She Still Lives!

E.R. Boroughs, in his "John Carter of Mars" series, epitomized the phrase "I STILL LIVE!"

That seems an appropriate tagline for this article.

New Jersey State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat who sponsored a state law which supposedly required that as soon as a "smart gun" was sold ... it would be the only firearm which would be legally sold in NJ ..... is still around, and is insistent that her bill be the "law of the land"; at least in New Jersey.

That was, we all assumed her (political) death knell.
We were wrong.

She's back.  And she brought at least one ape with her this year.

Two new gun control bills hit Christie's desk | POLITICO:

In 2002, James McGreevey signed a law that would have required all guns sold in New Jersey to be equipped with “smart” technology designed to be fired by just one person, using fingerprint scanners, watches or items things intended to verify the owner. But the law has been criticized as holding up the development of the technology. State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat who sponsored that law, has introduced a bill to repeal it — but only if New Jersey gun dealers sell at least one firearm equipped with the technology within three years of it becoming available on the market.

I have a LOT to say about this, but as a personal favor to the four or five folks who actually read this scribbling, I'll resist the urge to drill down for a few thousand words.

However, I will mention that at the time this controversy came to a political head, the ONLY pistol which provided this technological wonder was only available in .22 caliber.  It was only offered by one firearms dealer, and the outrage was so vehement and so widespread that he actually only sold ... none of them.  (Poor guy, I don't know if he's still in business, but he has had his moment in the sun.)

Keep a weather eye out for Loretta Weinberg, though.  She's a crusader, she has a cause, and although I absolutely reject her political stance, I can't help rooting for her to stick to her guns.

uh ... perhaps that was an unfortunate choice of words.
z

SNARK!

Top 10 Gun Headlines You Will Never Read Anywhere But Here:

Oh, yeah.  I'm loving this.  Nice Satire

Sample:

#3 Potential Mass Shooter Drops Gun and Runs after reading "GUN FREE ZONE" sign

What's the difference between IPhone Security and Firearms Security?

Forget iPhones, let's require passcodes on guns - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram:

Why is it a 6-year-old child can pick up an iPhone and be prevented from accessing its contents because of a passcode, but that same child can pick up a gun and shoot his 3-year-old brother in the face and kill him by accident? If a judge can order Apple to create software that can unlock phones that are now impenetrable, why can’t Congress order gun makers to lock their guns?

Where do we start?

(1) A child should not initiate a fatal firearms accident ... parental responsibility.   Does it sound too simplistic to suggest that cell phones and firearms should not be subject to the same security protocols?   If you own a firearm and your minor child has access, the consequences are YOUR fault!

(2) "Passcodes" are intended for access restrictions of electronic devices; they are not intended for access restrictions for defense firearms.  ANY protocol which delays immediate access to a defensive firearm cripples the 'defensive' capability of a firearm.  Good people die when artificial restrictions cripple an honest citizen's access to a defensive weapon.  Cell phones .... not so much.

(3) The role of Congress is to uphold and defend the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment.  Too often the Liberals think that the job of Congress is to enact "feel-good" laws.  There is a technical term to describe people who conflate personal physical security with cell-phone security.  That technical term is "IDIOTS!"

(4) The job of legislation is to protect private rights, not to limit them.

USPSA "Provisional" class": Pistol Caliber Carbine?

There has been some talk about adding a new (provisional) USPSA competition division:

Pistol Caliber Carbine

well ... actually, there has been very little talk about this at all!

Pistol Caliber Carbine - USPSA

WHY should we do this?

I don't know why we should add another Division ... I'm under the impression that this is a "provisional" Division,  but nobody is talking about it.  Well .. except me, and I do think we should talk about it.

Because I think it sounds like fun.

Let's face it, when Col. Jeff Cooper gave up his presidency of USPSA  in 1997 because he considered it to be "no longer even vaguely practical", the doors swung open and we can play any games we want to.

(If we really want to.)


And I'm only talking about it now because I spent thousands of dollars (that's a lie .. it was more like a dollar two-ninety-eight) to buy a mech tech caliber conversion unit from The Hobo Brasser where my 1911 would slide into a carbine barreled action with a rifle stock and it would turn into a carbine.

Which I discovered was REALLY FUN to shoot!
(okay, it currently has an electronic dot-sight, which complicates the equation, but ... we'll talk about that, too.)

My 1911 works quite well in this framework, although I've discovered that I need to load my .45acp ammunition to a bit higher power-factor to make the much heavier action work reliably.  Okay, that's talking point #1.

What are the other talking points?

Wow!  Assuming that the Division might be approved by USPSA, there are some basic questions that need to be discussed.  For example:

1. What is the starting position?
2. Can the Carbine legitimately compete against other divisions for "Over All" scores?
3. Sights?
4. Magazine Capacity?
5. Can it fold into "Open Division"?
6. 
   
   

Looking at each question:

1. Starting Position could obviously NOT be "pistol holstered".  It would have to be the "Low Ready" position (default for 3-gun?) or something that looks like "laying flat on the table ... " etc.

2. Over all scores (if the division were truly accepted only as a 'provisional' division) might not be affected by inclusion of Pistol Caliber Carbine.   Or should it?

3. Sights?  Most people (all three of them?) would probably choose to use an optical sight rather than an iron sight, if only because since this division would obviously be a "Red-headed Stepchild" Division, you might as well spend an extra couple hundred bucks and get a Red-Dot Sight to go with your "Red-headed Stepchild"   BUT perhaps some people would prefer to shoot with iron sights?  I don't know why, so I'm going to assume that SIGHTS would not be the basis for initiating a subdivision.  Use whatever you have, no limit on sight configurations.

4. Magazine Capacity:  One assumes that (since current production of this Bastard Division only accommodates 1911 single-stack and Glock pistols .. which might change) this would require a division sub-genre with "limited" (10-round or less, as in Single-Stack frames) or "open" as when a Glock 19, for example, offers a 19-round magazine capacity).  So we're talking about 2 sub divisions based only on magazine capacity.  But this is not, really, necessary. Use whatever you have, no limit on magazine capacity.

5.  Fold into "Open Division"?  Why would we want to do that?  We've  (0kay .. *I* have) already arbitrarily proclaimed that magazine capacity and sights don't necessarily need to be included into the Division specification.  If you look at the mech-tech webpage, you'll see that there are more options than were available when I bought my version a decade ago.  Which, in my mind, makes the question even more appealing!

KSTG VS "iT'S a GAME, FOLKS!"

Gamer, Timmy, Neither or Both? – Gun Nuts Media:

When, oh when, do you wear the IDPA vest out in public? Who’s the gamer????

Okay, I admit it.  This article is comparing IDPA vs USPSA (IPSC), and thanks a whole lot to Gun Nuts for opening the subject for discussion.  Because IDPA is like the Spinach Rules of Pistol Competition; I've never tried it, but it smells yucky, so I've decided I don't like it and probably never WILL try it.

Back in a previous millenia, when IDPA first entered the competitive shooting scene, I thought:
"Wow!  Another pistol shooting venue!  What a gas .. I can DO this!!!"

