It was just a matter of time until "open carry" demonstrators became indistinguishable from mass murderers

Colorado Springs mayor has no 'appetite for' changing city's open-carry law:
November 06, 2015

Officers didn't respond until after the first shots rang out at 8:55 a.m.

At 8:55 a.m., Harpham gunned down a passing bicyclist, Andrew Alan Myers, 35. Officers were then told to stop what they were doing and respond.
Armed with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a .357 revolver and a 9mm pistol, Harpham continued the rampage. He killed Jennifer Vasquez, 42 and Christy Galella, 35, before dying in a shootout with Colorado Springs police.

How does a LEO know when an "open carry" fanatic is discovered to be a potential "mass murder"?
Answer, He doesn't.

"You legalize it to be OK to carry a gun - and the hard part of that is it only takes moments to level the barrel of a gun and shoot someone," Jackson said. "So these weapons are there legally. Many people can legally carry them. And sometimes really bad things happen."

Exactly.

This is just one of the reasons why I don't appreciate people abusing the "open carry" law, which they seem to do for the sole purpose of performing "in your face" demonstrations.

Or, in other words:  "I do this, because I can, and you can't stop me."

It's impossible for a LEO to know the difference between a protester, and a murderer, until the blood runs in the gutters.

That's not acceptable.

Guys, I understand that the new laws make it permissible to "open carry" but you have a responsibility to your community.  "Making a legal point" is no excuse for creating a disturbance.

 Legitimate  "Open Carry" was not evolved so you could prance around with a rifle on your shoulder; it was created so that you could just do normal "stuff".  Deliberately flaunting firearms is not the way to convince "other people" that you are a responsible gun-owner

And so, when a certifiable maniac shows up looking exactly like a "right to carry protester", there is no way for police to tell the difference between a capering protester (like you) and a legitimate threat to public safety.

"Right To Carry" demonstrators are no longer just making the rest of the law-abiding firearms owners look bad.

They (YOU!) have muddied the waters so thoroughly that innocents are being killed without the police protection they deserve, because YOU  (Yes, YOU!) have generated an environment where a murderer looks just like you.

So, I'm asking you to down-grade your rhetoric; because you're not making things better, you're making things worse.

If you were the kind of people that I enjoy sharing range-time with, I would not have to spell it out to you like this.

But you're not.  You don't even realize how your political activities make it easier for a mass murderer to hid himself among the smoke-screen you create, so he can do the things which you would never do; which is to say, he can murder people because folks think he's just another over-toe-top protester:

"You legalize it to be OK to carry a gun - and the hard part of that is it only takes moments to level the barrel of a gun and shoot someone," Jackson said. "So these weapons are there legally. Many people can legally carry them. And sometimes really bad things happen."

You're a bunch of idiots with guns, and even *_I_* don't want to be associated with you!

The Supreme Court: What Will They Do? (Firearms capacity Limitations)

If  the supreme court decides that the states have the right to limit firearms capacity limitations, then what limits ARE acceptable?

Some states/communities are saying that they will not allow magazines which allow more than  rounds; some say "more than 10 rounds".

So which is right, and why?  Can (should!) states have the right to limit the magazine capacity of ANY firearm in their sphere of influence.  And if so, why?
And if SO ... how many rounds is "okay", and if one more round is in the magazine, what is the appropriate punishment for flaunting the Law of the Land?

Or is that crap any more reasonable than any other arbitrary law which will have no effect on Crime in the City!

POINT 1:

Several issues are on the SCOTUS venue for the coming judicial year (which always starts in October), and those with the highest profiles often consider Firearm Rights.

*(Also sometimes referred to as "impositions on the Second Amendment" cases.)

One of the most common applications of the Second Amendment is whether the various states have the RIGHT to impose restrictions on magazine capacity.

I am not certain how the Supreme Court of the United States can rule on this issue, given  the confusing matrix of state and local laws in reference to magazine capacity.

It's not so much the number of rounds which may be contained in a "legal" magazine, but the secondary laws which include unrealistic limitations.

One of my personal favorites is the genre of laws which render fire-arms "illegal" if they violate any law which looks something like this:

• Accepts a magazine which may contain more than 8 (eight) rounds of ammunition ..

or

• Accepts a magazine which may contain more than 10 (ten) rounds of ammunition .

Do you see the issue?  In their rush to forbid any firearm by introducing secondary and inconsequential characteristics, Gun-Control Moonbats completely ignore the physical characteristics of firearms, and assume that (for example) a pistol which will accept a 7-round magazine will not accept an 8-round magazine.  

(The example, of course, holds true for a 10-round magazine, for any firearms in which the magazine is not fully-enclosed when the firearm is in a 'firing' configuration.)

In other words, these highly-trained, college-educated Lawyers who constitute our State and National lawmakers are so ignorant that they do not realize that the laws they propose are impossible to obey.

OR ... ARE THEY?

If such "Magazine-Capacity Limits" laws are accepted and enacted, the various states (or the whole nation, if the verbiage is accepted in Federal Court), then any firearm which accepts ANY magazine length will immediately become regulated by a standard which does not necessarily apply to them.

So if you 1911 was originally constructed with the magazine designs of 1911, and only 'expects' a 7-round magazine, that does not protect it from the Gun Grabbers.

In fact, recent magazine follower designs have made the 8-round version equally acceptable to the 1911 Single-Stack pistol as the original 7-round magazine.

Extended magazines (such as the popular Chip McCormick design) would as easily alloy 10-magazines to feed quite as easily into almost any 1911 Single-stack frame.  And they magazines and the frame would both be illegal under proposed Gun Control Rules.

POINT 2:

It's hard to tell about Lawyers:

Are they ignorant, ill-informed, crafty, disingenuous, misinformed, confused, or merely the lying bags o'shit which they seem to be.  These four things are clear:

1. laws are often directed by congressmen
2. congressmen are lawyers who couldn't make it in the legal field
3. If you assume that Lawyers who draft laws  do not understand the nuances of the subject, they will hand you your ass and smile smugly all the while
4. There is no Number 4

SUMMARY:

Do not, ever, accept a law which include "magazine limitations" as any part .. even a minor part .. of the law.  The number is arbitrary, it doesn't mean a DAMN thing to anybody but the lawyers, and as soon as you accept a number (ANY number!) then you can be quite certain that someone will come up with a "new number" ...  which doesn't seem significantly different from the "old number" ... and they whittle your gun rights down to "ONE ROUND" sooner or later.

Probably sooner.

POINT 3:

HOW do you deal with a seemingly reasonable proposal from your local legislators .. City, County, State .. whatever)?

FIRST:  they are lying about their agenda.

The people who want to take your guns away (don't believe that isn't what they want to do; they just realize that it's a steep hill and they will take one step at a time to undermine YOUR constitutional rights) will say anything to meet your goal.

They have an advantage over you.  They can say anything; you are restricted by the truth.

