Tuesday, March 08, 2016

NOBODY Obeys!

Going Underground | Firearm Non-Registration Rates | Gun Facts: If registration doesn’t impede gun ownership nor affect crime, what is its purpose? Apparently none.
Just saying .. and it's a very interesting commentary (with fewer words than you will find here) describing the relationship between firearms registration and crime rates.

STOLEN from GUN FACTS


CountryRegisteredEst. low unreg­isteredEst. high unreg­isteredPercent Unreg­istered
(average low/high)
Homicide rate
Greece100,0001,500,0001,500,0001500%1.7
France2,802,05715,000,00017,000,000571%1.0
New Zealand335,000850,0001,000,000276%0.9
Germany7,200,00013,000,00023,000,000250%0.8
Brazil5,240,00014,840,0009,600,000233%25.2
Mexico4,490,00010,000,00010,000,000223%18.9
Turkey3,000,0004,000,0008,000,000200%2.6
Belgium870,000600,0001,200,000103%1.6
England & Wales1,742,300300,0003,000,00095%1.0
Montenegro86,00040,00089,00075%2.7
Poland314,641200,000200,00064%0.8
South Africa3,737,676500,0004,000,00060%31.0
Spain3,051,5881,500,0001,500,00049%0.8
Finland1,600,00050,0001,500,00048%1.6
Canada7,000,000900,0005,000,00042%1.4
Netherlands330,000125,000125,00038%0.9
Sweden2,096,79850,0001,500,00037%0.7
Australia2,500,000400,000700,00022%1.1
Norway1,320,000125,000125,0009%2.2

Apparently, Americans aren't the Only Ones who are reluctant to register their guns .. regardless of what their National Leaders think they SHOULD do!

Fitness of Blacks to Own Guns? Not On Target!

‘Progressives’ Join Bloomberg in Challenging Fitness of Blacks to Own Guns:
USA – \March 07, 2015(Ammoland.com)-
“These horrifying new numbers show how America’s lax gun laws hurt black Americans,” a Violence Policy Center-inspired screed against gun rights on Vox claims.
I'm pleased that David Codrea chose to address this obnoxious subject.

Because it's not 'lax gun laws' that hurt 'Black Americans'.

It's the culture which allows and accepts violent behavior which hurts Americans .. Black, or any other color!

I attempted to write in response to the original screed. I tried four times, and couldn't make the words I chose to describe the societal ills of America today.

It always came out sounding as if I blamed the race of the people involved, when I really wanted to blame the culture in which the people were raised.

It's the CULTURE of poverty; 
It's the 'privileged' culture of assuming that people of "certain ethnic groups{ (blacks, Chicanos, hillbillies, .. do we need more cultural labels?) cannot be expected to raise their families to be responsible members of society;
of using artificial laws to provide 'racial preference' in admission to colleges where the expectations are greater than students have learned to expect in public schools.

 Generally speaking, America has decided to treat ethnic groups as 'second class citizens' because of historic "issues", and so we have a strong segment of our populations of whom we expect less than they are capable of doing.

And we are doing them a damage by asking less than they can produce.

The problem of ethnic groups is often that men and women bring children into the world in casual relationships, but then the men "move on" and fail to provide the support of the male parent for the children which they create.

Why should they not?  They know that we have low expectations of them and they fulfill those low expectations.  (Not a universal trait, but it happens often enough that we see too many 'single-parent' families for our society to assimilate in a wholesome manner.)

When a woman gives birth without a strong father to reinforce the rules of civilized behavior, the offspring tend to become rebellious and autocratic.  It's exceedingly difficult for a single-family parent to raise a child to become a responsible citizen, when the father doesn't care enough to remain as a reinforcing example that his and her children should emulate the example provided by a caring couple.

If the "family" has no responsible couple to provide a good example, why should the children be expected to be responsible in their own private lives?