Then I got a link to the rules, and I saw restrictions which, frankly, turned me off.
(International Defensive Pistol Association rules here)

"Failure To Do Right" was the first thing that attracted my attention.  WTF does that mean?
I don't know yet, but apparently if you 'game' a stage, and engage a stage in a manner which doesn't violate the published stage procedures but still provides you a significant competitive advantage over other competitors who didn't perceive the flaw in the stage design ... you might just be a Gamer.

And that's A Bad Thing.

TEOTWAWKI?

Hillary Clinton: Racism Behind GOP Push to Block Obama Supreme Court Nominee - The Daily Beast:

Clinton, speaking to an incredibly supportive audience in her home state, suggested that Republican opposition to President Obama’s plan to appoint a Supreme Court justice to take the late Antonin Scalia’s seat is predicated on the inherent racism that has made Obama the enemy for the past seven years of his administration.

So, "Liberal" is the new "Black"?

More Guns Linked to More Mass Shootings? NO redeeming factors? Hah!

Study: More Guns Linked to More Mass Shootings | RealClearScience:
(February 02, 2016)

After peaking in the 1980s and early 1990s, crime has plummeted in the United States. The rates of forcible rape, murder, violent crime, property crime, and aggravated assault are currently as low as they were in the 1960s.

Some studies have suggested strongly that this reduction in crime can be directly tied to the increase in the number of states which allow concealed carry (and often "open carry" ... where firearms are NOT concealed but in open view ... predominately in holsters) by private citizens.  

("Correlation does not imply causation", but the author of this article uses the word "relationship" in the discussion.   Based on that synchronicity,  it seems reasonable to suggest that some 'relationship' exists between the statistics on violent crime and the increased presence of 'carried' firearms.)

 While these statistics demonstrate that Americans are about as safe from crime as they have been in over a half-century, there is a particularly horrendous type of crime that has been alarmingly on the uptick: public mass shootings. In places like San Bernadino, California, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Roseburg, Oregon, Charleston, South Carolina, and Newtown, Connecticut, innocents have been mercilessly gunned down in great numbers.

However, other studies , such as the Texas A&M study reported here dispute that assumption:

According to the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, crime, and specifically violent crime, has been decreasing nationally since 1993, with a similar decline in other Western nations. Some commentators claim the decline in the United States is attributed to the increase in concealed carry legislation. But criminologists point to a variety of factors that have lead to the drop in crime, including changes in policing, punishment, crime prevention technology and socio-economic factors.

The Texas Tribune article, quoting state Rep. Garnet Coleman, a Houston Democrat who chairs the House County Affairs Committee, which tackles criminal justice issues asserts that:

“People who commit crimes are less likely to go through that background check,” he said.  It’s also unlikely that a concealed handgun license holder would be in the right place at the right time to stop a crime, Coleman said.

That statement seems a little disingenuous.  The purpose of undergoing a background check to acquire a concealed carry permit is specifically to catch criminals ... who don't want to apply for a license to do the illegal actions for which they need guns.  ("Circular Reasoning" is a difficult concept to explain.)

As to the "unlikely" probability that a CHL holder "would 'be in the right place at the right time" is disproved daily in news reports.  For example, John Lott recently described four crimes stopped by civilian handgun carriers in one week in December, 2915.

And  in April of 2015, Lott (author of "More Guns, Less Crime") published an article titled: 

COMPILING CASES WHERE CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT HOLDERS HAVE STOPPED MASS PUBLIC SHOOTINGS

(Please follow the links from that starting point ... there is a lot of information, including links to published articles.)

This is all background, presented to establish the statistical evidence that firearms ownership DOES have a positive effect on crime prevention, and introducing another opinion on the question whether (civilian) concealed carry provides another approach to crime prevention.

Justice Antonin Scalia, RIP.

Justice Antonin Scalia, RIP.:

The El Paso ABC News affiliate reports, “Catholic Priest Mike Alcuino out of Presidio was called to the ranch and administered Justice Scalia’s last rights just moments ago.” The 79-year-old died in his sleep last night after a day of quail hunting at Cibolo Creek Ranch outside of Marfa, Texas. The Justice did not report feeling ill and retired to his room after dinner. The source, who was traveling with Scalia, told ABC-7 an El Paso priest has been called to Marfa. Scalia was the longest-serving current Justice on the Supreme Court. He was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. Scalia’s death leaves a vacancy on the court. The court can operate with eight justices, but any decisions that result in a 4-4 split among the justices leave the lower court decision unchanged:

UPDATE: Supreme Court Neutrality, RIP: 

But Obama quickly vowed that he would nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court and expected the Senate to confirm his choice.
“I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time,” he said. “There will plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.”
Obama said he took his constitutional responsibilities “seriously.”
“They’re bigger than any one party,” he added. “They’re about our democracy.”

OMG! I had no IDEA that killing Bambi was morally reprehensible !

The Victims of Gun Violence Politicians Won't Talk About:

In the brewing national discussion on gun violence, the most numerous victims--animals--are left out of the conversation. For every human life taken by a gun, hundreds, if not thousands, of nonhuman lives have also been taken. Yet for these victims, gun control advocates not only erase their deaths, but also actively promote and protect the killings. We fail to label the unnecessary killing of animals as gun violence, and instead we euphemize and romanticize it as "sportsmanship." But hunting is gun violence. A bullet ripping through flesh, puncturing arteries, taking a life is violence no matter the victim's species. And these deaths are far from as clean and easy as often presented

Liberals are SO funny when they get on their moral high-horse.

(Sorry, I imagine the expression "High-Horse" is probably species-ist.  Or whatever.)

I like Vegetarians ... like Bambi,  More tasty, less filling.

(Butterfly not included.  YMMV.)

Meat-eater comments are actively solicited.

COSMO gives us the straight poop about guns and relationships

It's Time To Talk About What Guns Have to Do With Dating:

"So can we talk about your guns?"

Oh dear, it's all about that "CAN WE TALK" thingie, all over again.

Generally speaking, the person who wants to talk about "your guns" is the one who is obsessed by them.  If it's not you ... find another partner.

If it's you ... get a life.

Keep BOTH hands on the steering wheel while driving

Man Dies In I-75 Crash While Allegedly Watching Porn Behind The Wheel, Pantsless  CBS Detroit: DETROIT (CBS Detroit)A new level of distracted driving was reached when a 58-year-old man, allegedly preoccupied by a pornographic movie on his phone, crashed and rolled his vehicle. It happened at about 3:30 a.m. Sunday on the ramp from the Lodge to I-75 in Detroit, Michigan State Police told WWJ 950. Michigan State Police Lt. Mike Shaw said it’s the strangest thing he’s ever encountered on the roadway. “We see people putting on makeup, we see people doing different things as far as hygiene, as far as reading books, it’s almost to the fact there’s so much technology out there a lot of people are more paying attention to what they’re doing other than driving their cars,” Shaw said. Clifford Ray Jones of Detroit was partially ejected through the sunroof when his 1996 Toyota rolled and he was thrown from the vehicle and died.

There's a truly climactic pun here somewhere, but I'm not going to touch it!

Oh, Crap!

Okay, I should have been more ... demure .. in the title.  But still, that's what it's all about.

For no definable reason, I'm listening to NPR this morning.  Okay, it's because nobody else is broadcasting at this hour (does that mean that NPR is really needy?)