There are many truths.  For example, when they bring up the issue of 

"we license cars, why shouldn't we license guns"

.... cars are not protected in the constitution; guns are.

SECOND:  They will undermine your agenda

Politicians seem to be genetically obliged to make laws.  It's how they justify their existance.  Every time they make a law which restricts your 2nd Amendment Rights, you should look very carefully at the law.

Does it make sense?  What is the purpose?  Does it seem designed to make people "feel Safe"?  (NOT a constitutional requirement!)

Look at the records of the legislators who have made a LOT of laws.  Note that the laws they make are usually designed to prevent you or others from doing ... "something".  If that "something" isn't already prevented, or if it's a Constitutional right, then assume it's a Stalking Horse and kill it!

THIRD:   They will chide you for being so reluctant to accept "reasonable, common-sense" rules

There are no "common-sense" rules, or laws, when it comes to the Second Amendment.  

"Shall Not Be Infringed" means that if you are a legal citizen of the country and someone proposes a law which will affect (adversely) your ownership of a firearm ... AND THE AMMUNITION NEEDED TO FUEL IT ... then it's not constitutional and you have no obligation to obey it.

The Supreme Court will rule on these laws, if they are called upon to accept the onus and if they choose to address the issue.  Under extreme pressure from state or local government, you may be obliged to determine whether your constitutional right will be locally recognized.  Yes, there are police and sheriff departments which are unclear about what their duties to the public entail.

PLEASE NOTE: there is a movement in this country involving people who understand their constitutional rights, and they have already decided that they WILL NOT COMPLY to "local (unconstitutional) laws which limit their rights.  See Colorado

If you decide to exercise your Constitutional Rights even though they conflict with local laws, then you may be subject to local prosecution.  You may fight that prosecution; you may lose.

WILL NOT COMPLY:  Firearm owners have already stated the the "Will Not Comply" with local firearms laws in the following states:

• New York
• Oregon
• Oh hell, look up the other states yourself.  I suggest you start with Colorado, ok?

The thing about INSURRECTION is that law enforcement officers are reluctant to do house-intrusions on people with whom the often have philosophical agreement, and who are not REALLY being a threat to peace and law in their community.

They just don't want to abide to unconstitutional and arbitrary laws.

And in some cases, are willing to respond to aggression with aggression.  Which NOBODY WANTS!

Obama: “I bet when I die you’ll be happy to pee on my grave”

Obama: “I bet when I die you’ll be happy to pee on my grave”:

This is a true story.
General Stanley McChrystal was the Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan and he had frequent disagreements on the conduct of the war with his Commander-in-Chief. At one point McChrystal was called into the Oval Office and he knew his Army career was about to be over.

This is not a true story.  I only include it here to demonstrate the kind of made-up trash we need to wade through before we find news-worthy content.

This article does not meet the smell-test.

Hello! You don't have a right to "feel safe". You have a right to "protect yourself"!

The Equality Argument For Gun Control Jacob Schuman:

The fact is, the widespread availability of guns is a significant, but often overlooked, cause of persistent inequality in the United States. Focusing on the relationship between guns and inequality will allow gun control advocates to argue that restricting firearm access is an essential step towards achieving social justice and economic empowerment.

Jacob, where in the Constitution of the United States do you find "the right to feel safe"?

That seems to be what you are arguing for.

The Second Amendment acknowledges your God given right to protect yourself, your family, your home, your property.   What else are you asking for?

The first way that guns drive inequality is by making life more violent and less stable for people living in economically disadvantaged communities. Crime rates, especially violent crime rates, are higher in poorer neighborhoods. While this is true across the world, and is likely to remain so, open access to firearms in the United States makes these crimes easier to commit, more lethal, and more destructive of community life.

"Economically disadvantaged communities" are poor neighborhoods.  Single-parent households, no "father figure" present, mothers raising children and trying to earn a living (or dependent on "aid to dependent children" income, which financially awards unwed mothers).

These aren't indicators of inequality; these are indicators of a societal factor which accepts governmental dependency.   It has NOTHING to do with the presence of firearms, except that young men in these dependent conditions are faced with no job alternatives other than crime; they see the people driving big cars, and they are the people with guns.

Because poor people cannot afford guns; they need to eat.

'Smart guns' may not work fast enough for some, expert says. Michigan reports!

'Smart guns' may not work fast enough for some, expert says - WNEM TV 5:
(November 02, 2015)

 The Gun Store owner Bob Irwin said some police officers have holsters available to them with fingerprint technology, but many don’t use them because they can be unreliable. Irwin said the technology may not work fast enough in a life or death situation if the hand is sweaty, bloody or covered while using a glove. “There’s all sorts of things that technology doesn’t allow for in the chaos of self-defense,” Irwin said.

This is terrific news!

No .. not the news that "smart guns" are about as smart as "smart phones" (we already knew that, and it's a canard on the word "smart"), but that a Saginaw Michigan news channel has picked up a FOX5 newsfeed from Reno and are running the story on their website.

Must be a slow newsday in Michigan.

Oh.  Michigan. Right.  Never mind.   They love ANY story that doesn't come out of Detroit!

Bad Judgement

Woman Who Bought Gun for Cop Killer Gets 1 Yr Probation:
(November 06,2015)

 On November 2 Obama-nominated U.S. District Judge Eleanor L. Ross gave one year probation to a woman who admitted buying a gun for her boyfriend, which he later used to shoot and kill Omaha Police Officer Kerrie Orozco.

One assumes that the charge was lying on the BATF form.

Why wasn't she charged with (a) being an accomplice to murder, or at least (b) negligent homicide by proxy.   (Okay, I made that last one up.)

Compare this to the usual Liberal pap which insists that firearms manufacturers should be legally responsible for murders caused by the RETAIL purchasers of firearms the manufacturer sold to a retail dealer.

Honestly, the Gun Control arena is becoming so complicated it's sometimes difficult to tell the right from the left.

Zero Tolerance for T-shirts in Oregon: Rivrdog

My friend Rivrdog is protesting a Porland, Oregon school district decision which sent a studtnt home for wearing a shirt ".. with Battlefleld Cross .." on it.

Nom de plume: Rivrdog: Back to School:

Back to School ...back to the School Board, that is... The Gresham/Barlow School District, which sent a student home for wearing a t-shirt with the Battlefield Cross on it, is meeting tonight. Yours truly will put on a coat and tie, my Oregon Honorable Service Medal, and sortie out to remind said School Board what Citizenship means. 

The story is available on video here!   *(Sorry, direct link not immediately available)

See here\ for commentary.

An eighth-grader was sent home from school for wearing a t-shirt honoring fallen troops—because it had a gun on it.
The principal at Dexter McCarty Middle School in Gresham, Ore., gave Alan Holmes a choice: Remove the shirt, which bore the message "‘Standing for Those Who Stood for Us," or leave school.
His father came to pick him up.
"They won't let me wear a shirt that supports the people that keep us free, I'm not gonna support them," Alan said.
Alan's family stood by his decision and his father said he would have done the same thing.

