Who is this, who tells me that I MUST denounce firearms ownership?

In BALTIMORE, one of the most violent cities in America, the Catholic Church will propose a Fatwa against law-abiding owners of firearms in America.  Isn't THAT ironic?

Is the Pope U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops aware that the level of firearms violence in MOST of America is not comparable to BALTIMORE?


Protect life: limit access to guns - Baltimore Sun:

Next week, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will meet in Baltimore to update its "quadrennial statement on political responsibility, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." The document, which is essentially a voters guide for American Catholics circulated before presidential elections, outlines key church teachings, areas of emphasis that should inform how Catholics decide upon various candidates. The bishops must urge the faithful to support candidates who stand up to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and advance the cause of gun control.

   A "Voters Guide for American Catholics" makes Peck a Bad Boy?


If I (we) are Bad .. it is NOT because "they" (you and I) are trouble makers ... but because we have a similar level of interest in firearms ownership as criminals who use their guns for violent actions (while we keep them for sporting purposes, and to defend ourselves against violent action).

So why is the Catholic Church in America picking on me?  

I am so very proud to have been singled out by "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship".
As if I have no conscience, and am not a citizen (regardless of my "Faith", which is none of your business thank-you-very-much).

Yes, I am insulted. I resent the insinuation that because I own guns I am a faithless marauder.

 Gun violence in America disproportionately afflicts the poor and marginalized, especially impoverished black communities in our cities. Jeffrey Goldberg writes in the Atlantic that between "1980 and 2013, 262,000 black males were killed in America," the vast majority from guns. The murder rate for African Americans is eight times higher than it is for white Americans and 12 times higher than other developed nations, reports statistician and blogger Nate Silver; the closest comparable murder rates are found in the developing world. Urban murder rates have soared again this year — especially here in Baltimore, right under the bishops' noses.

"The murder rate for African Americans is eight times higher than it is for white Americans and 12 times higher than other developed nations."

Yes. Well, I haven't murdered anyone for ... oh, I can't say; it has been SO LONG since I have murdered anyone I can't even remember it.  Am I bad?

Maybe the Catholic Church should go to those "impoverished black communities in our cities", and take a close look at exactly WHO is responsible for that disproportionate level of Gun Violence.

Here's a hint:  They Are Not Catholic!

I live in a college town in the Pacific NorthWet, and I suppose I should not feel offended by this sweeping accusation.
But I do.
Most of my friends are Friends Of Guns.  We have shooting competitions regularly. Many of my friends hunt regularly.

None of my friends murder people regularly.

Where in this "Document" does it mention that the majority of Americans do no indulge in frivolous mayhem?

The bishops must urge the faithful to support candidates who stand up to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and advance the cause of gun control.

What is this word, "must"?

MUST!  Is this, like, a Mandatory thing?  One Catholic Priest decides that the entire community which he heads must follow his arbitrary lead?  And he is unaware of the upset he has allowed in his community?

[Out of respect for the faith, I have deleted several dozens of lines of comments regarding the above subject matter]

My friend, The Hobo Brasser (who happens to be a Catholic) must find himself in something of a quandary here.  He knows that all of the hundreds of "gun nuts" among his plethora of friends are honest, responsible firearms owners.  But still, the Leader of his faith *(or his designated minions)* has declared that my friend MUST hold his nose and vote for the illegitimate bastards who would undermine our constitutional freedoms.  (Is my friend the only conservative voter in his church?)


Which draws a schism between himself and his duty to his church.  (And also between him and me, because my faith does not require me to make such schismatic decisions.)

I haven't been a member of the NRA for 20 years, but only last week I joined just because  I hoped it would piss off the hoplophobic people who denigrate me and my ilk because of our own personal beliefs about our constitutional rights (which are, I remind you .. "God Given".)

Now THE POPE is on record against me?

Brother, I take this as a personal slight.

My best friend must decide who to trust: his religious leader, or his friend of 20 years.

And is my friend going to get rid of his guns?  Well, neither of us are very good at our sport, but we enjoy both the activity and the community of pistol shooting.  I know what I'm going to do .. but what is HE going to do?

In truth, I'm only insulted.  Chagrined.
Dumb-struck by this unexpected shot in the back. (sorry, couldn't resist.)

But my Catholic friend ... I am concerned because this proposed document puts him in the uncomfortable position of having to decide whether to obey his spiritual leader, or do what he knows in his heart is the right thing to do.

