Not sure how to tag this one... but it's "inflammatory"

From the Casper (Wyoming) Star Tribune? A still small voice from the wilderness:

Here's the catalyst

Townsend: Tired of Clinton's 'gun control' refrain | Letters | trib.com:

I am tired of Hillary Clinton's constant refrain of "gun control." This candidate can't even control her own emails, much less a gun. When will she ever address the problem of controlling gangbangers, druggies and criminals who misuse firearms and maim and kill the innocent? Where is her endorsement of the NRA's Project Exile which would sentence a criminal to ten years of hard time for any crime while using a firearm?

Good Question!

However, the responses seem to veer off dramatically different ... and much more intriguing .. directions.

Small sample:

billy Apr 6, 2016 7:18amI got rid of all my guns and ammo so we would all be safer. No reason to come looking here. 
Alces alces Apr 6, 2016 8:08am
Have you ever noticed those that advocate for gun control only come up with laws that keep reasonable, law-abiding people from owning guns but never address how to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys?
WhereTFisOT Apr 6, 2016 6:30pm
"gun control" Gov coming for yer guns...
300 million guns......the fearmongers, the hatemongers of the gop and a simple use of words is amazing...
gun control in a nation "founded" on spilling blood....
not many dems came out in the past 20 years and called bs on the lies...
nevermind that past 7 + years when the insane bullies/liars of the nra, the gop, the faux news trash was pushing (24/7/365) that the Muslim Kenyan anti Christ President was coming for yer guns...
and now the issue of suing gun manufactures is a contentious issue...
not a word about jailing the idiots that allow toddlers to shoot eachother...
after all the billions that have been raked in from out right lies and fear fear fear...

One thing you gotta admire about Casper:  When the wind blows, it blows hard and you can NEVER tell what direction it's gonna come from next.

Trust the word of a man who hunted Pronghorns there for three years running and never kept a tent upright for two days in a row.

"I want my CDC"

Medical Groups Urge Congress to Restore Funding for CDC Gun Violence Research:

A coalition of 141 medical organizations sent a letter to four senior members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on Wednesday urging them to restore funding for gun violence research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Medical professionals and our communities work to address the devastating and long-lasting physical and emotional effects of gun violence on victims, their families and their friends, but are hampered by the insufficient body of evidence-based research to use to point communities toward proven gun violence prevention programs and policies,” the letter reads.

These guys, who can't get the public and charitable donations to finance their 'gun violence research' projects, want the Feds to remove the restrictions on CDC studies.

You remember the CDC?
They're the folks who used YOUR tax money to 'prove' that "GUNS ARE EVIL!"

The thing is ...

A 'Gun Violence Study" with an agenda

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home — NEJM:

The New England Journal of Medicine has studied gun violence and has 'confirmed'  the hypothesis that ...

The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

How did they arrive at this 'conclusion'?

First they identified 'neighborhoods' in 'counties', and tried to match them so they represented similar 'characteristics'.

They found residences occupied by junkies, loners or violent families, and rarely home owners.
They found residents who had been arrested, hit, wounded.

They found that the injured were often victims of family fights ... imagine that, in such a nice neighborhood?   Either that, or an 'intimate acquaintance'.  Would that include their drug dealer, or perhaps a couple of drug-dealing families fighting over gang turf?

During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

The study didn't say the gun in the home was used in the studied 'gun violence', or  that a gun was necessarily involved in the violence.

Vox vs Crowder: view of Gun Violence in America (LONG VIDEOS)

This post includes two video presenting opposite viewpoints.

The first, by VOX, takes about 7 minutes.
The second, by Crowder, takes about 20 minutes.
So the total time required to view both videos verges on a half-hour.

YOU may not want to watch this.  I watched it all (a couple of times) and I found that the divergent viewpoints made for ED TV.

But Crowder includes a lot of film test from VOX, so if you're only marginally interested in the topic, you might want to .. oh, no, I'm not going to suggest that you do not view the VOX version.
Nahhhh .. go watch the whole thing.  You don't have to watch it all in one sitting, but you might decide that you have learned to see both sides of the same subject.

And isn't that "A Good Thing"?

Oh, just shoot me now!