Good for him.  I'm not sure I would have demonstrated such courage when I was his age.

NRA enters debate on gun shows at fairgrounds

NRA enters debate on gun shows at fairgrounds:
(November 05, 2015)

NASHVILLE — The nation’s largest lobbying organization for gun rights has come to the aid of gun shows held at Nashville’s city-owned fairgrounds as the events draw greater scrutiny from the board that manages the property.

[Hat Tip: Say Uncle]

In Nashville ..... NASHVILLE!!???? ... the board of directors for the fairgrounds is contemplating the feasibility of eliminating gun shows on Country property.

There is no proposal to halt gun shows at the Nashville’s fairgrounds — however, fair board commissioner Kenny Byrd has suggested that a communitywide discussion take place to see whether the public wants to continue gun shows on property that belongs to Metro. That push comes amid proposed regulations floated by he and other fair commissioners they say are aimed at safety.

Well, they've been hosting gun shows for 3 decades and never had a problem.  But ....

On Tuesday Byrd criticized Bill Goodman’s Gun and Knife Shows for its policy of not allowing cameras and media at its events and demanded that it be overhauled.

He also grilled David Goodman, who manages the gun show, for what Byrd called objectionable paraphernalia he learned has been sold at Goodman's gun shows at the fairgrounds. They include stickers that read, “Keep America Free: Shoot a liberal,” and a T-shirt that features the Confederate flag alongside the words, “Defending freedom since 1861.”

“That’s not family-friendly events,” Byrd said. “I’m a liberal. I don’t want to be shot … and I don’t want you selling stuff with that message."

I was shocked .... SHOCKED! ... when I read that Byrd turned out to be a liberal.

Could it be that Commissioner Byrd was not as concerned with the safety of the general public, but more with the safety of Commissioner Byrd's precious self?   So much for representing The People.

“There’s things going on (at these gun shows) that this board would not appreciate,” Byrd said. “And we can’t come in and record a video or take pictures of what’s going on. That needs to change right there.”

Welcome to 1984, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Big Brother.

Something like this occurred several years ago here in Benton County, Oregon.

Unarmed Defense against an Armed Attacker: a last-ditch solution

I've watched a lot of videos on YouTube where an "instructor" teaches "students" to disarm an attacker who is pointing a gun at them.

Do you believe that the techniques being taught there are going to save your live?

No, I don't either.  Perhaps they are better than 'doing nothing', but I'm not sure about that either.

What DOES concern me is that there are some gentle folks who watch these videos, and say to themselves: "Okay, got it.  I'm now prepared to defend myself against an armed attacker" ...

... and that's as far as they go.  They haven't done anything physically to prepare themselves, but they saw this guy slap the gun out of the hand of this other guy, and it looks easy to them.  So they don't have to do anything more constructive than watch a movie.

BREAK:
What the French Train Attack Doesn’t Prove | chrishernandezauthor:
(August 25, 2015)

 I’m a cop and I’ve always got a gun; if I’m minding my own business in a convenience store and a criminal with a pistol suddenly comes around the corner, and is within arm’s reach, the best thing to do is probably attempt to disarm him before he can shoot me. I’ll go for my gun eventually, but the first priority is to get control of the criminal’s gun. THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT’S ALWAYS BEST TO GO HAND-TO-HAND AGAINST A GUN. It just means that not every situation is the same, and sometimes you don’t have time to go for a weapon. In almost every incident where unarmed people took down an armed murderer, it was because they had no other options. It wasn’t because they were better off unarmed.

Okay, posit this:
I watched the move "Jeremiah Johnson" eight times, and now I'm fully prepared to live through Rocky Mountain Winters for decades by trapping beavers and carrying a percussion cap rifle.

 ("But by Gawd it were a Hawkins!")

Okay, posit this:

Election 2016: Dem Pols Vie for #1 Gun-Grabber Honors

Following Hillary Clinton's "Australian Solution" speech, not one but TWO Democrats have gone on record as being aggressively "Pro Gun Control".

Apparently, they are the first to firmly grasp the horns of the anti-gun Bull.  While Democrats have avoided Gun Control since what's-his-name (you do remember The Loser Al Gore?) lost his presidential bid when even his home state of Tennessee voted against him, apparently Hillary has made it popular again.

No more is Gun Control the Kiss of Death for politicians.   Maybe.

Fighting it out for the honor of being the leader in anti-gun legislation leading up to the 2016 election year are  Charles Schumer and Martin O'Mally.

These guys are nucking futs!  But their politics SOUND good, if you don't look too closely at what they actually say.

So, you think you know everything there is to know about the 1911?

Quiz: How well do you know the M1911 Pistol? - Guns & Ammo:

I have been shooting the 1911 for the past 50+ years, and I thought I knew everything that was important about the iconic semi-automatic pistol frame.

As it happens, I was wrong.

VERY wrong; I got 3 out of ten questions wrong.

Go ahead, take the test.  You may discover that you're as ignorant as I am!

Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away!

Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away - The Daily Beast:

 Why don’t gun-control advocates like Hillary Clinton talk about the one gun control solution that could actually fix the firearms problem in America?

Sometimes I love The Daily Beast, sometimes I hate it.  But you got to admit, there's often content that makes you go .... "Hmmmmmm ...."

Contributor James Kirchick  (herein: "The Author") uses big words that I had to look up to examine why Total Confiscation Of All Guns would be the ideal "solution" to the "Gun Control Problem",

But it will probably never happen.

Why not?

UNIVERSAL FIREARMS CONFISCATION!!!

(there, I've said it)

The perennial “national conversation” about guns is predictably stale because its contestants—those favoring a largely unfettered right to personal gun ownership and those opposing it—are talking past each other. Prevarication characterizes the debate, as each side adheres to a core principle that, for reasons of propriety and political calculation, it is unwilling to admit publicly. 

In other words, everybody lies.  Liberals say they don't want to take your guns away; Conservatives say YES YOU DO!
 Liberals say 'oh, no, of course not .. we couldn't, because you would shoot us!'

Liberals think they're making a talking point.  Conservatives think this is a Nuclear Option.

The core principles The Author talks about are this:

• Gun Control People: if there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths
• Gun Rights People: if there were no LEGAL guns, criminals would still have them and honest people would be defenseless victims

There are some truths to each side.

If in an imaginary "perfect world" (as the author describes):

.... the United States would never have had the Second Amendment. But such a country—one not forged in armed revolution against arbitrary rule from afar and founded upon the principle of individual liberty—would not be the United States, with all its virtues and vices.

Well, perhaps.

On the other hand: the handicapped, women and old people would be at the mercy of brawny men who are physically stronger than their victims.   Speaking for the "old people" contingent, I know that if somebody broke into my home (Liberals insist this rarely happens, regardless of dailynews reports to the contrary) I would be unable to physically resist them.

