fear our government.

PS:  
Oh, you think maybe I AM being too negative?  Take a look at this video!   The liberals .. and I'm talking about Members of Congress ... are gloating over the prospect of imposing "REASONABLE Gun Controls"!  



And they're not at all worried about .. or listening to ... any introduction of a contradictory point of view.

Still not convinced that the Gun Grabbers are determined to take these recent tragedies and run with them?

Even on Conservative news panels, there is emphatic, sincere, emotional controversy:
It's a joy to me, to watch calm, measured discussion on a topic which has such a powerful effect on our nation. Fortunately, we have George Will .. to whom nobody actually listens. It's sad, when one quiet man can calmly observe that (regardless of the good will of the common man): "Things like this are going to happen."




Not that I believe he will influence anyone who doesn't already believe as he does.