Why does nobody else listen to NPR?  Well, at this moment, the guy and gurl are talking about HIS issues with walking his dog.

As in, the dog poops, and he's picking it up in a plastic bag.

I ask you ... is that significant of a political attitude?

Guys I know just .. let the poop lay where it is.  Not THEIR problem!  (Okay, those of us who follow their path may be  discomforted ... but it's indicative of "deal with it" attitudes of Conservative people, so ... mmm okay, it IS MY problem, isn't it?

So, I'm listening to NPR (because that's the only radio station that is on at this time of day) and some of the things they say are .. wow!  just stupid!

Example: the thing I talked about before, withe the guy who walks his dog and picks up the dog-poop in a plastic bag.
Yech!

I'm sure that conservative people are as responsible about their canine pets, but really?

Oh, Crap!

Perhaps I need to spend more time listening to NPR (National Public Radio), but I'm afraid that there is a limit to the degree of nausea that I'm willing to endure.

So .. what's the equanimity between dog shit and NPR?

Oh, pretty much the same thing.  I don't even have to WORK for a punch line this morning.

This is why I don't think "The Shooting Wire" is as worthwhile as it use to be!

Odds and Ends | Shooting Wire:

First, the "internet controversy" du jour: A lot of internet traffic was generated over a snippet of video that apparently depicted an unintended discharge of a firearm, the subject being a nationally known instructor. Immediately the internet peanut gallery began throwing stones. Admittedly, some of the critics have some background – but many have no apparent background. That the object of the exercise had some people making excuses didn't help. Adults in the room – Dave Spaulding and Pat Rogers – noted that people using machines have accidents and that doesn't make them "bad." Attacking people with keyboard vitriol is counterproductive and silly.

You people, those of you who consider yourself to be the intelligentsia of the Firearms Community, make the rest of us look bad.

Really bad.

WTF is this, where you're making excuses for a "professional" who can't keep his booger-hook off the bang-switch?

RICH GRASSI ... In case you were not aware, there are NO excuses for pumping a round down-range without a target.  Holy Christmas, how can you be so forgiving of a major safety fuckup?

You seem to be mildly disappointed, in a very forgiving and gentile manner, that some under-trained and over-reactive bloggers criticize this "ND" incident.

Well, we are are not as cosmopolitan as you are.  To you, it's a 'glitch'.

For some of us .. the experienced and highly trained Range Officers?\
It's a "HOLY FUCKING CHRIST! WHAT THE HELL DID YOU JUST DO?  GET THE F**K OUT OF MY RANGE" moment.

Okay, I may have overstated it, but for me?  I think that anyone who did what this guy did (Can I say "Negligent Discharge" without seeming to be over-reacting?) should be really uncomfortable with his "oopsy", and his friends should NOT be excusing that action which is the WORST THING YOU CAN DO in a competitive environment.

So, there are people who screw up, and they are disqualified from further competition during that match.

On the other hand, there are people who screw up, and they are on the 'buddy list" (not related to a competitive environment), and their friends are all too ready to forgive them.

"Hey, it would have been worse .. the gun might not have been pointed downrange!"

Hey, Asshole .. there could have been someone downrange taping targets.

ANYONE who excuses unsafe gun-handling practices because "nothing bad happened", is not only teaching new shooters the priority of Gun Handling Rules, but is in fact supporting people who fuck up .. when they deserve to be held up as a good example of bad safety practices.

And BTW .. attacking people with a keyboard may seem "SILLY" to you, but some of us do that only because we weren't at the range when this "professional" fucked up, and we couldn't bitch-slap him at the time.

Which he very much deserved.


Oh, and Mister Apologist?

You deserve a Bitch Slap of your own,

Sixties Music: Iron Butterfly

a few days ago I eulogized Signe Tolson, citing "Tobacco Road" as her signature contribution to American musical history.

That was the 1960's version.   The saying goes, if you remember the sixties ... you were never really IN it!

Having never been a member of the drug culture, I have no idea what that means.  But I spent a LOT of time in Bars in the late sixties, and two songs that were ALWAYS on the Juke Box (kids, ask your parents what this means) were "Tobacco Road" and .... one other.

The other song was sometimes either "White Rabbit" or "Somebody To Love";




 Gracie Slick stepped in for Signe and deserves an entire accolade for herself, but honey, you gotta die to get a NUMBER ONE WITH A BULLET on this chart.  (AND yes, I did buy SURREALISTIC PILLOW on

Still ... and I'm going back to the comments section from that original post ... there are some people who just get all cranky about how hard "Hard Rock" should/could be , so the Professor crank up the Way Back Machine for this one ... special ... psychedelic moment.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the unofficial theme song of IPSC:

INNA GADDA DA VIDA, by Iron Butterfly! (All 17 minutes of the Full Version .. play it as background while you surf the net ... I do.)




WHY have I designated this the "unofficial theme song of IPSC?

 Because it takes FOREVER to get through; nobody understands it, but they really like it; and if they don't, they play it once and then they never come back to it.

Trust me on this.

Al Jazeera America objects to Republicans who insist on voter photo IDs

Republicans Champion Voter ID Laws | Al Jazeera America:

Voting rights advocates say that what voter ID laws are really good at is making it more difficult for a particular subset of Americans to vote; primarily low-income black and Latino citizens — groups who tend to vote for Democratic candidates. The relative lack of academic data on voter suppression can make it a difficult argument to prove or dismiss. Voter ID proponents, for example, often point to studies showing an increase in black voter turnout in some states after voter ID laws took effect, while opponents highlight studies in other states that show the opposite result. Perez finds turnout to be an inherently flawed metric.

Has anyone suggested this in Chicago?

Draft Chicks!

Never Yet Melted  Why Republicans Were Suggesting Women Should Register For the Draft:

Many – I want to say most – men cannot handle the rigors of combat arms jobs, and it is reflected in the wash out rates just in the infantry. The two things the flurry of studies before this stroke-of-a-pen change have proven about women in combat arms are: if the president says women shall graduate Ranger school, then farking wimmin shall farking graduate farking Ranger school, and the standards shall be de facto lowered.

Oh, yeah?

You've been there?

I've between 145 and 125 pounds while I was in the Army, and I was an Infantry platoon sgt.

If the criteria was "could I have carried a wounded man" while I was in Viet Nam, the answer is NO, I could not have done so.

But I did my job, and I never had to carry a wounded man out of a combat situation.  I worked hard to ensure than my men were not needlessly subjected to the vagaries of war .. including wound.

No, I was not always able to protect them from wounds; the few men wounded under my guidance never noticed the balance I had to achieve between caution and aggression.

  No, it was not always an easy job, and no, the troops usually never noticed, let alone acknowledged, the things their Platoon Sergeant did to keep them alive.

If you think that a 125 woman could not have performed her job in the same situation, you're just crazy.  The job of a trooper may be more physical than that of a leader, but competence in a lesser role causes a member to be promoted to a leader role.  
Which is very much more complicated and onerous, but requires less PHYSICAL contribution to the mission.   (Which is why I don't think that Women should be 'shielded' from the Combat branches of the military .. such as Infantry, Artillery, and Cavalry.

(Okay, Artillery has to do mostly with toting heavy shells to the gun; that specifically requires "upper Body Strength", which is gender-specific)

Hello. My name is Johnny CasSSSccccrreeeeech LAWDOG!