What was that quote?  Oh yes ..

“Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal”. 

The author of the article holds an opinion which seems to be that the world would be much, much better if there were no guns.

There's a old saying, to the effect that "A Liberal is a man who has been arrested; a Conservative is a man who has been mugged."

I'm not saying anything about the author's legal past, of course.  It's just an adage, which is obviously not applicable to anyone specifically.

I'm sure the author doesn't REALLY believe that the world would be a more peaceful place without guns.

... (thinking, thinking, thinking ....)

Okay, I'm not at all sure about that:
I think the author is a total dork who has a completely unrealistic concept of what predators will do when the defensive instincts of nature are removed, and the lions are asked to lie down with the lambs ... and the lambs agree.   The author constructs his postulations so exquisitely that it is often difficult to understand exactly what he is saying.

Short interpretation: the author thinks that firearms owners are rabid chipmunks with machine guns and absolutely NO sense of Societal Responsibility .. because guys with guns only think about themselves, not about The Greater Good.

How New California Gun Laws Are Calculated To Screw You, if you own a gun

California Lt. Gov. Takes Detour on Pot, Embraces More Gun Control - Reason.com:
(October 30, 2015)
 [California's Democratic Lt. Governor Gavin] Newsom and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence have yet to release the language of the proposed statewide initiative, but the group has announced the basic parameters of the proposal. It would prohibit the possession of large-capacity magazines – thus forcing the owners to surrender something they had acquired legally.

Other factors of Newsom's initiative:

• Requires licensing of ammo vendors
• Point of sale background checks for ammo purchase
• Confiscation of firearms owned by people under a restraining order or crime conviction
• Requires immediate reporting of lost and/or stolen firearm
• Provides "... a process for better sharing data with the feds"

Let's look at some of these 'provisions', starting with:

PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OF LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES:

Define "large capacity".  I'm thinking ten rounds, which seems to be the Gold Standard. May be eight, probably not less than six-rounds.  (Revolvers set the standard, y'know, and if not ..what about 8-round revolvers?)

The problem is not that you have to reload more often, but that you have to carry more magazines in order to provide adequate firepower in a defensive situation.

Obama vs LBJ ... no difference

Obama authorizes Special Ops Forces to deploy to Syria | Fox News:

The deployment marks the first time U.S. troops will be working openly on the ground in Syria. A senior administration official called it a "small" deployment, involving "fewer than 50" Special Ops Forces to northern Syria.

Oh, yeah .. THAT sounds familiar!

RVN .. December 28, 1969.

Bad gun! Back in the box!

Back to the drawing board: The worst firearms ever made - Photos - Washington Times: See the most ill-conceived weapons of ever made.

Okay, okay, I see your point, WaTimes.   A lot of guns built for 'special purpose' not only didn't prove appropriate for "general use", but didn't even prove effective for their (usually very limited) purpose.

The slide show is amusing and the author does a good job (mostly) of making his point.

But I do have a quibble with the second choice:

The FP-45 Liberator was a pistol manufactured by the United States military during World War II for use by resistance forces in occupied territories. The Liberator was never issued to American or other Allied troops and there is no documented instance of the weapon being used for its intended purpose, though the intended recipients, irregulars and resistance fighters, rarely kept detailed records due to the inherent risks if the records were captured by the enemy. The FP-45 was a crude, single-shot pistol designed to be cheaply and quickly mass-produced. It had just 23 largely stamped and turned steel parts that were cheap and easy to manufacture. It fired a .45 caliber pistol cartridge from an unrifled barrel. Due to this limitation, it was intended for short range use, 1–4 yards (0–5 m). Its maximum effective range was only about 25 feet (7.6 m). At longer range, the bullet would begin to tumble and stray off course.

As I recall, the "Liberator" was specially designed as a single-use assassins' gun.  It was dropped by airplane in occupied territories in hopes that on resisting civilian would pick it up and use it to shoot one unsuspecting Nazi.

I've read anecdotal evidence that it was used for its designed purpose, but I've never found any story which had been independently collaborated (excuse the expression) by reliable authorities.

Yes, the design was to make a cheap throw-away belly gun.  The lack of believable sights was a give-away ... nobody cared if the gun was inaccurate at any distance beyond a belt-buckle.

Perhaps the Nazi occupiers were aware that these throw-aways were being airdropped by the thousands and being picked up by resentful restless natives, and perhaps they weren't.

After all, as the Liberal Matra can permissibly be perverted here:

If it kills just ONE Nazi .....!

By The Way ...

There is a Wiki link to the gun,

Telling citizens not to have gun is like telling teens not to have sex

It's tough being a parent.

You can tell your kids about the dangers of sex, but if they think they want it (and they do), they're going to ignore you.

Australia is now trying to deal with this problem.  Yes, the same Australia that Hillary and Barak are holding up as the very model of a modern "reasonable, common-sense" nation.

October 28, 2015

'There hasn't been this much weaponry on the streets since the days of the underworld war': police: "Something obviously needs to be done about the guns out already out there. We need to look at harsher sentences. There's no justification for carrying an unregistered gun and we need to be harder on people that decide to, or there'll  be a lot more shootings," the officer said.

The thing is, Free Citizens and Teens have a lot of common; if they something they want, they're usually going to get it.

Enacting anti-gun laws is very similar to telling your child "NO!".

"Trust, Yet Verify" ???

FBI director on privacy, electronic surveillance - CBS News: FBI Director James Comey speaks with Scott Pelley about our lives online and the need for government electronic surveillance, but only with a court order

(October 12, 2015)

"Smiling People Tell Lies"* ... but I'm inclined to pay attention to this interview.

At least he seems sincere.  Time will tell, and I'm always too contrary to accept what's said just because it's what I want to hear.

For now, we'll give him a "bye" and hope that he really is more open than J. Edgar was.



*yes, I know it's not the Temptations version, but that's 12+ minutes long.  You can go here to see it.

Would you trust this man to babysit your children?

Man Arrested for Sexual Attack on 12-Year-Old Girl - Story | WTXF:

I wouldn't trust him to hold my coat.

According to investigators, Payne was left alone to babysit the 12-year-old girl and her four-year-old brother.  Investigators say Payne chased the 12-year-old through the home.  Broke down a bathroom door where she was hiding and attacked the girl in front of the four-year old. And investigators say the mother, who was at work, 

Some people are just born bad.  And sometimes (as in this case) they try to TELL us ... but we just don't listen.

There was a day when we were taught to trust our judgement; now the Liberals tell us to be "non-judgmental".

THIS us what happens when "feel-good" Liberal attitudes cause us to over-ride our common sense.

We can't know the whole story, but there is prima facie evidence that the man meant no good, right from the start..

It's written all over his face.

Hillary Clinton says "Australia is a Good Example" as a model for American Gun Control. ?