In a society ... a culture ... a family where the most successful male is the pimp/gangster/criminal is the one with the most 'disposable' income; where one's parents are more frequently un-married; where the father may or may not provide support for the family; and where the mother might introduce a new "uncle" every few months  --- it's difficult for a daughter to learn to be particular about the men with whom she associates.

And where the Alpha Male in the neighborhood is a drug dealer, a pimp or a thief, it's difficult for a son to learn the value of education, making an honest living, and supporting a family.

I grew up "lucky".  


My family stressed that when I was old enough to work, I would work.  And I would pay for what I wanted by using the money I had earned from honest labor.  I knew that it was shameful to cheat, to steal, to make promises I couldn't keep, or to take advantage of the weaker members of my community.

And I had a family that I saw frequently.  Holidays would see aunts and uncles, cousins and other people who were related to me by blood.  And all of them were earning an honest living.

Criminal behavior was ... not just rare, but non-existent!

If I broke the speed limit, I was expected to pay the fine and that was non-negotiable.  I did it, it was my problem.  I got jobs mowing yards, taking care of neighbor homes while they were on vacation.

Education was important.  Assumed responsibilities were enforced; when I took up the cornet and joined the band in junior high school, my mother dinged me to practice for a half-hour every night.  I was a terrible musician!  I have no idea how my parents endured the agony of my nightly practice, but when we went to visit 'family' in other towns on the weekends, my mother made me practice an HOUR the night before, so I wouldn't lose trumpet-time on the nights we were away.

She cared.  My father cared ... they often disagreed, but when Mom said I should do something it was fruitless of me to go to Pop for a different decision.  When I asked him for a special dispensation, he would always ask:
"What does your mother say?"



and the next words out of his mouth were, invariably:

"Well, if that's what she told you, that's the way it is."

I was often disappointed, but I always knew that my parents were involved in my life, and that they cared what I did with my life.

I don't see that sort of parental involvement in the news stories I read today.


What I see now, when I read the newspapers ...

...  is that parents are not only not universally involved in the children they bring into this world, but often they're not all that involved in each other.


HOW DO WE FIX THIS?

Beats the hell out of me!

It would be very easy to blame "Racial Preference Quotas", but they do some good by allowing minorities to 'bootstrap' their exceptional children above the societal norm.

It would also be easy to blame "The Government" for advocating failed policies such as "No Child Left Behind" ... which looks good in print but seems to be ineffective.

Ultimately, the search for blame is worthless.   The only 'fix' is for parents to take responsibility for their children, and to help them in their goal to raise their children to have a better life then they themselves had.

We can't do this by "Government Mandate"; we put too much reliance in the Government to fix our problems already.

Remember that Government is populated by people who want to be elected to High Office, because it makes them look good.  And most elected people are Lawyers, so you have a major impediment to actually 'doing something' right there!

The best we can do, I think, is to expect more of our children than they think they can accomplish.

You (and I) are occasionally amazed by people who manage to exceed expectations.  You can't do this as a 'third person' (or a "Government").   You can only do this by .... ?

I don't have an answer.  I have a lot of questions, and a lot of complaints that the best people we have are too often "left behind" because of lost opportunities.

I suspect that private charities are a much more effective measure to improve our society; when we expect "GOVERNMENT" to "fix things", the politicians get involved and the original goal is almost invariable forgotten.

YOU, though, can help.  Find a private group who seems to be dedicated to the improvement of the 'least of us', and contribute to it.  I make no recommendations.

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

Sunday, March 06, 2016

One Man's Feature Is Another Man's Bug

Another feature of any tracking device is that it can be tracked by someone other than the owner.

Clearwater company developing device to track stolen guns
A Clearwater business is developing a way to alert gun owners the moment their weapons are on the move and help them track them back down. TracFind is developing a small GPS device that can be attached to guns. The device, which combines GPS tracking technology with smartphone signals, can track in real time a stolen or lost weapon to within three feet.
An added feature notifies the gun owner immediately if the secured gun moves as much as an inch. Some gun owners dislike the gun locks and other devices that they believe may impede the use of the gun should the owner need it in a self-defense situation. This doesn’t do that, TracFind officials say, and that’s a big selling point.
(Note that this article is categorized as "Gun Control".)