How many other devout Catholics find themselves in the same quandary?

And how must the leader of a proud and righteous faith reconcile his good intentions with the harm which his arbitrary, unilateral pronouncements have imposed upon his followers?

I would like to say that I speak more in sorrow than in anger, but that whole anger thing kind of gets in the way of my good intentions.

it's never a waste of time to watch a Liberal politician make a total ass of herself in public.

Dem Lawmaker Schakowsky: ISIS Paris Attacks "Chilling Reminder" that US Needs Stricter Gun Laws (VIDEO) - The Gateway Pundit:

Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky from Illinois told SiriuxXM radio that the Paris terrorist attacks last week were a “chilling reminder” that the U.S. needs more restrictive gun laws. France has some of the strictest gun laws in the West. Only terrorists and criminals are packing heat. Via News Alert:

Sometimes the best I can do is to find someone who has pertinent information, and just pass it along.
This is one of those times.

Go Clicky.  It's not long at all.

You'll enjoy it. Trust me.

(For more idiocy from the same source:  See Here!)

"Smart" Guns

Is the U.S. ready for smart guns? - CBS News:
(November 01, 2015)

Every time there's a massacre at a school, like the recent one in Oregon, it reignites the debate for more gun control -- not only because of the mass shootings, but because of the hundreds of incidents of gun violence every day on our streets and in our homes. One idea that keeps coming up is smart guns. These are firearms that only work when they're fired by their owner. It seems that "gee whiz" technology is seeping into every corner of our lives. Why not guns? *

CBS had a "feature" about Smart Guns, which did not convince me that they are the "wave of the future"/

Why am I not convinced?

I have a Smart Phone.  It turns itself off and on willy-nilly, and I have no idea why.  So I have to wait a few minutes for it to sort itself out.

Which might not ever happen; too often, I have to turn it off and wait "a while", whether I would prefer to or not.

That's marginal in a cell phone; that's unacceptable in a defensive weapon.

If I have the need to use my firearm, I am not willing to 'wait a minute' for it to sort itself out.

Whether in a competitive environment (when two seconds is an eternity) or in a home defense situation (when two seconds is LITERALLY the difference between a few more years of life, or an eternity without it) ... firearm reliability is always ALWAYS the most important characteristic of a gun I can bet my life on.  Whether it's appropriate to shoot?   Whether the target needs to be engaged?

 That determination is MY job;  If I make a mistake, at least I know I won't die waiting for the chip to warm up!

For me, Gun Control means that I'm in total control of my firearms.  It doesn't mean that I willingly relinquish my ability to use my defensive (or hunting, or competitive) firearm when, where and how I require.

* It seems that "gee whiz" technology is seeping into every corner of our lives. Why not guns?

Cell phones are just toys; guns are weapons.  And whenever we relinquish control of our weapons to 'technology', we put our lives on the line.

I'm not willing to abrogate my life to (an reliable) computer chip.

Are you?


(For More Information Press 1.  If that doesn't work, Press 2.  If that doesn't pfffsszzzzzzz ....)

Cowardice.

The Guns Of Parisian Law Enforcement - The Firearm Blog:

 Let it not be said that when provoked, Paris won’t respond in kind. Following the cowardly attacks on the city last week, the French National Police came out in force armed with several different kinds of firearms,

From the Wikipedia definition:

Cowardice is a trait wherein fear and excess self-concern override doing or saying what is right, good and of help to others or oneself in a time of need—it is the opposite of courage. As a label, "cowardice" indicates a failure of character in the face of a challenge.^[1]Many military codes of justice proscribe cowardice in combat as a crime punishable by death (note the phrase "shot at dawn").
As a retraction of a virtue that many cultures may expect or have expected, cowardice rates as a character flaw which society or its representatives may variously stigmatize or punish.

The assault on unarmed citizens (and visitors) in Paris last week was an entirely unjustifiable predation on innocent civilians.  It should never have happened, and the predators who were the primary actors of the attacks demonstrated a terrible lack of compassion toward their victims.

But the predators had their own agenda, and they went about their assigned "chores" regardless of any human feelings they might have had.  It was not difficult for them, as they had no human feelings.

No compassion, no love of their fellow man; merely an intention to slaughter "unbelievers".

They had no "fellows", other than those of their companions who wanted only to kill anyone who did not ascribe to their particular set of values (which were no values at all).