Hillary Clinton seems determined to resolve "The Gun Control Issue".
Her approaches are different from mine;  I think gun control means hitting your target.  Hillary thinks gun control is ignoring the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Well, she's younger and wiser than I am.

But she has never spent a sleepless night in her bed listening to the sound of gunfire in her neighborhood, knowing that there are neighbors who would kill her for the $11.27 in her purse.

She is an academic.  She has no real-world experience with actual day-to-day violence.  She cannot possible relate to the millions of people in Hillary-Stan who face danger just walking down the street.

She is a politician; everything she says is carefully tuned to "Let's make it sound like she is doing something to resolve the problem".  Granted, as a politician she IS a target.   And so are we all, targets.  Whether in our neighborhood or in our homes, we are always targets.

She's a target for what she represents; we are targets for what we own, or for what we might own, or just because some random crazy thinks we smiled at the wrong time, the wrong place, at the wrong person.

She thinks that the problem is that there are too many guns on the street, but the problem is that the crooks and gang-bangers own all the guns on too many streets.
The definition of "trite" is a saying that is so obvious that it has become passe'.  She believes that she can make a perfect law against firearms ownership, it it will magically wipe out all "gun violence'.

The problem is, only law-abiding people pay any attention to the laws she would pass.  The trouble makers in our world ignore the laws.  Laws won't keep guns off the streets, they will only disarm the innocent.

Worshiping at the altar of FIREPOWER!

A Religious Experience: Knob Creek Night Shoot - The Firearm Blog:

Ahhhh ... pure macho bliss!

The Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot is, for me, a yearly pilgrimage to all things automatic. With machine guns roaring every hour, vendors and purveyors of all things ballistic in abundance, and fellow enthusiasts all around, its better than being a Cubs Fan at the World Series (if they ever make it). Each year, the night shoot is the highlight of my trip. For 15 minutes, freedom is espoused from hundreds of machine guns across a bevy of all calibers. The cacophony of noise is utterly exhilarating, but sadly, the fun can only be had behind the firing line until now.

I know this has been posted elsewhere, but not everyone watches The Firearm Blog every day.
This is for "The Rest Of Us".

Winston Smith: Please Call Home!!

Students suspended, labeled racist for giving rivals customary gift | The Extract:
(October 20, 2015)

As has been the case in previous years, two Texas high schools recently exchanged gifts as a goodwill gesture following a football game. Atascocita High School band members presented Summer Creek High School with a bucket containing fruit and candy.

Atascocita H.S. students were subsequently suspended because the fruit basket "... included a coconut, a pineapple and a small watermelon."

The article didn't mention whether the opposing school objected to the gift.  We're pretty sure they would have mentioned it.

Though it is unclear which of the contents Atascocita administrators found offensive, they were pretty direct in accusing the kids of racism.

I don't know about this one.  Perhaps it was a left-handed racial insult to the opposing school, maybe it was not.  Apparently, the Atascocita (I can't even say that word!  Is that a subtle slam against Hispanic people?) school administrators thought that the gift was something other than what it purported to be.

Honi soit qui mal y pense

Accusing someone of a "Thought Crime" is so ... so 1984!

Getting ready for Halloween!

Raking Leaves with Dragon's Breath - YouTube:

Published on Oct 24, 2015 DRAGON'S BREATH AMMO

 It's fall again and it's time to do a little cleanup....we don''t use rakes around here however...just a Benelli m3, Dragon's Breath and explosives. 

 CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE! http://www.iraqveteran8888.com



I take no credit for this video, or the quote above it.  I offer it for the folks who don't often keep up with the source (see below).

Having said that:

I'm loving it!

(H/T: Bearing Arms "Should I be taking advice from a guy in a monkey suit?"

Why Suppress Suppressors?

ASA ANNOUNCES HEARING PROTECTION ACT: A BILL TO REMOVE SUPPRESSORS FROM THE NFA:

WASHINGTON, D.C.– The American Suppressor Association (ASA) is pleased to announce the introduction of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) by Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05). This historic piece of legislation will remove suppressors from the purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA), replacing the antiquated federal transfer process with an instantaneous NICS background check. 

(H/T: Big Dawg)

Competition Shooting IS safer than High School Football

Can we prevent high school football deaths? - CNN.com:
(October 23, 2015)

(CNN)On Thursday night, Bogan High School football player Andre Smith was hit during the last play of the game, his relatives told CNN affiliate WLS. The 17-year-old Chicago student collapsed while walking off the field and was taken to a hospital, where he passed away early Friday. An autopsy is expected later this week. Smith's was the seventh high school football-related death this season. According to an analysis from the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research database, about 12 high school and college football players die every year. The leading cause of death isn't football-related trauma, but sudden cardiac arrest.

[emphasis added]

As many of my readers know, I instruct a class in Competitive Pistol Shooting (USPSA/IPSC ... look it up) and every month I teach from 1 to 15 people how to SAFELY use loaded pistols in an aggressive  competitive environment.

When people sign up for my class, I send them a list of equipment requirements and provide some verbiage about the sport.  One of the things I tell them is:

"IPSC competition is safer than High School Football!"

But it's heartbreaking when I go online to confirm that statement, and recent events have sadly proved that teens + football = "dead children".
 (Liberals indulge in outrageous statements to make a point, so I will too.)

Strangely, I have seen young people compete with loaded guns with 'nearly' a zero-injury safety record.  (* disclaimer below)

Oops! Sorry, Festus!

So a guy walks into a gunfight, and actually shoots somebody.

(H/T: Say Uncle)

Well, hell.  I HATE it when this happens!

Imagine the embarrassment when you try to do a 're-enactment' of the Gunfight at the OK Corral, only to discover that (because you came late to the show) you 'forgot' to swap out the live rounds in your authentic genuine Colt Peacemaker for semi-safe blanks.

On the other hand, imagine what the 'other guy' (you know, the one who YOU shot in the leg?) felt as he fell to the ground.

Good thing that Mr. Forgetful isn't all that good a shot; bad thing that he counted on safety rules (which were not enforced) to ensure that the public performance was "safe".

No thanks to Mr. Forgetful ... you jerk!

There are a lot of things that we might be tempted to say about/to the "re-enactor" who "forgot" to check his loads, but I'm not going to say them.

No, I'm not going to say it.
No, not me.  Uh-uh.  No way.

The HELL I won't:

Don't Californicate Oregon!

Portland Versus California: What’s driving migration? : Real Estate Agent PDX:

It's amazing that this has ONLY JUST hit the blogosphere.  Native Oregonians have been outraged at the California Migration for decades.  The issue IS the relative economics between high-salary California and low-salary Oregon.

Californians can sell their home for $X,XXX,XXX and buy a comparable or better (in their opinion) home for $xxx,xxx in Oregon.

For retiring Californians, this is A Good Thing!
For retiring Oregonians: not so good.

Everything Old is New Again: California Dreaming

Background checks for ammunition buys moving toward ballot in California - Washington Times:
(October 15, 2015)

We can't take your guns?  We'll take your bullets!  That'll Show Ya!