Friday, March 04, 2016

Ridicule? Sounds reasonable to me.

Hillary Clinton wants to 'send a task force' to 'alien prison' Area 51 | Daily Mail Online:

Hillary a UFO Freak?   Why not, she has had worse ideas!
,,,
Podesta continued: 'More attention and more discussion about unexplained aerial phenomena can happen without people — who are in public life, who are serious about this — being ridiculed.' In December of last year, Clinton said much the same at a meeting with The Conway Daily Sun, in which she 'enthusiastically' told the editorial board, 'Yes, I'm going to get to the bottom of [the UFO files].'
 ("A later CNN report characterized the remarks as 'tongue-in-cheek,' a descriptor not used in the Daily Sun's report. ")
Well, Hillary has certainly captured the UFO Freak vote.

New California Gun Laws 2016

New California Gun Laws 2016 "EDITED READ DESCRIPTION" - YouTube:
Published on Jan 1, 2016

California is going NUTS on it's new restrictions on Firearms Ownership.   It's increasingly obvious the CIOs (Chief Idiots in Charge) have the goal of pecking the Second Amendment to death via laws which nibble around the edges until honest citizens just throw up their hands and say "Enough, Already!"

(Including Background Checks on EACH AND EVERY Ammunition Sale and an ammunition permit fee !)

This ten minute video * provides a worth-looking-at summary.  If California gets away with these anti-constitutional laws, other states will try them too.



The cited bill ... SB1446 regarding magazine capacity limits, can be read here,

EDITED READ CORRECTION: A Firearm Restraining Order can only be applied for by IMMEDIATE FAMILY!! 2016 is going to be another fight for California on the Gun Control front. With new laws affecting us every year the fight never ends. To help fight back please check out https://www.firearmspolicy.org/ and https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/ Fight Gavin Newsom in 2016 and say no to more Ammo and Gun Restrictions

Thursday, March 03, 2016

Celebrity Opinions

James Woods: Don’t Confirm Obama SCOTUS Nominee - ‘Just Ignore Him, as He Does the Law’: “This could not be simpler,” Woods tweeted. “Absolutely, do not confirm an #Obama SCOTUS nominee. Don’t discuss it; just ignore him, as he does the law.”
This could not be simpler.

Ignore Celebrity Opinions.

Even when they appear to agree with you,

You have nothing to win,  and a great deal to lose, when they turn on you after you embrace them.

Wednesday, March 02, 2016

Hiatus

Geek Blogging will be sparse, terse, and mis-spelled for a while.


I tripped over the doorsill and fell hard on my patio early this morning, busted a nasty gash in the heel of my hand.  Ten stitches and a splint on my hand from the Emergency Room later, I'm typing with one hand for at least until they take the stitches out next week. (No bone or nerve damage, thankfully; the splint is just to protect the stitches.)

If nothing else, it makes me appreciate the obstacles that Clayton Cramer has been dealing with.

If I can handle this crap as well as he has, I will be a much better man in a couple of weeks,
Which should make my readers happy ... both of them!

Silver Lining

This election has been described as a "Shit-fest by more than one blogger, but there is at least one "good thing" you can say about it;

We won't have 'Dopey Joe' hanging like an albatross around our necks any more!