One of the most entertaining blogs since Kim De Tuit has resurfaced and I'm pleased to welcome LAWDOG back!

I have been a faithful follower of Brother LAWDOG for several years, but on April 15 of 2015 he just ... quit posting!

Bummer, Dude!

This morning, I found a link to his most recent post

apparently, he resumed posting on February 01, 2015.

The most recent post was February 08, 2015 ... two days ago.

Excuse my unseemly excitement, but I've missed The Dog.

I strongly encourage you to go check out the blog.   Texas lawman, laconic sense of humor, erudite and amusing.

Public attention encourages men who provide sunshine on cloudy days.

What's not to like?

(It has been too long since I was able to use the LAWDOG label on my posts)

"Don't put that on the f*ckin' film, holy shit!"

Uncut Travis Haley Negligent Discharge:
Posted by: ENDO-Mike February 8, 2016

 I was getting tagged dozens of times in a 5 second clip of this video on Instagram.  I had no idea what the context was since the clip was so short, so I gave Travis the benefit of the doubt initially.  In this full video we see him demonstrating pushing his index finger on the magazine release at 1:46 when it slips off and hits the trigger which fires a round off.  Embarrassing?  Sure.  No one died and hopefully he learned from the incident.  What else can a person do right?  I’ve never had an accidental or negligent discharge, but I also don’t handle firearms day in and day out, and manipulate loaded firearms in front of cameras while talking and demonstrating different things.

 TOO MUCH TO SAY .. I don't know where to start!

Okay, here's a place to start:
The only 'safe place" to put your trigger finger when you have no intention to shoot is along the receiver above the trigger group.

When I saw the video and heard "Haley" say he would put his finger inside the trigger guard, but in front of the trigger .. or rest it on the magazine release housing (in front of the trigger) but "put tension on the trigger finger" I knew that was a recipe for disaster.   It made me cringe to watch it.

"Disaster" is defined as ND (Negligent Discharge).

How Police Can Get Around "Open Carry" laws to harass you

Connecticut Carry - Press Releases:

On February 5th, Senior Assistant State's Attorney Timothy Sugrue published a memorandum to the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office detailing first what everyone in Connecticut should already know: The unconcealed carry of a firearm with a valid Permit to Carry Pistols or Revolvers is 100% lawful, and that police cannot stop a person carrying a firearm unconcealed (Open Carry) to demand their permit absent Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a crime.

Here's the link to that "memorandum".

Up In Arms

PART 01:
The question is whether a Methodist college should sponsor a "shooting program".  The Alumni are "up in arms" because they believe that a religious institutions should not promote any activity which involves guns.

(H/T: The Gun Feed)

INDIANOLA, Iowa -- A decision to boost a growing program has caused outrage from alumni at Simpson College.Opponents say it not only promotes guns on campus but it’s against the same religious beliefs that the college was founded on. 

While it's not clear what kind of 'shooting sports program' is involved, it seems reasonable to assume that this is a .22 caliber rifle/smallbore/bullseye target competition activity.

In a word, it's similar to throwing darts in a pub.

Oh, wait; that would also be contrary to religious priorities.

PART 02:

Dozens of people gathered at the University of Kansas on Monday to rally against a state law that will allow concealed weapons to be carried on college campuses next year.

"It's clear that the students don't want guns on campus, the faculty don't want guns on campus, the parents of students don't want guns on campus and the we feel the majority of Kansas doesn't want this either," says Meagen Youngdahl with the Kansas Coalition for a Gun-Free Campus.

Oh.  That's okay, then.  If students, faculty, parents AND "Kansas" are all agreed that they don't want guns on campus, the solution is simple, and obvious:

Don't bring a gun on campus.

See how easy that was?

Now, if you can only convince that wild-eyed 18-year-old maniac with a stolen gun that he shouldn't shoot up your campus, there should no problem.

(PS:  You might consider sending an email to ISIS ... you know, those guys with that 'other' religious view ... telling them that they can not bring guns on campus, either.  That should solve THAT problem.)

Hoplophobia: "Blue Steel"

Hoplophobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Hoplophobia is a political neologism coined by retired American military officer Jeff Cooper as a pejorative to describe an "irrational aversion to weapons." It is also used to describe the "fear of firearms"or the "fear of armed citizens." Hoplophobia is a political term and not a recognized medical phobia.

I've been talking about people with an irrational fear of guns, and the people who own guns, for years no.  (Actually, for decades; I started talking about them in 1984 .. which seems appropriate).
But I have never rarely used the term.

Recent articles which I have published addressed this cultural dichotomy in specific situations, but never referenced the word.

I'll be using this as a label on future articles, where appropriate, because it's a much more accurate term than those which I have most often used (such as "Gun Control").

I may, time permitting, go back to recent articles and attach that label to those articles which discuss people who area vehemently against private ownership of firearms because "guns kill people".

The best example of this that I can think of off-hand is the jamie lee curtis/ron silver movie "Blue Steel", where Ron Silver's character finds a revolver and becomes obsessed with shooting people ... merely because he has a gun, and because it empowers his latent psycho tendencies. (you can watch the movie on youtube)

Because they don't trust ANYBODY, that's why: Double Think v. Cognitive Dissonance

Newtown group seeks city-wide ban on carrying guns in businesses:
February 07, 2016

The Newtown Action Alliance, a gun control group based in Connecticut, has sent a letter to all of their local businesses requesting that they make their properties gun free zones, and not allow firearms to be carried on their premises. 

As is typical of all gun-control activists, this group does not believe that anyone can possibly justify being armed in public places.

Why? Because guns kill people.

These people would rather depend on their local sheriff to defend the public than anyone with a concealed carry license.  Because they trust the sheriff, but they don't trust armed civilians.

The problem is, these Newtown folks (and others with the same mindset) find themselves unable or unwilling to accept the "vetting" process by which their local sheriff determines that specific Concealed Carry License holders are legally determined to be a minimal threat to the community.

Which is to say, they trust their local sheriff to rescue them when they are threatened, but they do not trust their local sheriff to reliably identify and approve non-LEOs to possess the means to defend themselves (and others) when 'the police are just minutes away'.

There are two psychological term for this: the first is Cognitive Dissonance

Brits: Still Crazy, After All These Years

Bang, bang -- democracy’s dead: Obama and the politics of gun control | OUPblog:
Don't you love it when the Brits criticize the Colonists for liking guns too much?

And now here's a British Academic suggesting that what we REALLY NEED is a "Benevolent Dictator"!  Damn Brits, they still want to tell us how to live.

Would that be, like, a King?  You know, a Ruling Monarch, like you guys have.  Y'all would love that, wouldn't you?  Someone who could just wave his pen and his cell phone and declare that the  Constitution was so much shit.  (Okay, I'm getting a little scared now.)

Maybe there is a residual resentment that Americans are free citizens, rather than 'subjects', and as such we get to decide for ourselves how we want to live.  (See: "Constitution" which applies to all American citizens vs "Magna Carta" which applies to English Nobelmen.)

Those goofy Brits, they're still pissed about that whole Concord/Lexington kerfuffle where they got their ass handed to them when they tried to take guns away from Americans.   Remember that time where they resented the American Independence Movement so they tried to resolve the issue using GUNS?