(not a true quote) *

So, the Land of Fruits and Nuts (but not so many Gun Nuts) has trotted out a scheme that they have trotted out a few times before:

*(Bear with me here, I'm digging down into the files:

The following is a representative sample of the various articles I've written about California's attempts to make it difficult (often impossible) for honest citizens to purchase ammunition in their home state.  Note that this list is NOT All-Inclusive.   Apologies for the violation of publication style books ... there have been so many articles that consistancy of style has been a secondary priority; reporting the variety of ex post facto laws proposed across the nation to regulate ammunation sales (as a modified form of gun control) has always been my first priority.

I've been reporting on this issue for over ten years now.  The thing is .. we have to win EVERY TIME;  they only have to win once.

Thank you Jesus!

Biden announces he will not run for president in 2016 | Fox News:

Vice President Biden announced Wednesday he will not run for president, ending months of feverish speculation over his 2016 plans and likely settling the Democratic field.

The only ones who were 'feverish' were those of us who contemplated Joe Biden as the leader of the free world.

Who would be a worse president than Obama?

You got it in one!.

Well, this makes a lot of sense

Gov. Jerry Brown signs bill banning concealed guns from California schools | Fox News:
Published October 11, 2015

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill banning concealed weapons from California schools and universities, a measure that drew renewed attention after a recent massacre at an Oregon community college. SB707 by Democratic Sen. Lois Wolk of Davis will prohibit people with concealed weapons permits from carrying firearms on school and college campuses. People who have concealed carry permits would be allowed to carry firearms within 1,000 feet of a public or private K-12 school, but not on the grounds.

SO ...  the only people who are certified to have a life-long established record of NOT being "gun-violent" are denied the right to defend themselves in another of the Gun Free Zones ... which are notorious only for being hunting grounds for maniacs.

That's going to help.

Apparently, Governor Jerry (what a simp name ... Jerry!) has decided that he has to do SOMETHING, so he picks on the single group which has never posed a threat to public safety.

Let me see ... searching, searching. searching for statistics to support his thesis that people licensed to carry a concealed handgun have been a threat to college students.

Nope.  Not finding anything.

In Chicago, Crime goes DOWN at the same rate as it's going UP! *(KEWL!)*

Chicago gang shootings go on as Mayor Emanuel boasts crime at 'record low' | US news | The Guardian:
October 14, 2015

Chicago’s yearly homicide total has in recent years been about half the 40-year high of 943 that was reached in 1992, thanks largely to a sharp drop in domestic murders. Yet the number of killings linked to gangs has consistently been higher than back then, according to figures compiled by Professor Wesley Skogan, a crime and policing expert at the city’s Northwestern University. FBI director James Comey said during a visit this week that Chicago had a “more ingrained and sophisticated street gang structure than many American cities”, such as New York, which was once equally feared but now has a murder rate about a quarter as high. “They’re old, they’re embedded in a part of the culture in this city, and it’s an enormous challenge,” he said.

Okay, Mayer Rom says that Crime in Chicago is going down, right?
Now, let's compare that press release to this one:

Chicago mayor blames cops for spike in crime | Fox News Video:

Oct. 14, 2015 - 0:42 - Mayor Rahm Emanuel says 'fetal' force the reason for increased crime

(Remember, that's a Fox video)
No, I don't understand what a 'fetal' force is, either; but okay ... crime is going UP?   On the same day it's going DOWN?   But one thing is for DAMN sure ... it's not your fault!!!

Welcome to Chicago, Mr. Mayor; you're a natural-born Chicago Politician!

You're blaming crime on the cops ... who you don't have the money to pay a living wage.

And so ...

The more than $700 million in tax increases is a band aid. It will kick the can down the road a few years - until the next crisis arises. Then, lacking the will to cut the budget or the imagination to avoid a tax increases, the same "solution" to the problem will be applied and the viscious  cycle will continue.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/mayor_emanuel_faces_tax_revolt_in_city_council.html#ixzz3p6gRddxR
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Guns In The City: Self Fulfilling Prophecies

Chicago dad charged after boy, 6, shoots and kills brother, 3, playing 'cops and robbers' - StarTribune.com:
(October 19, 2015)

“I’m sure the defendant did not intend for this to happen, but it happened,” Brown added, before lowering the bail to $75,000. “And it’s what happens when people have guns who shouldn’t have guns. That’s why we’ve had 2,300 people shot in Chicago so far this year.”

This is the story of little boys, big guns, fathers who are clueless and mothers who are helpless.


In Chicago, it's a big deal when a 6-year-old shoots a 3-year-old.

If they were 10 years older, it would be no less a tragedy ... but it would have been on Page 12 of Section 2, instead of on the front page.

Because in Chicago, they expect juveniles to shoot each other, although it's usually the deliberate act between gang members; not one tiny boy shoots his little brother because he doesn't understand about guns.

This happens in a city with one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

And it’s what happens when people have guns who shouldn’t have guns.

The thing is, NOBODY in Chicago should have guns ... according to the Chicago Lawmakers.
The father who placed the (loaded, presumably cocked-and-locked) gun in the kitchen drawer had what he thought was a good reason to have a gun:

He was a former gang member who had snitched on his old crew and now feared for his life. So Santiago purchased a pistol on the street and kept it in the kitchen just in case.

THAT is why they have had 2,300 people shot in Chicago so far this year.

We Are So Screwed!

Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos:

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION is under pressure to help calm the growing violence in Israel that has some warning of a third intifada, as Israel's military steps up its response to deadly Palestinian attacks by deploying hundreds of troops while Secretary of State John Kerry prepares to visit the region. 

Oh dear!

Anytime we are reliant on John Kerry and  Obama to save our respective Arses ....
we can expect nothing better than a political reaming!

My son says: "Facebook Is The Devil". I believe it!

Facebook Disables Author's Account Because of Word 'Firearms':

He (Maddox) said that after you have three Facebook ads that are not approved “they close your account down, which means you can’t advertise at all.” Maddox said that when he tried to go through the appeal process to explain that he was not selling guns but a book that helped people get an FFL, Facebook responded that their decision was final and that it appeared Maddox is selling firearms because the word “firearms” can be drawn from FFL in the advertisement, and Facebook clicked through the ad to get to FFL123 website where the word “firearms” appears. Of course, it is hard to sell a guide to getting a Federal Firearms License without using the word “firearms.”  *

It's The Golden Rule:  They that have the Gold, get to make the rules!

(*H/T: Breitbart)

Okay for me, but not for you: California Style

Kamala Harris slams Congress for failing to pass gun control laws - LA Times:

Harris, Atty Gen for California (home of some of the newest and most outrageous Gun Control Laws in the nation) embarrassed herself last week when she chided Congress "... " for failing to pass gun control legislation after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012."