Clinton visits Brooklyn churches to talk gun violence - NY Daily News:

Hillary Clinton stumped at black churches in Brooklyn Sunday, touting her tough stance on guns as she sought support in her home state’s primary against Bernie Sanders. Clinton also vowed to improve strained relations between police and black communities — and was joined by Nicole Bell, the fiance of police shooting victim Sean Bell, who endorsed her Sunday. “I have been privileged to meet with so many family members who have lost loved ones to gun violence sometimes at the hands of police, most times senseless random terrible violence,” Clinton said ,,,

E-O-E-O-AY-AY AY! (Hey, Bro, did you see where that shot hit?)

U.S. Special Operations units are using faulty rifle sights - The Washington Post:

U.S. Special Operations forces are using rifle sights that are supposed to help shooters accurately hit their targets but instead have a defect, acknowledged by the manufacturer, that potentially endangers the lives of service members in combat, according to court records and military officials.

If the glove sight don't fit ....

... I'm sure I glad I was using Iron Sights when I was last in a War Zone!

Gun control in Oregon; Ginny Burdick

Gun control: Stymied in 2016, Oregon Democrats vow to try again in 2017 | OregonLive.com:

... And Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, at a forum hosted by the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety, reiterated her support Wednesday for enacting gun-violence restraining orders. That idea, already in place in California, would create a court-sanctioned mechanism for removing guns from people believed to be at risk of harming themselves or others.

In case I didn't make myself clear in an earlier post ....

... any Oregon measure which Ginny Burdick supports is certain to be a measure which undermines the constitutional freedoms of Oregonians.  Or, in other words, a lie.

Just Saying.

And I'm not the only one.

What we have here ..

Gun control: Stymied in 2016, Oregon Democrats vow to try again in 2017 | OregonLive.com:

Unable to pass new gun-control bills this year, months after the state's deadliest shooting, Oregon Democrats are diving into campaign season with promises to try again in 2017. House Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, wants to revive a measure that would limit default gun sales when background checks take longer than expected, after the bill earned tepid support and died in the Senate last month.

No. Actually, it is an attempt to bypass the 'default' protection previously afforded to firearms owners who purchase firearms.  But the NICS (National Instant Check System) cannot always provide a response in a timely manner,   When this happens, the DEFAULT is to allow the firearms transfer to go through.

This FEATURE (not a "bug") protects the firearms purchaser; independent interests would be required to 'allow' the purchase of a private citizen if they (NICS) could not find just cause to DIS-allow it within a reasonable period of time.    (For the "gun grabbers", there are no independent interests; there are merely PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE GUNS, and PEOPLE WHO MUST BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO BUY GUNS.)

Oh, POOP!

Oak Harbor police chief loses gun in grocery store bathroom | KOMO:
(March 31, 2016)

OAK HARBOR, Wash. -- Oak Harbor Mayor Bob Severns has reprimanded the city's chief of police for losing his gun in the bathroom of a local grocery store. On the night of March 4, Police Chief Edgar Green informed department officials that he had misplaced his personally-owned Glock .40 firearm. He said the last time he remembered having the gun was roughly an hour and a half earlier in the bathroom at a SAAR's Market on State Route 20. Green said he might have "errantly left it on a towel container," according to a city news release. Green noticed the gun was missing when he got home and immediately contacted the store's manager. Store workers searched the bathroom but didn't find the gun.

[emphasis added]

Right.

Personal comments deleted.
Except to mention that Oak Harbor is on Whidby Island, in the Puget Sound, in the state of Washington.

And I may or may not have a family member assigned to a military facility in that general area, and if he did something like that ... not only would his Military Unit severely chastise him, but I would personally kick his ass.  (Not really .. the alleged family member is would be bigger, tougher and smarter than me.)

The funny thing is, I've been going to IPSC/USPSA matches for 30 years and during that time I have often been obliged to obey the call of dirty, but I've never left my Kimber in the Can.

Why is it that civilians can remember that they don't have a pistol on their hip, but "Professionals" cannot?

Google: "law enforcement officers who have left their pistol in the bathroom"
The results may surprise you!

Freakin' SF Mayor still wants to regulate ammunition sales

Gavin Newsom draws crowd to gun-control speech near Rohnert Park | The Press Democrat:

Gavin Newsom is nonplussed that he couldn't buy Sudefed without Identification,

 “But interestingly, you can buy ammunition anywhere,” the former San Francisco mayor told gun control supporters Friday night.

Apparently, Newsom is conflating dangerous and habit-forming drugs with ammunition.