Didn't work out all that well for you, did  it?   And you're STILL trying to tell us how to live.

In some ways American gun control has regressed rather than progressed in recent years as the federal ban on military assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that existed between 1994-2004 has not been renewed by Congress. But it’s too easy to exaggerate the threats or to ridicule gun toting Americans but the reality is far more sad: most deaths occur from guns being used to commit suicide, or are found by children and toddlers who mistake them for toys with devastating effects. When it comes to gun control and American politics then maybe – just maybe – could there be a case for a benevolent dictator who understands that the ballot and bullets, just like guns and safety, just don’t mix?

(The Brits have always taken the Moral High Ground when it comes to firearms.  Well, after WWII, when we shipped a shitload of GUNS to them when they were in danger of being over-run by the Krauts; and then when that wasn't enough we came over and did their dirty work for them?  They resented us.     We saved their ass, and they never forgave us for that.)  

Oh crap, these same guys (The Brits) who wanted to kill Americans 300 years ago because we were too damned INDEPENDENT  have never forgiven us for our .. uh ... independence.  But today, they seem to have finally accepted that they are never going to dominate us politically, or militarily, so they're going to smash us by Speaking Ill Of Us!

So much for us ...

... but what about THEM?

"TIME" gets it wrong again .. as usual.

The Historical Problem With the Word ‘Militia’ | TIME:

But militias have historically been in service to the American government, not aligned against it. In trading on the language of militias, the Bundy group camouflages what it really is: an armed gang attempting to pervert history.

No.

"Militias", and other similar groups ("ref: "Minute Men"), have NEVER " ... been in service to the American Government".

They have been, historically, in service to the American People.

After more than 200 years, we are only a heartbeat away from being "an Independent People" rather than "Subjects To The Crown".

"The Government" is not necessarily "the American People", and it is difficult to understand why a respected  media outlet would make such a fundamental error .. unless it has an agenda which is contrary to the rights of "The People".

Which Time Magazine clearly represents.

(Assume 3,000 word essay describing the difference between "The Government" and "The People", and also Time Magazine .. to which I once subscribed before I realized it was a huge malodorous pile of bovine excreta.)

Shooting Culture: "Sometimes, you just need to shoot out of the box"

Competition shooting isn't just about "Hitting the A-zone"; sometimes it's about the friends you make.    Nobody talks about that any more.

I teach a monthly class (club sponsored) in "Introduction to USPSA".   My only criteria in accepting new students is that they have previous experience in handgun shooting, and that they care enough about receiving training to actually spend an afternoon in the class.  There is no charge for the class, I present the training just to encourage new shooters (or, sometimes, to discourage those who have neither the basic experience or skills to safely handle a pistol).   The class is advertised as "an ADVANCED class, and students who cannot perform basic gun-handling skills will not successfully complete the course".

SOMEBODY needs to evaluate the two-part skills sets of "new shooters":
(1) basic gun-handling expertise
(2) 'advanced' gun-handling under the stress of time factors

This is essentially a method of allowing shooters to experience "stressful" competition situations, so they can decide for themselves whether they should enter the competition pistol milieu.   It's sufficiently rigorous so that people who can't learn ... are discouraged.  (Not by me, but by their own experience in a setting which loosely parallels the competition environment which they have decided to "try out").

 Those who can learn are encouraged, because they advance their skills sets in a single afternoon of shooting.

Those who cannot learn usually never come back, because they have proved to themselves that they either need to get more training, or they just don't care enough about competitive pistol shooting to learn the skill sets needed to perform competitively.

Fifty percent of my students do not, historically, ever attempt to shoot in a match.
Fifty percent of those who do participate in competition never come back to shoot a second match.

Some of those who pass those two informal "filters" decide that they have learned what they need to know, but they are not really interested in competition.  

A small minority of people who take this class go on to compete, and may or may not continue for more than a couple of matches.

But the people who do come back are hooked for life.  And they learn more every time they shoot a match.

I've said most of that before, but for this month's class I was joined by my shooting-buddy "The Hobo Brasser" who volunteered to help me in the class.   He was not rewarded by the club for his contribution (he's not a member of the same gun club) but he just wanted to get some trigger time in, and this seemed like a good opportunity to shoot without having to pay match fees.  

I'm not believing this, any of it.

Stairwell shooting cop trained to have gun drawn: fellow officers | New York Post:
(January 29. 2016) (posted February 04)

Two cops, including one who worked the same beat as rookie Officer Peter Liang — now on trial for fatally shooting an unarmed man in a Brooklyn housing project — said Thursday they were taught to have their guns out at times for fear of possible “ambush.” 

Okay, I believe that ...

Defense attorneys have argued the gun was faulty, saying in opening statements that Liang’s finger was alongside the trigger — not on it — following police protocol. 

... but I do NOT believe that!

But Detective Marc Acevedo told jurors Liang’s gun was on the high end of the NYPD’s acceptable range for trigger-pull — the force required to fire the weapon. The Glock needs 11¹/₂ pounds of pressure to fire, out of a range of 9 to 12 pounds.

AND if that statement was intended to support Liang's testimony, it's the second miss-fire in this whole sad New York Tale.

The gun did not just 'go off'.  There was no malfunction of the Glock; there WAS a malfunction of the Liang.   Why don't the cops just admit that the kid fucked up, and take it from that point?  It's a high stress situation, and it seems obvious to the casual observer (who was not there) that the cops were jumpy and when the guy suddenly appeared at the head of the stairs the cop plugged him.

Deliberately.

Well, he probably wasn't intending to do that, but when you have a 11+ pound trigger-pull, that Glock isn't going to shoot unless you really, really mean it!   And Liang really, really meant to pull that trigger.

I shoot pistols in competition that have a 3# or an 8# trigger pull weight, and there's a huge amount of difference between the two.  But an 11# trigger pull?

Has anyone asked WHY the NYPD mandates a "9 to 12 pounds" trigger pull weight?

It's because in times of stress, people tend to grip the pistol really hard, and if your finger is on the trigger that can translate to a jerk of the trigger finger.

This 2010 Las Vegas Negligent Discharge (ND) video  illustrates the problem: *



* (yes, you've seen this video here before; it's one of my favorites)

Fortunately, the Las Vegas ND only frightened a couple of people to the point where they wanted a costume change, right now.

But the New York situation was a whole different, and more fatal, scenario.  Obviously in New York the officer was pointing his pistol at the man looming above him (which is a 'dominating' position, and generally tends to make people feel more ... defensive) or else his round wouldn't have HIT HIM!

Not a strike against the officer; that's where the gun is suppose to be pointed.

Still, when testimony suggests that the officer's finger was NOT on the trigger; that the pistol 'may have' bumped the wall of the stairwell, which 'may have' been a contributory factory ... I'm dubious.

When they (NYPD) assert that the ND was due to a malfunction of the gun, I'm calling
TOTAL BULLSHIT and DO YOU REALLY EXPECT ANYONE TO BELIEVE THIS LIE???

Even I, who don't like Glocks, am not ready to swallow that spew of bovine excreta.