Asked if she had shot a gun before or if she hunts, Harris stumbled over her words before saying she had shot a pistol. “I'm a good marksman,” she said. “That’s it. I'm not going any further with this. You have just broken news.”

I'm not sure if I'm more amused by her hypocrisy, or admiring of her honesty.

Hmmm ... no.  Hypocrisy wins, hands down, every time.

At least she acknowledged her experience, which is a positive thing.  Most politicos form opinions without actual experience;  She said she tried it, and she was good at it.   (She says.)

ALL OF WHICH leads us to surmise that she is one of David Codrea's "Only Ones" who can try it, and not be soiled by the experience.

Harris is an elected official.  In California.

So, you can believe as much of that as you wish.

(NOTE:  I'm only just now defined a new Label: "Liberal Hypocrisy")

I should have done that years ago, but by now it would have been SO overworked.....!

Now ... THAT'S Funny!

Obama greeted by hundreds of pro-gun protesters in Oregon:

Welcome to Oregon!  Now .. please go away!

According to reports put out by a pool of White House travel reporters, Obama's motorcade traveled from the local airport to Roseburg High School where he met with families of the deceased. The ride took about 10-15 minutes and he got to the school around 12:45 p.m. There were several hundred people clustered outside the gate to the airport and in the parking lot of a nearby Home Depot. Many of the people were snapping photos with their phones. But others carried signs at this location similar to those lining the highway. About half of the people stationed at this location welcomed Obama to the town. "The other half were negative or seemed to be protesting his calls action to tighten the nation's gun laws," the pool report said. Some of the signs visible from the motorcade: "Please leave us in peace" "Welcome to Roseburg." "We support our Sheriff" "WELCOME" "Gun Free Zones are for sitting ducks" "Obama is wrong" "Nothing Trumps our Liberty" "UCC Strong" for Umqua Community College.

( Photo from OregonLive: "Protestors turn out for Obama in Roseburg" )

A good read: Prager

Dennis Prager: The Right Does Have Answers on Guns, Mr. President — The Patriot Post: 

(October 11, 2015)
Prager often has 'the right of it' ... referring to "Right" as "Correct", not Conservative.

But focusing on rightist vs leftist views, Prager still manages to drill down through the issues to touch on the basic differences between one mind-set and another.

I won't ask you to RTWT, because I often shy away from these encouragements.
But I did. And here's the "teaser" lead-in:

"The third reason for the left-right divide on guns is that the two sides ask different questions when formulating social policies. The right tends to ask, “Does it do good?” The left is more likely to ask, “Does it feel good?”"

Here are the opening paragraphs, just to give you a taste:

Wish I had said this!

Alleged intent of gun control vs. actual observable goals - Oleg Volk:

Gun control is unacceptable because it actively degrades defensive capabilities of non-violent people. They view a peaceful person with a pistol as a bigger problem than a violent person with bare hands or a shank, while the opposite is true. Degrading or eliminating the ability to protect self and family from human or animal predators is an utterly evil purpose. By design – not as an accidental side effect – gun control makes people helpless, fearful and dependent on the authorities who promise safety but cannot deliver it. The only way a person could be kept mostly safe by authorities is with the level of protection afforded to the president. Strange that the politicians enjoy their armed bodyguards instead of dismissing them to “reduce gun violence”.

RTWT

Obama: "It Shouldn't Be Routine" vs Bush: Stuff Happens"

Republicans Accept Mass Killings. Gun Control Advocates, Get Graphic. | The New Republic:
October 08, 2015

But even thinking in the most cynical terms, throwing “stuff happens” in Bush’s face to suggest he has no sympathy for victims of gun violence is a tactical error as well as an intellectual one. “Stuff happens,” Bush said. “There’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something and it’s not always the right thing to do.” The trouble with this statement isn’t the phrase “stuff happens,” or even the (completely uncontroversial) observation that sometimes crises and tragedies have no obvious government remedies. The trouble is that Bush both ceded the point that some crises do merit government action, and also suggested that routine mass killings don’t fall into this category. “Stuff happens” wasn’t Bush’s response to the killings in Oregon last week—it’s the essence of his overall gun control policy, and the gun control policy of the entire Republican Party. Killing is senseless, but guns are great, and we must accept killings as a price of our freedom to own them.

Oh, Bullshit!

Concealed Carry allowed at Kansas Universities? I'll believe it when I see it!

Kansas regents prepare to open universities to guns under new law | The Kansas City Star:
- October 05, 2015

BY DION LEFLER

The Wichita Eagle

As the nation mourns those killed in last week’s mass shooting at an Oregon community college, Kansas universities are preparing to implement a law that will allow most people to carry concealed firearms without a permit on campus. Kansas public universities have authority to ban guns on campus. That will change on July 1, 2017, when they’ll be required to open their institutions to concealed weapons. The Kansas Board of Regents, which sets policy for the state university system, is studying where and how guns can be controlled without violating the law, said board chairman Shane Bangerter.

Wow, THIS one caught me by surprise!

Will the last American to leave San Francisco please turn out the lights?

Last Gun Store in San Francisco Set to Close After 63 Years in Business: ‘Enough Is Enough’ | Video | TheBlaze.com: SAN FRANCISCO (AP)

October 05, 2015 — The only gun store in San Francisco is shuttering for good, saying it can no longer operate in the city’s political climate of increased gun control regulations and vocal opposition to its business. “It’s with tremendous sadness and regret that I have to announce we are closing our shop,” High Bridge Arms manager Steve Alcairo announced in a Facebook post on Sept. 11. “It has been a long and difficult ride, but a great pleasure to be your last San Francisco gun shop.”

This is no joke.  Increasingly inane civil regulations have finally driven ALL gun stores out of San Francisco.

In Chicago, The Poor Can’t Afford To Defend Themselves | The Gormogons

In Chicago, The Poor Can’t Afford To Defend Themselves | The Gormogons:

... ultimately, Supt. McCarthy is just a carny suckering voters in. And his record shows it: a 21% increase in murders when, nationally, violent crime rates are dropping like a stone. And McCarthy has denied the evidence that widening the spread of private firearm carrying will lower crime rates—not because he has counter-evidence that would surprise everybody, but because his Democrat overlords have told him what to say.

[H/T: Borepatch]

I've spent a lot of time denigrating the police-presence in Chicago, and their serial failures to address the "gun violence" there .. in this most gun-control active metropolis in the nation.

It's nice to see that I'm not the only one outraged by the municipal slaughterhouse.

Um .. no.  Bad choice of words.
There's nothing "NICE" about Chicago's inability to control Gun Violence.

Perhaps they might try letting honest citizens own and carry firearms.  At least, the bad guys might be a little more cautious about trying to shoot The Good Guys.

The Underside of the Umpqua School Shooter

Oregon shooter: New details emerge about Chris Harper-Mercer | OregonLive.com:

This article isn't particularly informative, but one of the comments was!