No, these individuals were not physical cowards;  they had no expectation that they would survive their villainy.   They were fully willing to sacrifice themselves, if only they could take a few 'unbelievers' with them.

Their only goal was to predate their neighbors, to prove that even their neighbors were not safe, if the values which THEY embraced were not shared.

I have no room in my heart for those who embrace villainy.  Which, in a way, is exactly the message these murderers were attempting to disseminate .. except from the other perspective.

How does that make me any better than them?

I don't kill people.  They do.

"Forget all the self-serving bullshit that terrorists feed their media groupies.  The fact is, they're nothing but murderous psychopathic human sewage."

Don't shoot at me. I take it personally.

Unsafe or Good Training? - The Firearm Blog:

 I don’t think blasting off rounds at your feet is a valid training tool.

I agree,

 (see the link to view the video .. I don't have the patience to work through the technical crap needed to embed the video.).

If someone shoots at me (or in the near vicinity of my precious lily-white body) I don't have time to think it through, I'll shoot the fucker.

Which is probably a good argument for me to NOT sign up for this kind if "extreme training".

I'm not saying that the people who sign up for this kind of "training" are Desk Jockeys or Weekend Warriors who don't have the perspective or experience to understand when they are physically threatened for the sake of "training", I'm just saying that the assholes who are shooting full-automatic rounds in the face of their students are unsafe and full of hubris;  they assume that they will never have an accident (a rock in the ground which they haven't found, and a round bounces into the face of a student?).

That's not part of their syllabus.

Maybe.   Or maybe they're just willing to accept the risk.  Wanna bet that they have a lawyer who has written an iron-clad  disclaimer which prevents the students and their family, etc. from every suing them for the consequences of an 'accidental discharge'?????


In reference to the "instructors", and at the risk of repeating myself:  Fuck 'em.  They're a bunch of arrogant assholes who believe that they will NEVER make a mistake.

(Yes, this may be acceptable in training an elite military attachment, but it is entirely unsuitable for a civilian training course.  Because I said so, that's why!)

Can our nation have meaningful gun debate? (Do You Feel Lucky?)

Letter: Can our nation have meaningful gun debate? - Fredericksburg.com: Opinion:
Posted: Sunday, November 15, 2015 12:00 am

Guns. You’re either for them or against them.
You’ve already decided which. The whole Second Amendment “basis” we all like to natter on about is so much pseudo-intellectual smokescreen. (We pretend to be constitutional scholars when it comes to that amendment. We “know” what it means and —through a remarkable bit of telepathic communion with our long-dead Founding Fathers—we even know what these eminent figures thought and meant. We are fond of trumpeting these certainties. Remarkable.)
Does anyone sincerely believe that the whole gun argument is about the U.S. Constitution anymore? 

Well Rob Huffman, it's obvious that you are against them.

And for me, the U.S. Constitution isn't really the point.  
It's living or dying that's the point.

And for the sake of the argument which you seem to be inviting; I will declare that I am "for them".

Guns, that is.

Because I've been shot at, and missed; and I've shot back, and hit.
So the funny looking little guy who was trying to kill me was thwarted, and I prevailed.
And he died.

And I lived.

YEA, ME!

(It probably sounds insensitive to you, to hear that I am celebrating having killed a fellow human being.  But frankly, I'm alive and he isn't, so I think I just captured the moral high ground.  Unless, of course, you don't think that living is better than dying.)

Frankly, I was pretty darned happy about the outcome, 'cause if I hadn't shot back (and hit), I wouldn't be here to to discuss the whole meaningful gun debate with you.

But that doesn't matter to you, because you've never been shot at.  Obviously.
Had you been shot at, and missed, and you didn't have a way to defend yourself .... the Bad Guy (and there ARE Bad Guys out there) would have kept shooting at your defenseless ass until he killed you.

And then you wouldn't be here to promulgate this here debate on whether guns are a benefit or an evil.

I will be reviled for saying this, but I don’t think anyone really believes guns save lives.
Despite right-wing talk radios efforts to promote this fantasy and its echoing repetitions through the darker recesses of the often septic Internet blogosphere, no one really believes this. It’s convenient to say so if you’ve decided that you are pro-gun and you don’t wish to irritate the National Rifle Association and its fans.

Awwww .. you really shouldn't be talking about this shit when you obviously don't know your ass from a hole in a ground.