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

The LIE that won't die

Americans 'much likelier to be killed by guns' than people in other countries | Americas | News | The Independent:

Funding for gun-related research was decimated after it was targeted by the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress, a decision that reverberates two decades later. “We have to understand what the problem is, how to approach the problem, and do our approaches work,” Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, told the Trace last year about the problems involving funding for gun research. “And we just don’t know anything.”

(H/T: War on Guns)

Liberals and other control-freaks will say anything to make their point, and when that's not enough they just hide the truth.

In this case, the lie is that the NRA "decimated" funding for gun-related research.  Well, in a sense that isn't so much a lie as it is an obfuscation.

Truth is the Center for Disease Control (a federal agency) took it upon itself to define guns as a "disease" and through a process of addressing firearm deaths as the consequence of a disease, declared:

GUNS ARE BAD!  THEY KILL PEOPLE!  WE SHOULD STOP THIS DISEASE!

... or words to that effect.

The NRA pointed out that the 'research on guns' at CDC was biased, in that it ignored the benefits of firearms ownership ... not the least was that guns are very often used by honest, peaceful citizens in defense of themselves, their family, their homes and their property.  And oh, by the way?  Guns are inanimate objects.  Sometimes the people who pick them up do bad things with them, but that's no reason why you should be calling them a "Bad Dog!"

Part of the "research" at CDC was a reliance on the flawed data from the "Kellerman" study.  The CDC didn't bother to evaluate the data in terms of the way it was gathered or the questions it asked; they just took the whole thing and painted it with a patina of legitimacy.  The pre-determined conclusion was scientifically flawed from the beginning.

In a word, the CDC took a lie and gave it legitimacy, with malice aforethought.
Because they don't like guns, and they don't think people should have them.
(Damn the Constitution, we're the CDC and we know what's best for you!)

As a consequence, when the government (probably the Office of Management and Budget) investigated NRA's complaint, they discovered that it was factually correct and as a consequence CDC got it's wrist slapped.   They (CDC) could research anything they wanted, but when they openly promoted "gun control" based on fallacious assumptions, they had exceeded their mandate.

Essentially, CDC was told "say anything you want, but we're not going to pay for it and you can't release findings as a federal agency".

Yes, in this specific instance, the NRA did take an active role in reining back an out-of-control federal agency.  And if the funding which the CDC applied toward "gun control" research represents ten percent of the entire amount spent on that subject through-out the country, that would be defined as a 'decimation' in the strictest sense of the word.

However, "gun control research" continues unabated in this country.

The quote which begins this screed comes from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center ... which is funded 'differently' from the CDC.

To paraphrase the gun-control crowd:
"Nobody wants to take your research grant from you; we just want to make sure it's used wisely."

(may I smirk now?)

Post Script:

In the new study, Grinshteyn and Hemenway wrote that their research shows that the country “suffers disproportionately from firearms,” ultimately coming to this conclusion: “These results are consistent with the hypothesis that our firearms are killing us rather than protecting us.”

Actually, this country does not suffer from firearms at all ... firearms are just sitting around waiting for someone to tell them what to do.  Much like "immigrant laborers" at the corner of First and Main waiting for a guy with a pickup who needs a bunch of grape pickers.

Except, of course, that the guns are legal.

Which is not the case in most of the other 49 countries in the original study, where guns are highly regulated so that only bad guys can have guns.  Which they use to kill good people who are unable to defend themselves; while in America good guys with guns sometimes kill bad guys with guns, and we have a lot of  THEM here, just like everywhere else.  The difference is remarkable, but not recognized in statistics.

Just saying.

The Addict Is all For Gun Control

▶ What Do Most Americans Agree On? with Dennis Quaid and Amanda Peet from lauren, Michael...

What do most Americans agree on?

Addicts are not the best judge of gun control.

Signe Tolson .. Death Chant

Jefferson Airplane "Tobacco Road" - YouTube: Uploaded on Jul 16, 2008 From the first Jefferson Airplane album 1966 Category Music License Standard YouTube License

Signe Toly Anderson, a vocalist and original member of the Jefferson Airplane who left the band after its first record and was replaced by Grace Slick, has died.

Anderson died Thursday at her home in Beaverton, Oregon, according to her daughter, Onateska Ladybug Sherwood. Anderson was 74 and had been suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Anderson, who survived cancer in her 30s, died on the same day that another Airplane member, Paul Kantner, died.

I've loved Signe's contribution to 'modern' American music for 50 years.
I have little more to say about her passing, except that for me she was a significant contributor to American popular music in the 60's.

After Signe left the band, they created the album "Surrealistic Pillow" with Grace Slick taking over the Lead Female Singer role, and the band went on to ... well, obscurity in the next decade.
(NOTE: the conversion of the band from "Jefferson Airplane" to "Jefferson Starship" was no great improvement!)

Slick was an exemplary member of the band, but Signe made the band the popularly iconic part
of the 1960's culture.

Signe  made Oregon proud.  And we will miss her.

Monster Bash: Safety For All Act

20160201 PRA - Safety for All Act

For those of you who haven't followed this act (which includes me, until tonight)
you might want to be aware of some of the proposals behind this monster.

(I'm sure I owe somebody a "Hat Tip" for this, but I got so interested in following the link that I lost track of the ... er ... monster.)

Here is ONE of the provisions included:

(A PDF version is available at smart gun laws)

6. We know background checks work. Federal background checks have already prevented more than 2.4 million gun sales to convicted criminals and other illegal purchasers in America. In 2012 alone, background checks blocked 192,043 sales of firearms to illegal purchasers including 82,000 attempted purchases by felons. That means background checks stopped roughly 225 felons from buying firearms every day. Yet California law only requires background checks for people who purchase firearms, not for people who purchase ammunition. We should close that loophole.

[emphasis added]

So, for the "safety of all", you should not only be required to undergo a background check when you purchase a firearm, but you should also be required to undergo a background check when you purchase ammunition.

(NOTE: The PRA version ends there:  the SMART GUNS LAWS version ends slightly differently:

We should close that loophole so that people who are unable to buy a gun are also unable to buy the ammunition that makes guns deadly. 

The Charleston Loophole:

When NICS cannot respond with a "you can't buy that gun!" decision within three days, the default is to allow the transfer of a firearm.  That's current law.

And that's how Dylan Roof was able to obtain a firearm and kill people with it in Charleston.

This was when the NICS system was only required to vet people who are trying to purchase a firearm.

How many firearms are purchased each year?  Not sure ... but certainly firearms purchases are transacted less frequently than ammunition purchases.

Now the Liberal Nation proposes that we add to the burden of the NICS system to also approve purchases of ammunition?

Madness!

So, will the Liberal Nation tone down their rhetoric to the point where they only require that 'ammunition purchases" be vetted at the state level, rather than the national level?

Unlikely.  State budgets are notoriously thin, and in fact while it was at one time proposed that the majority of NICS checks be conducted at the state level, that pie-in-the-sky dream lasted about ten milliseconds when the states considered how it would affect their budgets ... and their legal exposure when they allowed a purchase which later turned into a tragedy.

TRAGEDY:

That's what we're looking at here, you know.  If a state is required to either allow or deny an ammunition purchase,  it must respond within 3 days, the same as a request to purchase a firearm.  If it denies a request (and cannot deny it within 3 days), and someone dies because the request is denied .. is the state liable?   Perhaps ....