Tuesday, March 01, 2016

"Smart" ideas about "Smart" guns

Exclusive: The “Smart” SetGuns Magazine.com | Guns Magazine.com:
*(David Codrea writes about Politics and Gun Control measures)

Obama wants the next large purchase of firearms for the military to focus on "safe" guns rather than "lethal" guns; not everyone is convinced that this shift in priorities it the best way for our Military to serve their nation.  As David Codrea suggests:

 Depending on who wins the presidency look for this nonsense to be rescinded if a Republican is elected, or expanded with a vengeance if Hillary or Bernie grab the brass ring. If that’s the case, and note this is being written before it’s even determined who the opposing candidates will be, there’s one other option that could be tried: Propose a bill requiring that before “smart guns” can be mandated on gun owners, they must be the exclusive weapons assigned to the presidential Secret Service protective detail.
I think this is a Smart Idea.

Any leader should be willing to expose himself to the same perils and limitations as those people he leads.

That's the leadership principle I was taught when I was in the military as an NCO, and I'm pretty sure that concept is taught in ANY "leadership" school in the nation.

A leader should not ask more of his cadre than he is willing, and able, to do himself.

Obviously, that doesn't necessarily apply at the 'highest levels of government', but if it did then perhaps our Fearless Leaders might pay a little more attention to the peril to which they have exposed their 'underlings' when they impose Draconiam restrictions on the people who are charged with their lives to enforce National policy.

Unfortunately our Dear Leader is more willing to impose restrictions than to protect rights; more prepared to suffer criticism than to suffer consequences; and more of a figure-head than a leader.

Which defines him as less qualified to be a Leader than the lowest Non-Commissioned member of any of our armed services.

As the Clintons had no respect for the Secret Service members who were charged to protect them, to the point of sacrificing them to protect the "National Leadership", some of us had more respect for the working men and women of the Service than we had for their bosses.

On the contrary, Obama seems to have had a very good working relationship wish his Secret Service protection detail.

Which strongly suggests that it's not the Political Party which occupies the White House as much as it is the trash which sometimes infiltrates ... and yes, I am pointing my fingers at the Clintons.

I don't agree with all of our current president's policies, but he seems to be a better person than "The Man From Hope".  And even if the First Lady seems like a food nazi (never mind) she would have to work hard to become the Harridan from Hope.

At least he's not Rich White Trash.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Excuse me?

They’re killing machines - NY Daily News:

Yes, firearms are indeed "Killing Machines".
That's what they were designed to do, and they do so most effectively.
(Name Not Acknowledged) gunned down three and injured at least 14 more with an automatic rifle in Kansas Thursday, blasting away randomly from his car and then in the industrial building where he worked. Just another day in America. 
 This nation cannot awaken from a nightmare: Madmen wield weapons of war to indiscriminately slaughter, in their workplaces, on streets, in movie theaters and in elementary schools.  (Name Not Acknowledged) added to the tally of slaughter as Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis is considering the merits of a wrongful death suit — brought by family members of Sandy Hook Elementary School children and one survivor of that assault. LUPICA: GUN-LOVING GOP HOPEFULS IGNORE KANSAS MASS SHOOTING They are trying to sue Remington, America’s top manufacturer of guns and ammunition in the civilian marketplace, for negligent entrustment in manufacturing AR-15s for purchase and use by ordinary Americans. These assaults rifles are weapons of war.
Excuse me?

In the first place, this idiotic guy was the instrument of senseless slaughter.  Whatever weapon he chose to use was not the instrument .. it was just a tool.  You know, like a hammer (useful for building homes) or a knife (useful for building Dagwood Sandwiches),

Overblown rhetoric, such as this article typifies, are not helpful.  Yes, newspapers (et al) are useful; they keep us informed.

Guns and Knives and Newspapers can have a negative side effect.

When someone deliberately misuses them, every gun/knife/newspaper casts a shadow on every instrument of their ilk, and tangentially on every person who uses said instrument in a responsible manner.

Every armed person is someone just waiting to become a criminal

According to YDR.COM: "Every armed person is someone just waiting to become a criminal":

 In reality, every armed individual is someone just waiting to become a criminal. If you believe so strongly in the Second Amendment, then you should arm yourself with a musket and a flintlock pistol, because that is what the founders had in mind when they established the Constitution.
Oh.