That hole in the ground, by the way, is the grave that neither you nof I are currently occupying.
You, because you are an ignorant dork who has never found yourself on the pointy end of the stick;
I, because I got lucky and the guy who was trying to kill me .... didn't.

He died,

I lived!
.. and I think that sort of makes my point that I really like having a gun when I need one.

I will be reviled for saying this, but I don’t think anyone really believes guns save lives. Despite right-wing talk radios efforts to promote this fantasy and its echoing repetitions through the darker recesses of the often septic Internet blogosphere, no one really believes this. It’s convenient to say so if you’ve decided that you are pro-gun and you don’t wish to irritate the National Rifle Association and its fans.

 I don't revile you for what you say.  I only lament your ignorance.

THERE WAS A TIME ...

There was a time when we use to do these bizarre drills in USPSA/IPSC matches.

You know; when you had to perform some kind of meaningless task which had NOTHING to do with the target-engagement; but it made the Course Of Fire more demanding?

As I age, I'm glad that I don't have to do that shit any more.

But I suspect it's just because I don't think I CAN do that shit any more!



I know I'm getting old and feeble, but unfortunately I also think that USPSA (or the local practitioners there-of) may be getting old and feeble, too.

Lately, I've noticed that there are very few physical challenges in USPSA Courses of Fire.

I've come a long way from where I was five or ten years ago, when I complained that match stages seemed to be "too much" focusing on physical capabilities.  You know, like the ability to run 100 yards down range to a shooting position, and then engage a plethora of targets .. sometimes in shooting positions which are uncomfortable?

That sort of thing.  The physical tests, to make the shooting tests more  (dare I say it?) "PRACTICAL"!

I think the current version of the sport is becoming overly yuppified.   They're all "Stand And Shoot", or perhaps "Move And Shoot" stage designs. The worst challenge is often whether you can successfully engage targets from an "awkward" shooting position.

Pat McNamara on Range Theatrics

Surprising even myself, I rather appreciate the droll reality of this video.

I've always thought there was something just a little bit ... wrong ... with the "check your three o'clock and nine o'clock" drill, but I never knew what it was (except it seemed a bit ostentatious).

So when I found a reference toe the P.McN.... series, I viewed it with no expectations except that I couldn't get to sleep and maybe this would help my insomnia.

Hmmm ... no.  It's more interesting than that,  Not EXCITING ... but certainly more reasonable:



Pat McNamara on Range Theatrics - YouTube: Published on Sep 16, 2015

So maybe I won't be drowsy for a while yet, as I go check out some of the other (short, but informative) instructional videos in the series.

 For more from Pat McNamara, check out his instructional video, Make Ready with Pat McNamara: Carbine TAPS

For Whom The Bell Tolls

I'm still trying to figure out who is responsible for the Parisian Slaughter of the Innocents.

Never Yet Melted suggests that it may be the Amish.

Well, of course.  It all seems so clear to me now.

I thought it must have been some Religion Of Peace.

But the Liberals demand with certainly the cause of the bloodbath could not possibly have been religious intolerance.


No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

Despite all this horror, the European Union elites are bringing into Europe millions of these savages. I have warned for years about this coming jihad. For doing so, I was attacked, smeared, and marginalized. We were right about it all, and yet still my colleagues and I are blacklisted. Hundreds are dead, and the war has just begun. We did everything in our power to save lives. But the political, media, and academic elites aligned with the savages. And now hundreds more are dead in Paris — and you ain’t seen nothing yet.

-- Sarah Geller

Welcome to Hell!

Here's your Hand-Basket:

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

. BREAKING NEWS: FRENCH AUTHORITIES IDENTIFY one of the eight Paris assailants who created havoc in the city Friday night, killing 128 people and wounding more than 300 others, as 29-year-old Ismael Omar Mostefai, according to Sky News. Mostefai was reportedly a French citizen who was living in Chartes, just southwest of the capital.
.  CONFERENCE HEATS UP: Obama expected to come under pressure for more ISIS involvement at G20 summit
. ARRESTS TIED TO PARIS ATTACKS: Belgium makes three arrests linked to Paris attacks
. NO MERCY: France's Hollande responds to Paris attacks that leave at least 129 dead
. DC VIGIL: French ambassador to US joins hundred in Washington vigil for those killed in Paris
. KERRY: World leaders take step to end Syria war and spreading terror concerns, but disagreements persist
. LIVE BLOG COVERAGE OF PARIS TERROR ATTACKS | France-bound plane grounded after tweet
.VIDEOS: French president confirms ISIS behind attacks | ISIS claims responsibility for Paris attacks
. VIDEO: Heavily armed police gather outside Paris hotel
. 'IT WAS CARNAGE': Survivors describe horrific scene in concert hall

I know, it's  easy to blame this on "Extremist Muslims", but according to at least one source, it's NOT THEIR FAULT!