No.  That's not going to happen.

And if it approves a request, and someone dies because the request is accepted?

Hah!

No state in this union is likely to allow itself to be caught in such a no-win legal bind.    (And it's not as if the Federal Government is willing to allow itself to be caught in a Catch 22 situation, either.)  This proposal will never be accepted at the national level.  Nor at the state, county, local or municipal level.  NOBODY wants to be responsible for deciding whether someone should be legally allowed (or disallowed) for ammunition purchases.

Conclusion:
The ONLY outcome of this faulty Liberal proposal would be that the folks who are required to approve or deny such transactions will find themselves at fault because they approved ... or denied ... the sale of ammunition; probably the states, and they would be understandably reluctant to accept the responsibility.

IN THE MEAN TIME, the entire NICS would be so tied up in trying to evaluate 'ammunition purchase' requests that (a) the purchasers AND vendors would be outraged, and (b) the state or feds would find themselves liable for the outcome of denial or acceptance of approval.

And evaluation of requests for firarms transactions would be lost in the firestorm of ammunition purchase requests.

Other than that ... what value is there in vetting ammunition purchase requests?  Except for the validation of anti-gun proponents who what only to make it more difficult for honest citizens to purchase ammunition ....... there is no redeeming value to it at all.

Besides, for many of us .. we load our own ammunition.  Are we looking at future licensing of home reloaders?

That IS the next step, you know.

" .... BUT ....."

Yes, The Australian Model On Gun Control Means Bans and Confiscation - Matt Vespa:

Nobody wants to take your guns. That’s what most mainstream pro-gun control Democrats say ad nauseam at various rallies. There’s also the “I support the Second Amendment, but…” that advocates of gun control say prior to offering some pie-in-the-sky policy proposals that usually venture into bans on so-called assault rifles, limiting magazine sizes, or an all-out ban on semi-automatic firearms. That’s essentially a gun ban.

I challenge you to quote any declaration about Gun Control which the liberals will proffer, which does not include the word "but".

BUT means that they don't want to take  your guns away, "BUT ...."   they really do.

They don't want to take your guns away "BUT" they don't like scary rifles.
They don't want to take your guns away "BUT" they don't like "high capacity magazines".
They don't want to take your guns away "BUT" they don't see any reason why anyone would want to have a (fill in the blank)

They don't want to take your guns away "BUT" they think that a 30 round magazine has no redeeming qualities (fill in the number ... either over or under "30 rounds").

They don't want to take your guns away "BUT" they don't understand why anyone needs an automatic weapon?  (and By The Way, they don't really have a clear understanding of the difference between "Automatic" and "Semi-Automatic" weapon;   it doesn't really matter, though, because to them they're all the same and they don't want you to have them!)


They keep asking for legal firearms owners to "compromise" on gun control issues, but they don't often suggest compromises which they are willing to offer.

That's because they don't  have to offer anything ...  the Second Amendment already acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms, and there's nothing left for them to give which will expand the rights which WE already have.

All they can do is to chip away at our constitutional rights with niggling little dings and dents, until all we have left is the car-wreck which they will allow us ... and then they want to take the hubcaps and the chrome off the fender, too!

It would serve no purpose to identify "they" or "them".  You know who they are.

THEY are the people who think that 'guns' are so bad, there is no legitimate purpose for anyone to own one.   They think that guns have no redeeming value, and guns are the source of mayhem and destruction.

They forget (or choose not to remember) the Watts riots , and armed Korean shop owners standing guard on the roof of their stores .... those stores which, after the riots were over, were the only commercial establishments left standing, unlooted: and those businesses were where the local residents calmly went to shop when the riots were over.



So when somebody tells you that you're over-reacting about your second amendment rights, and "nobody wants to take your guns", you might think about their lying eyes and remember that they either intend to stab you in the back, or take away your means to defend your self, your home, your family and your property.

Everybody wants to take away your guns.   Anybody who says different is not your friend.

The Kid With A Bat

Police officer to sue family of teenager he shot  Hot Air:

,,,, there is the larger battle taking place in the court of public opinion. I realize that Officer Rialmo and his attorney have to look out for his best interests, but is this really helping? In an already tense atmosphere around Chicago I can’t imagine there being much sympathy for a cop who tries to sue the family that just buried their son, disturbed and/or violent as he may have been. This just sounds like an ill considered plan.

Cop responds to call ...  aggressive teen with a baseball bat.
The "The Kid With A Bat".

THERE ARE TWO POINTS OF VIEW TO BE CONSIDERED HERE"


FIRST:  The Kid With The Bat --

Oh, I don't know what was going through his head.

As much as I would like to be able to analyze what he was thinking when he used a baseball bat to confront a cop, I cannot.  My best guess is t hat there were drugs, or alcohol involved; but I can't even say that, because I don't know.

SECOND: The Cop with the Gun

Cop sees a kid with a bat, the kid is aggressive and unwilling to disarms himself.  Cop tries verbal domination techniques, the kid responds aggressively and the cop is left with "limited options".

 Cop shoots The Kid With A Bat., bullet passes through and kills neighbor behind the teen.

THIRD:  The Woman Behind The Kid With A Bat

Cop sues family of The Kid With A Bat.  Cop's options are limited, and at this point (since a person who was apparently seems too have been  uninvolved died as a result of the cop's actions, all he ("The Cop") can do is to swing the blame toward the Aggressor .. "The Kid With The Bat".)

Who's to know that the woman was behind the kid swinging the bat?  Is this a call for Baseball Bat Control?  In the middle of a firefight, the Tunnel Vision thing happens, and all you can see is the target.

An "uninvolved" person has died, she hs the cop's bullet in her, it's obvious who was the instrument of her death.

Now, we're talking about who was RESPONSIBLE for her death!

The cop has responded by suing the family of The Kid With A Bat., who is identified as the person who caused the whole thing.

I don't know, maybe so.  But one thing is sure;

The cop didn't know that the woman was behind the kid, had no idea that there was an Innocent involved, and is completely innocent of any death resulting from his response.

So the cop sues the estate of the kid with the bat.  What else was he to do?  Admit fault when no fault was possible to define?

Okay so I'm prejudiced in favor of the policeman.  I don't blame him (the cop) for trying to shift the blame, because it wasn't HIS idea to get into a gunfight!

His best game plan was to go home at the end of his shift.  NOBODY wants to get into a gunfight .

Well, except for The Kid With A Bat.

Tragedy or Collateral Damage?

At this point, we have no idea whether the Woman was a partner with The Kid With The Bat, or an Innocent Bystander, or something in between.    My guess is that she was an innocent, one way or the other.  But we don't know that, and I'm waiting to read about the results of the investigation which mus surely ensue./

It doesn't really matter, though.  Whatever The Kid With The Bat had going on for him, it would be impossible under all but the most arcane circumstances to blame The Woman for the tragic outcome of this confrontation.

Well .. maybe.  Usually.

We'll find out more, in the weeks to come.