I'm going to include the entire comment (from someone who knew the freak as a child) because I think it serves a purpose:  it gives us an insight to the warped personality from his earliest years.

This is an article, authored by "BENJI", a self-identified name in the comments section.  I don't know if it's true, or made up.  But it's chilling.

And it may be applicable to this incident.

Note that the author doesn't claim that the child described here is the Oregon School Shooter.

There is nothing new under the sun

Obama Preparing More Executive Actions on Gun Control:
October 05, 2015

 The White House confirmed that President Obama was preparing a series of executive actions on gun control to match his recent passion on the issue after the latest mass shooting in Oregon.

... “I can tell you that they’re not stumped, they’re continuing to review the law that’s on the books and continuing to consult with legal authorities but also others who may have ideas about what steps that can be taken to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” Earnest said.

Oh.  Wow.  I'm REALLY impressed!

But in my implacable powers, I have the ability to predict EXACTLY the measures that The White House will implement to insure that firearms deaths are never again a threat in this Great Nation!

See here.

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment - The Washington Post:

By John Paul Stevens April 11, 2014

John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

Stevens Biography:
Nominated by President Nixon to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, succeeding Elmer J. Schnackenberg, confirmed by the United States Senate on October 14, 1970; and took oath of office on November 2, 1970.

Nominated by President Ford as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court on December 1, 1975; confirmed by the United States Senate on December 17, 1975; and took oath of office on December 19, 1975.

Stevens on The Second Amendment:

(I'm not convinced that I agree with Justice Stevens in regards to the meaning of the Second Amendment.  He seems to believe that .. no, let me quote what he SAYS he believes):

 The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia. In its decision in Heller, however, the majority interpreted the amendment as though its draftsmen were primarily motivated by an interest in protecting the common-law right of self-defense. But that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state. The notion that the states were concerned about possible infringement of that right by the federal government is really quite absurd.

[emphasis added]

I did not get a sense, in the original document, of how "... that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state".

I do wish he had been more forthcoming with his reasoning.

My understanding is that American Citizens have had to deal with governmental infringements on the 2nd Amendment for .. always?  Elsewhere in the article, he cites Miller as an example, and I have to say that I am not persuaded by his casual reference as MILLER was NEVER defended in appeals court, so the decision went to the Government by default.  But still, it stands as a precedent, and must be heeded by stare decisis.

My interpretation (you are invited to debate) is that Justice Stevens does NOT believe that the Second Amendment acknowledges the right of citizens to arm themselves for the protection of their lives, their family and their property ... but only in defense of the nation and only while serving as a "member of the militia".

Here are other remarks which Justice Stevens included last year to clarify his position vis-a-vis the "anomalous " arming of civilians,  Essentially, he proposed to amend the second amendment to limit the rights of citizens to "keep and bear arms".

 As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:
 “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
 Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.

[emphasis in the original]
[highlights added]

No, I'm not making a statement or an argument.  Merely providing some information about the retires Justice of SCOUSA who was nominated and confirmed by Republican President(s).

Well .. Justice Stevens DOES seem a bit testy, in my mind.  But I'm sure that if he were to read what *_I_* have written, he would describe me as "testy" as well.  (And I would consider that a compliment!)

Fisking Hillary on Gun Control

I am SO tired of bloviating politicians.  Unfortunately, that's the only kind we've got.

Hillary Clinton's gun-control plan - Business Insider:
  "It's time to act on gun violence. We simply cannot accept as normal 33,000 gun deaths a year,"

[hat tip: David Hardy]

Hill The Pill is going to fix all our problems, with one simple gesture.

Actually, it's SEVEN "gestures" ... all of them flawed one way or another:

#1: Universal FEDERAL Background Checks

• Without justification, will not stop "mass shootings".
• Individuals cannot perform background checks; only licensed dealers can.  They charge anywhere from $30 to $60 to perform that service. 
• Suggests that the serial number and the make/model etc. description of the gun be entered, which amounts to registration as there is currently NO laws restricting record-keeping of civilian background check information.
• Not enforceable, as there is no way that Law Enforcement Officers can know when a private sale is being transacted.

What are your guns worth, if the government declares all guns illegal and offers to buy them back?

So the Oregon shooter’s guns were legal. Now what? (October 03, 2015) Hot Air:

From the liberal, gun grabbing side of the discussion there is one remedy which would – eventually – cut down on mass shootings. It involves eliminating all of the guns on the planet. Owing to the fact that the majority of Americans still value gun rights and view private gun ownership as a positive force in protecting themselves from evil, Democrats are loathe to say the words out loud, but that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t like to see it happen. Unfortunately, the gun genie is out of the bottle

What a fascinating question?  And nobody wants to touch this one!

What's the value of your grandfather's Winchester lever action .30-30?

Your STI Open Pistol, that you payed $3500 for?

Your 1911 .45acp built in 1918?

No, there's no way that a Gun Buy Back Scheme is going to work in America.

Australia managed a gun buy-back scheme.  It didn't satisfy a lot of people.
But THEY made it work, because ... essentially, a bunch of expatriate Brits.
You know ... "obey the law because it is the law" kind of people?

Subjects.

UCC Was Not A 'Gun Free Zone'

UCC Was Not A 'Gun Free Zone' Because Public Colleges In Oregon Can't Ban Guns | ThinkProgress:

Yes, it was.
They're liberals, they lie .. but they are so sly and we are so stupid that sometimes we even tempted to believe them!

They say that we CAN carry guns on campus to defend ourselves, but they carefully don't mention the fly in the ointment:   Oregon State Colleges (Universities) can keep you from carrying a weapon on any campus by simply refusing you permission to "carry" inside any building (or all buildings) by simply denying you permission.  And it's legal.

Roseburg, Oregon is in Douglas County, and even the county sheriff  has said that he will not enforce certain Oregon laws which are, in his words, "not enforceable",  But that doesn't mean that the laws are not still in force.

THE PASSIVE/AGGRESSIVE EFFECT OF A NON-COMPLIANT BUREAUCRACY!

Think Progress made an effort to dispute the GUN FREE ZONE issue, which many pro-gun people have cited as the reason why the murderer chose that venue for his massacre,

On Thursday, a shooter reported killed at least 13 people and injured many others at a community college in Oregon. Just minutes after the incident, commentators sought to attribute the incident to the fact that Umpqua Community College was a “gun free zone.” “The gun free zones are the areas that tell licensed gun owners that you are not allowed to carry your weapon in this facility…If you’re going to perpetrate some act, you know that most people are not going to be armed,” CNN “military analyst” Rick Francona said a few minutes after the shooting. A retired Navy Seal, Jonathan Gilliam, also appearing on CNN, went even further. Blaming the “gun free zone” for the scope of the tragedy and adding “the only thing that’s going to stop a gun is another gun.”

Okay so far, but here's the unspoken hitch:  You NEED PERMISSION to carry a gun on campus, and you can get permission; but you have to ask for it.  Oh, like how long is THAT going to take?