SOLON: It's all the fault of Right Wing Exploitation!

According to that article in Solon:

We must mourn all victims. But until we look honestly at the violence we export, nothing will ever change

,,,

Any time there is an attack on civilians in the post-9/11 West, demagogues immediately blame it on Muslims. They frequently lack evidence, but depend on the blunt force of anti-Muslim bigotry to bolster their accusations.
Actual evidence, on the other hand, shows that less than two percent of terrorist attacks from 2009 to 2013 in the E.U. were religiously motivated. In 2013, just one percent of the 152 terrorist attacks were religious in nature; in 2012, less than three percent of the 219 terrorist attacks were inspired by religion.

Actually, Americans have been rather sensitized by the events of 9/11/01.
Which was .. ahem ... universally acknowledged to have been caused by Muslim extremists.  Most of whom came from privileged backgrounds.

mmm   I'm not convinced that this isn't a "Three-Percenter".   We've had other news reports since the Salon article was published which suggest that it wasn't an attack by Christians, or Jews, or Budists,  And I didn't see anyone in Saffron Robes wielding an AK47 in the photos.

Actually, some people are relating this to the 2008 Mumbai attacks.  But what do they know?

The article goes on to state:

As soon as the news of the attacks broke, even though there was no evidence and practically nothing was known about the attackers, a Who’s Who of right-wing pundits immediately latched on to the violence as an opportunity to demonize Muslims and refugees from Muslim-majority countries.
In a disgrace to the victims, a shout chorus of reactionary demagogues exploited the horrific attacks to distract from and even deny domestic problems. They flatly told Black Lives Matter activists fighting for basic civil and human rights, fast-food workers seeking liveable wages and union rights, and students challenging crippling debts that their problems are insignificant because they are not being held hostage at gunpoint.
More insidiously, when evidence began to suggest that extremists were responsible for the attacks, and when ISIS eventually claimed responsibility, the demagogues implied or even downright insisted that Islam — the religion of 1.6 billion people — was to blame, and that the predominately (although not entirely) Muslim refugees entering the West are only going to carry out more of such attacks.

Oh, that's so slick   It's a work of art to conflate "Black Lives Matter" and the slaughter of over a hundred innocent victims in Paris.

But since I'm a WASP, I guess it's obligatory for me to jump to the conclusion that because this massacre was aimed at a group of citizens of a nation which has been accepting muslim refugees in record numbers in the last few years, the violence has been due to the national reluctance to support said muslim refugees.

Most of those refugees, though, have 'forted up' in neighborhoods where even the French police are loath to enter.

 The Washington Times - Wednesday, January 7, 2015

A backdrop to the massacre in Paris on Wednesday by self-professed al Qaeda terrorists is that city officials have increasingly ceded control of heavily Muslim neighborhoods to Islamists, block by block.
France has Europe’s largest population of Muslims, some of whom talk openly of ruling the country one day and casting aside Western legal systems for harsh, Islam-based Shariah law.
“The situation is out of control, and it is not reversible,” said Soeren Kern, an analyst at the Gatestone Institute and author of annual reports on the “Islamization of France.”

That sounds like it could have been written on November 14 rather than January 7, doesn't it?

But no, it's part of the reporting on the Charlie Hebdo attack.  It's not as if we ... and Paris ... hadn't been warned.

Apparently, it's reactionary to assume that if Muslims attacked Paris in January, and people using the same (or similar) terror tactics and equipment attack Paris in November ... oh, I can see that I am SO NOT Politically Correct, for I am jumping to conclusions before sufficient evidence has been ascertained.  (But after all, I remember this "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" racist cultural heritage that drives my knee-jerk reactions to large-scale public massacres by groups of individuals.)

Unfortunately, France continued its irresponsible Right Wing Exploitation (apparently by allowing unrestricted immigration of Muslim 'refugees'), and so of course it deserved every thing it got.