Okay, thank you so very much for clarifying the issue of the "Embarrassing Second Amendment".

I had (foolishly, it seems) thought it had something to do with the  individual right of each (person) to protect his/her person, family and property.   You know, like the First Amendment acknowledged the right of each individual to speak their mind, regardless of how inconvenient and embarrassing those thoughts might be to someone who did not agree with them.

I certainly did not understand that, while the First Amendment still protects the right of free speech regardless of the media (such as television, radio, etc. which did not exist in the 18th century when the constitution was written), the Second Amendment does not protect semi-automatic weapons, "assault rifles", etc. because they did not exist in the 18th century.

Therefore, while everyman may carry a pencil (or an IPOD, or a cell phone, or a pocket camera), he may not carry a 1911 style pistol (for example) because eighteenth century technology RULZ!

It had .. and I'm being entirely candid here ... never occurred to me that the First Amendment Rights were predicated on the CONCEPT of thought, but Second Amendment Rights are predicated on TECHNOLOGY.

Okay, I've got that clear in my mind now.  And I cannot tell you how grateful I am to YDR.COM for clearing up that niggling little difference between the First Amendment to the Constitution and the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The things you can learn from the Internet.

Oops.  Sorry ... they didn't have that Internet thingie in the 18th Century, did they?

Okay, so I guess you're just full of shit.

Never mind.

Fear and Loathing on .. college campus?

COMMENTARY: NRA stifling academic freedom:
The gun lobby has seized on this environment of academic stifling, promoting firearms as the answer to an array of problems on campuses and beyond. Don’t want to get raped? Carry a gun, or it’s your own fault. The best way to prevent an active-shooter situation? Everyone pack heat.
Apparently, the "people" on college campus in South Jersey are not only outraged, but actively revolted by the proposition that students, staff and faculty are now legally 'permitted' to exercise their Second Amendment rights on the grounds of the college campus.

Oh, bad.
Not only bad, but WAY bad!

That conservative forces have long sought to squash dissent and curtail rigorous academic debate on campuses is far from a secret. From the militarization of many campuses, academic repression of faculty, excessive and difficult-to-navigate bureaucracies, limitations on free speech and more, college students, staff and faculty members today face many challenges as they seek to explore, debate and take action on critical and difficult issues.
Huh?  What the HEY??
College instructors, teachers, professors and other academicians no longer feel safe when they are brainwashing  drilling instructing teaching their students in the Next Generation of Progressiveness?  Oh, that's just SO bad!

Texas passed a campus-carry law that is set to take effect on Aug. 1. Already, professors at the University of Houston were told that once the new law is effective, they might want to “be careful discussing sensitive topics,” “drop certain topics from your curriculum,” “ ‘Not go there’ if you sense anger,” “limit students’ access off hours,” “go to appointment-only office hours” and “only meet ‘that student’ in controlled circumstances.”
Oh.  Okay, I get it.

Since students, staff and faculty are now allowed to carry guns on campus, the faculty (the staunch conservators of "Liberal Thought" (and no other) are worried that if they preach a gospel which is not kindly received by their drones students,  said students might respond by shooting their professors!

(Yeah, right.  Like THAT is going to happen! Ammunition is expensive, y'know?  Hammers are cheaper.)

And they (the staff and faculty on South Jersey campuses) are worried that "conservative forces" might "squash dissent and curtail rigorous debate on campuses"?


And "they" (supposedly, the students) might register their dissent by shooting their erudite/liberal/progressive professors?

[Well, I guess that getting SHOT might occasionally have an adverse effect on Progressive brainwashing instruction. But in reality, Progressives are so head-in-the-clouds  clueless, chances are that they would not even notice their colleagues being murdered in the next room.  They are THAT distanced from reality .... and the level of true "intellectual thought" can, as a consequence, go no-where but UP!]


And this is "A Bad Thing"?

Or is this just another version of "... rigorous academic debate ...."?