In a moment of angst, Sanders throws the baby from the Troika (Mamma Under The Bus Version)

Sanders to co-sponsor bill repealing gun industry protections he supported:

Sen. Bernie Sanders completed his walkback on guns Thursday with a move to co-sponsor a bill that repeals gun industry protections he backed in 2005. Tad Devine, his senior strategist, confirmed that Sanders will sign onto repealing a bill that gives gunmakers and manufacturers unusual immunity from liability. Hillary Clinton has hammered Sanders for his 2005 vote in favor of the measure, arguing that he caved to the firearms lobby at a time when Democratic primary voters overwhelmingly back more gun control.

Throw mama from the train.

He was "On Walk-About"

Brockton man arrested a third time in 15 months on gun charges | Local News - WCVB Home:

BROCKTON —For the third time in 15 months, a Brockton man with gang ties is facing gun charges after being arrested for leading officers on a car chase in the city Friday afternoon, police said.
 The Enterprise said members of the Brockton Police Major Crimes Unit and undercover detectives were conducting electronic and visual surveillance of Patrick Brandao, 24, of 85 Tribou St., Apt. 27. Brandao was wearing a court-ordered electronic GPS ankle bracelet.
 Brandao is a person of interest in two recent incidents of gun violence in the city - on Jan. 6 around 1:30 p.m. on David Street and shortly after midnight on Jan. 12 on Carroll Avenue, Brockton Police Lt. Paul Bonanca said. As of Saturday morning Brandao had not been charged in either incident.

Massachusetts police might consider locking the bastard a$$hole person up.

But then that would be to obvious.

Blatant Firearms Confiscation bill in GEORGIA?

Law Enforcement Could Seize Semiautomatics Under Ga. Bill:
By Eric Scheiner | January 29, 2016 | 11:57 AM EST

Georgia lawmakers have put forth several gun control bills this year, including a measure that would call on law enforcement to seize and destroy what the proposal deems “assault weapons” from gun owners. A major purpose of HB 731 is “to designate certain weaponry and ammunition as contraband and to require seizure of such by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.”

This is a surprising ... suggestion ... in Georgia, which has recently been the subject of much controversy for their firearms-friendly legislation.

The measure requires “assault weapons” and “high caliber weapons” not turned in by owners to be seized by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.
Under the bill, “Any selective fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic, or burst fire at the option of the user” would be banned.
“I’m not wedded to the specific principle of confiscating guns,” bill sponsor state Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver (D-Decatur) told WXIA-TV. “I am open to an honest discussion – if I’m allowed to have an honest discussion – if there’s a better way.”  [emphasis added]

Is it fair to assume that Mary Margaret has no plans for a career as a Georgia state legislator?

Reading the comments on the article, there are more than a few Georgians who do not plan to vote for her in the immediate future.

Comment:  Mary Margaret, it seems that the 'honest discussion' you seek might better have occurred between you and your constituents before you proposed this bill.

This is especially surprising when you consider that Virginia (under the leadership of Terry McAuliffe) has announced the complete turn-around of the previous reluctance to accept reciprocity of concealed carry courtesies with 25 states.

The Lords Giveth, and The Lords Taketh Away.

We need fewer Lords, and more representatives of the people.

LAPD: "When seconds count, police are only hours away"

Only On 2: LAPD Officers Say More Patrol Needed In Times Of Emergency  CBS Los Angeles: LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) —

 Officers with the LAPD tell CBS2 that in the event of an emergency, you might have a long wait. It’s a story that is Only On 2. CBS2’s Randy Paige reports that many officers believe there aren’t enough of them to go around — especially in an emergency. “The citizens need to know they need to be able to protect themselves because if they call 911, we can’t guarantee we’re going to get there in time to help you,” says Police Protective League President Jamie McBride....

(emphasis added)

This is particularly poignant considering that California politicians have spent the last 20 years making sure that their citizens have limited access to firearms.

Now the police are admitting publically that they can't protect the public?

This comes as no surprise to anyone except for the elected officials ... many of whom have armed bodyguards, so it's not THEIR problem!

Now that the police have admitted that their job is to pick up the bodies and not much else, what is the Average Citizen of California to do?

Well, the first step might be to change their political affiliation to "Republican", because the Democrats who run the state aren't don't much to protect their constituents ... and the police are admittedly over-extended.

Not that I have much room to talk; I live in Oregon,  I haven't voted for a Democrat for 30 years, but you know how it is when the major population densities are all in 'the big cities' where the welfare state rules the geopolitical state.

These Guys Can Deliver The Mail

FED EX at its best:  "When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight" has nothing on these Texas Lawmen.  

BOOM, HEADSHOT! Texas Hostage Taker Smoked In Irving:

A man attempting to rob a check-cashing store in Irving, Texas, had his robbery thwarted when an employee triggered the alarm. Police quickly responded to the robbery in progress, and the handgun-armed robber decided to take a hostage. This turned out to be the worst decision of his day, and the last decision of his life. The officers simply could not let the armed robber leave the scene with his hostage.

In the unlikely chance that you haven't seen or heard about this by now ... never let anyone tell you that "First Responders" (police) are all ineffectual twits who don't know how to handle a hostage situation, or that they can't shoot.

This is one of those days when it feels really GOOD to be an American.

Why I keep dropping my NRA membership

Last month, in a fit of pique with anti-gun a$$h01%S, I joined the NRA.

This isn't the first time I've done that.  In the past XX years I must have joined, then failed to renew, my NRA membership at least a dozen times.

Why do I quit?

Let me tell you about THIS time, as it's fresh in my memory:

As soon as I (re)joined the NRA, they sent me a WELCOME letter with my membership card. (I had specified "no magazine", as I can read it in the barbershop down the street every monty.)

Then they sent me another letter, asking me to renew my membership.  Hey, I just JOINED!

Then they sent me another letter, asking me to renew my membership "early" so I could "save a lot of money".

Then they sent me another letter, asking me to send a "donation".

Then they sent me another letter, and I don't know exactly what they were asking, but money was certainly part of the plea.

Then they sent me another letter, which I opened but didn't read as soon as I saw the word RENEW.

Then they sent me another letter, which offered me insurance.

Then they sent me another letter, which was a "Dues Increase Notification".

Then they sent me another letter, which I looked at and didn't read.

Then they sent me another letter, which I threw away unopened.

Then the sent me more letters ... which began to piss me off.

So I'll not rescind my membership, but I won't believe in the "membership has benefits" thingie because it also incurs a burdensome number of annoying letters.

Today I got another letter .. I thought it was from the NRA but when I took another look I discoverd it was from AAA who wants to sell me insurance. (So I don't need the NRA, right?  I threw that one away ... I swear these folks use the same promotion agencies.)

The next letter was from someone who wanted to sell me funeral services.

Then came one which wanted to sell me a cemetery plot.

I've got the plot right here, guys.  I think you're all in cahoots.  I feel like I've been locked into one of those PONZI schemes.

Take from it what you will

The Most Powerful Images of 2015 - The Atlantic - The Atlantic:

The Most Powerful Images of 2015 Dec 17, 2015 | 17-part series Video by The Atlantic Over the course of the year, The Atlantic’s Alan Taylor reviews thousands of photographs as he winnows them down to assemble his In Focus galleries. These curated selections feature photographs from all over the globe, covering everything from the ongoing conflict in Syria to celestial bodies in the far reaches of space. In this video, we collected some of the most striking and iconic photos of 2015 to take a look back at the year that was.

No comment.