Australia Spike in handgun crimes reveals nation’s secret problem: YELLOW JOURNALISM

Spike in handgun crimes reveals nation’s secret problem | The New Daily:
(November 10, 2015)

Associate Professor Philip Alpers, one of Australia’s leading firearms researchers and a director of the Centre for Armed Violence Reduction at the University of Sydney, said the national ban on semi-automatic weapons following the Port Arthur massacre had spawned criminal demand for handguns. “The ban on semi-automatics created demand by criminals for other types of guns,” he said, adding: “The criminal’s gun of choice today is the semi-automatic pistol.”

(H/T: Says Uncle)

THIS, from the nation which Hillary Clinton has held up as the epitome of "reasonable, good-sense gun laws" working?

I have no idea why a nation which restricts full gun rights to law-abiding citizens should expect their citizens .. who are otherwise law-abiding, and I deliberately repeat myself .. to honor illegal laws.

My guess is that it's the arrogance of the elected who have no respect for the trusting citizens who innocently voted for them.  Those in-office assholes must be laughing at the ignorance of their naive plebes.

Two questions:

Happy Veterans Day To Me (?) (MY MOTHER IN LAW IS COMING TO VISIT??????)

My ex-wife is coming to visit tomorrow.

No no, it's not like it sounds.  I married the lady because I liked her, and I still like her (even though we drive each other crazy if we are in the same room together for too long).

We parted 30 years ago .. more or less.

We get along MUCH better now that she has remarried and moved 600 miles away.

She has kind of gotten into the family genealogy thing, and I found a bunch of old letters and Church of Latter Day Saints Genealogy forms in  my attic, so I called her and asked if she would be interested?

Well, yes.  She planned to drive up for the week to visit her mother and her aunt, and it would be a lot less complicated if she and her current husband (one of my best friends) could just stop by and pick up the box of letters.

Which sounded like a great deal, and I was happy to tell her she is invited to visit.  She is the mother of my two children, and surely at least ONE of them may be interested in our family tree!

So I did a little picking up around the house, some light dusting, vacuum the living room carpet, drag my make-shift reloading bench off to the side of the living room, vacuumed again to get all the spent primers dropped from the reloading bench, searched the living room for pistols and ammunition which just happened to be laying around.

(Did I mention I've been a bachelor for 25 years now?  Not that it matters, one just tends to form untidy habits when there's nobody around to nag remind you gently that "... disassembled firearms and cleaning solvents don't belong on the dining room table, DEAR~! ...." you know, the usual.)


My ex wife is coming to visit tomorrow.  With her current husband.  And would it be okay if she brings her ankle-biter chihuahua "Gypsy"?

Sure, no problem.

"Oh, and Mom and Auntie L. are coming too because they want to visit the cemetery and see" (me) --- her "favorite ex-son-in-law."  (Only one, too!)
.
I HOPE they weren't expecting to see me in the cemetery!
After all, I did divorce their daughter/niece a few decades ago.

OH!  MY! GAWD!   THE M.I.L. AND HER SISTER ARE COMING TO MY HOUSE!
(actully, Auntie L. is a sweetheart..    Ant the M.I.L would be, too.  If I wasn't related to her.
I honestly believe this.)

SO:  New Cleaning Regimen:
Move EVERYTHING that's on the carpet and vacuum where vacuums have never ventured before!

Get rid of the "clean towels" in the bathroom and replace them with the "Guest Towels" my daughter sent me for my birthday this year.

Empty the vacuum cleaner (it was getting full of expended primers) and vacuum again; yep, that was a good decision.  Funny sound those little primers make when they hit the impeller.
Glad that the half-box of NEW small-rifle primers I lost in the shag carpet last month didn't 'hit wrong', but I didn't hear a single BANG! .  so I'm Good!

What have I forgotten?

Well, I have not dusted the top of the refrigerator.

30 years my MIL came to visit us, and when she went back home after her 3-day visit she called my wife and said "Read Your Refrigerator".

SO my wife  found a stepladder which would allow her to see the top of the refrigerator ... which neither of us had seen since we moved into the house.

In the accumulated dust, my MIL had written:

"DUST ME!"

And you wonder why I fear her?


(By the way, our Daughter thinks this is funny.  She wasn't there.  But she's still in my will, anyway.)

Response to comment on "Open Carry": The Noisy Cricket is the right gun for me!

When I wrote my November 07, 2015 article about "Open Carry", I expected to get some outraged feedback from Open Carry Advocates.