Kitchen/Heat/Exit strategy?

Frankly, I fail to perceive the problem.

Okay, okay;  it may result in a slight winnowing of the faculty, but still;


 where's the Down Side?


Obama's Parthian Shot at America: HIV

Obama Opens the Border to More STDs | Center for Immigration Studies:

In his first year in office, President Obama lifted an entry ban on foreigners with HIV. In his final year in office he will lift the entry ban on three more sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The president's own Health and Human Services department says this guarantees more infections in the United States, proving once again that immigration is the defining issue for politicians like Obama. Increased immigration trumps all other concerns.
I've left this post to lie fallow for a few days, because (a) I'm just mad as hell, and (b) I'm not sure what I can contribute to the story.

The answer is (c) there's nothing that I can add.  Y'all just gonna have to figure out for yourselves how you feel about this.

Certainly I was not aware that Obama was allowing foreigners with such pernicious infectious diseases to infest our country.

I'm not particularly surprised ... but this is the kind of thing which one tends to reject because

It Can't Possibly Be True!

but it is,

Saturday, February 27, 2016

When It’s OK to Kill

Inside the School Teaching Cops When It’s OK to Kill - Bloomberg Business:

 Forty cops are in a classroom, watching recent footage of protesters in San Francisco denouncing the police. “Your children are ashamed of you,” a black woman in the video tells a black officer, who looks away. “Coward!” others shout. A young demonstrator walks up to a cop and sticks out his middle finger. A female officer trips, and the demonstrators laugh.
The volume is way up, and the cops in the room are leaning back in their chairs, crossing their arms, getting tense. Jim Glennon steps to the front of the room and stops the video. Glennon, 59, spent 29 years as an officer in Lombard, a suburb of Chicago, at one point running county homicide investigations. He’s 6-foot-1, 210 pounds, and has the gravelly voice and bearing of the desk sergeant on the 1980s TV show Hill Street Blues who told cops to “be careful out there” before the squad cars rolled. “Welcome to our world,” Glennon says. “It’s as bad as it’s been since the ’60s and ’70s.”

I spent a few days on Whidbey Island this week, visiting my son and his family.

Said son (aka "The Squid Kid") is a Master at Arms in the U.S. Navy.   He was recently promoted to E6 (Petty Officer Something ... I never was any good at Navy Ratings, but that's the equivalent of Staff Sgt. in the army) and in part my visit was an opportunity to again tell him how proud I am of his hard-earned promotion.

We had a chance on the last day of my visit to chat in private, without his wife and children listening to our conversation.  It was a bit of a letting-down of the hair; shared war stories, and he described many of the training operations he was becoming responsible.  

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

0.83 seconds ... reloads during competition

Nobody is perfect, but we should be perfect; and that's a goal that all of us who compete in shooting sports which reward a fast "first shot A-zone hit" (IPSC, et al) strive to achieve.

And that is the reason why we practice.

Paying attention to your draw technique – Notes from KR:
At 0:07 seconds, the shooter has a full firing grip on the pistol and the support hand is close to the body. That’s good. His support hand is really low on his body though, compared to where it eventually needs to be.
I once spent an afternoon at the range, with an observer running the timer, where I tried to get first-shot A-zone hits at a standard IPSC target at 7 yards in the fastest time possible.

My experience was that when I used the standard two-handed grip, I couldn't get the desired hit in much under 1,5 seconds.  It was only when I quit trying to get the weak hand on the gun that I managed to get a best-time hit in 0.83 seconds.  Once.

The thing is ....  I'm not sure that I was very safe in doing so.  (Which is why I don't recommend this kind of testing; the time may not be impressive to most people, but I felt as if I was "pushing the edge".)

The "Draw Technique" video cited emphasizes safety, and when we compete we should always keep safety as the most important criteria in any shooting-sports criteria.