Disappointing that I only received one response.  But at least the author had a valid question:

Anonymous said...

Cannot a citizen who is open carrying a more effective pistol or maybe rifle take out a mass murderer? Generally the pistols/revolvers that can be carried concealed are not really suitable for shooting further than across the room and may be a marginal caliber. In parts of the country with warm weather year round it is have to carry a standard service sized sidearm concealed under a t-shirt and Bermuda shorts.
Just call me Anon. Try shooting one of the lightweight compact or sub compact sidearms both rapidly and accurately when using full power 40 S&W or 45acp.
November 08, 2015 12:47 PM

I'm pretty sure that "Call Me Anons" rides a white horse.

Yes, I think it would be a wonderful thing if a Citizen could save a lot of lives by virtue of carrying a Major Weapon AND making sure that it can take out a terrorist  from the other side of the Food Court.  (It might be tempting to take out the "restaurant manager" at the same time, but that would be A Bad Thing.  Tempting .. but still Bad.  There might be innocent people present, too.)

Being at the right place at the right time, and doing the right thing, is laudable.

If the police (who will eventually show up) can tell the difference between the mass murderer and the guy with a smoking AR15 and a red do-rag around his head and a Sylvester Stallone Sweaty body and a smug smirk on his face ... Call Me Anonymous might even survive the experience.

(No, I don't really believe that, but he seems like a genuinely nice guy and I wouldn't want to feel as if I hadn't made at least some effort to validate his life.  As long as he had it, anyway.)

But I don't really want to rescue the entire K-Mart or Wall-Mart or Wally-World shopping contingent on any given Black Friday.   I don't prance through the Mall with an AR15 slung across my brawny shoulders and a couple of Banana-Clips poking out of my hip pockets in the hope that I'll stop America's Most Popular Mall-Shooter Of The Week.  That's just so ... not me!

I'm sorry if I don't sound like the super-hero type of Blogger (is there one?) and I don't want to disappoint my readership.  So I'll tell this story just once, and then I'll STFU, okay?

I've been shot at before.  There is nothing (I know some famous writer that I can't remember said this before me, but ...) .. there is nothing so rewarding as being shot at and missed.  However, my PERSONAL version goes something like:

There is nothing so rewarding as not being shot at all day, and I intend to pursue that personal gratification every day for the rest of my life, thank you very much.  

Those of you whose personal mission in life is to save the world from tyranny and/or Shopping Mall Massacres, have at it.  I'll gladly step aside and allow you all the glory.

Remember that scene in the movie "Men In Black" (#1) where Wil Smith is issued his ordnance?  He gets the "Noisy Cricket"  and he's disappointed,

"KAY ..... Give The Kid A Weapon!"





That's what **I'm** Talking about!

No, it's not. That is SO not "what I'm talking about!

For myself, I'll take a Belly Gun every day. 

No, it's not a large caliber.  No, it won't take out a terrorist mission across the width of a shopping mall or even the width of the "Ye Olde Antique Mall Shopping Mart Boutique", but if some ass ......   jerk puts his pot-belly within reach I can put my sneaky/femininistic/no-testical-man little P3AT in his belly-button and extend THAT the the opposite side of the shopping mall.

No, Brother, I don't want to save the world.  Been there, done that, got the olive-drab t-shirt.

I just want to save my own precious lilly-white ass, thank you very much.   Yes,even the parts with pimples on it ... when I really think it through, that part is precious to me, as well.   No, don't ask.

I've said it before, I'll say it again:  If the threat is so far away that I can't hit him with my .380, he probably can't hit me with his lever-action shotgun which he stole from the Terminator.    So I'll just turn my back and run away!

And I won't even feel guilty about that, because I know there's some Terminator-Wanna-Be with a black rifle and a couple of 30-round Banana Clips * who is just chomping at the bit for the opportunity to Take Down A Terrorist from across the street,  and Save Western Civilization and The World AS We Know It!

( * No, I do NOT feel guilty about calling them "banana clips"; this is my blog, I can murder words before I murder people.)

So you all can do what you want to do, just give me a couple of seconds notice before you start blasting away across the shopping mall.  I don't move as fast as I use to, so I would appreciate the advance warning.  Otherwise, I'll just have to "Duck and Cover" like they use to teach us in school to do, in case the Ruskies drop "The Bomb" on us. 

Which ... may not be all that far-fetched.

And that's all I have to say about it.

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.