Most of us don't have the advantage of a slo-mo record of the way we draw, and how/when our finger actually curls onto the trigger.  Trying to beat some kind of arbitrary 'best time" is a good way to find ourselves in an "I JUST****** SHOT MYSELF!" scenario ... and that's obviously not the very best way to learn that we have just put Performance above Safety.
(Thank you, Tex, for performing a public service .. however unintended.)

SO, HOW DO WE SHOOT FAST, SAFELY?
(This section specifically  applies to shooting sports which allow reloads with un-expended magazines, such as USPSA: YMMV):

When it comes to action-shooting competition, the best way to save time on a stage is to minimize the 'time-wasting' activities:

  • Plan reloads; a "standing reload" is the greatest 'time waster' in competition;
  • always reload when the stage requires you to do something else, such as moving to another shooting area or when you are waiting for an appearing target to start moving;
  • If you are competing in a "Limited Capacity" division (eg: Production, Single-stack, Limited 10, etc.) always plan your stage attack so that there is a logical point where you have PLANNED to make a reload ... that reduces your need to think about doing a reload.  A Decision Matrix is something which should have been evaluated, and decided upon, before you start shooting the stage.
  • You can never have too much ammunition, or too many magazines:  In some competitive games, you are allowed to reload when it seems appropriate to you; in other competitive games, you must abide to arbitrary rules which only allow you to reload when you have expended all of the rounds available in your magazine.   In the more 'permissive' games, it's often competitively advantageous to drop a magazine which has remaining rounds because you can do so in 'dead time' and avoid the time-penalty inherent in doing a "standing reload".  The option to reload to competitive advantage is significant.   I won't spend much time discussing forced-reloads, because I think it's even less "practical" than USPSA has become.  Essentially, reload when it is to your advantage.   In a real-life self-defensive situation (where you might typically carry no more than 1 or 2 "extra" magazines) it would be a good idea to retain partially filled magazines; in competition, you may have a LOT more magazines, and so it would may be competitively advantageous to drop partial magazines, 
In a 'real life' situation, you would probably carry no more than 2 or 3 magazines; in that case, it would be exceedingly advantageous to retain partial magazines.

Monday, February 22, 2016

Abortion Rights vs Gun Rights

A recent article at POLITICUSUSA.COM argues that Right To Life Measures conflict with Right to Bear Arms issues.


Gun Owners Need Roe Vs. Wade: HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act),
... a law created under the Clinton Administration, which is an outgrowth of Roe vs. Wade explains the law regarding mentally ill patients and firearms. If a person is ordered by a judge to seek mental health treatment, the person is banned from purchasing a firearm. So, people like: John Hinckley, Jr and Mark David Chapman are banned for life from purchasing firearms. Yet, what of those who were not adjudicated? People who slipped through the cracks or those who are depressed and need medical treatment for mental illness and voluntarily seek treatment on their own free will? They can purchase a firearm legally ...
I can't follow the logic, but it sounds like a "Catch 22" attempt to use Conservative "Right To Life" priorities to simultaneously confound "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" priorities.

As nearly as I can tell, the author assumes that people use the 2nd Amendment to justify killing people, and that conflicts with anti-abortion priorities to protect life.

I may be wrong as hell in my (admittedly cursory) evaluation of this confusing logic.  Or perhaps I'm just too stupid to understand the logic.

But I always thought that there was no conflict between one drive to preserve life (anti-abortion) and another drive to protect live life (self defense, via the 2nd Amendment).

AGAIN ... I accept that I'm either over-simplifying the original argument, or completely mis-understanding it.

My hope is that someone who is better at parsing a complex statement ... which is NOT completely defined in the truncated quote presented here (please go to the original statement for the full text!) will take the time to translate it into "**** FOR DUMMIES" terms.

I'm reluctant to dismiss the argument ... whatever it is.  I suspect that there is a legitimate point being made, but either it is too complex for my immediate understanding or it contains a logical fallacy which I have not identified, or it's all political.


[updated 92/28/16 to correct spelling errors]