Can he do that?  (Oh, shut my mouth .. he's the mayor of SF; he can do anything!)

But still ... what's the difference?

Dangerous Drugs are habit forming, and while they have the palliative effect of alleviating pain and medical symptoms, they are subject to abuse.

Ammunition is not habit forming, but while they (cartridges) do have the palliative effect of defending one's person, property, home and family, they are subject to abuse.

The difference is that Ammunition is 'protected' under the Second Amendment.

No, that's not JUST my opinion.  The Supreme Court says so.

Washington D.C. Ammunition Ban Violates Second Amendment-

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has declared D.C.’s ammunition possession ban unconstitutional in the case of Herrington v. District of Columbia. -
The court therefore reasoned that although neither Heller nor the subsequent Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago specifically addressed ammunition, “it logically follows that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home; for if such possession could be banned (and not simply regulated), that would make it “impossible for citizens to use [their handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”

Did I mention that this article about the Supreme Court Decision was published November 8, 2010?
(Which suggests that Newsom should have been aware that the question about the right to keep and bear firearms, and the right to buy ammunition, are equally protected by Federal Law.)

But Newsom finds it anomalous that Ammunition Sales don't require identification.

Never mind; if San Francisco hasn't YET made it illegal to buy ammunition, it soon will.

Let's call it the "San Francisco Loophole".

In the meantime, it's still legal for San Francisco to require "identification" to purchase ammunition .. along with firearms themselves.

Because they are not 'Prohibiting' the purchase of ammunition, but they may still 'regulate' it.

This is just one more reason why Americans should avoid residing in the State of California, generally, and the City of San Francisco, specifically.

Tony Bennett, eat your heart out.



(Oh .. Tony Bennett is against the second amendment; never mind)

Boomershoot Philosophy vs Gun Registration

Why Boomershoot? | The View From North Central Idaho:

The politics of this country in regards to gun control have changed.  The turning point has been reached and we have a winning endgame in front of us.  There are still a lot of bigots out there that are trying to make gun owners into second class citizens and politicians that try to use fear of guns to increase their power.  But Federally things have improved in the last five years  And even in some states like Washington where the Democrats got control of both houses and the governor’s mansion no further restrictions have been implemented recently.   The war is being won.  We need to keep up the pressure and push the bigots into political extinction rather than let them build up strength and attack us again but if we choose our battles carefully and don’t slack off the victory is ours if we want it...

[emphasis added]

Joe, I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're not entirely RIGHT, either.
(But you are certainly not naive!)

The thing is, the gun-grabbers haven't given up ... they're just taking smaller nibbles in their step-by-step plan to confiscation.

Registration - Confiscation:

Sanctity of the home

No, you can’t carry concealed weapons into our child-proofed, gun-free home - The Washington Post:  (March 15, 2016)

My curious children freely play in a home environment I have worked hard to ensure is safe. To that extent, I am adamant about keeping guns outside our doors.

This mother has strong opinions on the measures which are necessary to protect her children.  I don't blame her.   I don't even disagree with her.   My family wasn't raised that way (there were ALWAYS guns in our homes) but that has nothing to do with the way she wants to raise her family.

But looking at the comments attached to the article, it appears that a lot of people take their disagreement personally.  Some folks went as far as to say "why don't you put a gunfree zone sign on your door and see what that gets you?" or words to that effect.

Apparently, the old Heinlein mantra that "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society" isn't valid when anonymous trolls spill their guts online.

The whole population of civilian firearms owners are tarnished by this kind of vicious response.   The author of the article will not only keep firearms out of her home, but people who own firearms will now seem dubious to her.

It does no good for us to say "hey, that guy is not representative of our community".

I tought another firearms class yesterday, and I was impressed by the humanity and good nature of the 'new friends' I was privileged to meet.

I wish I could have introduced them to the author.   She deserved the opportunity to meet the true face of our Band of Gun Nuts.

Hashtag This!

Local groups try to stop handguns with hashtags | WBNS-10TV Columbus, Ohio: COLUMBUS, Ohio -

... six women representing a handful of different anti-gun organizations in the state of Ohio ... (are) voicing opposition to House Bill 48, also known as the “Guns Everywhere Bill,” that would allow concealed carry at places like day cares, school zones, airports and police stations. The bill was already passed in the House. “The guns everywhere bill would put guns in places where they simply don’t belong,” Jennifer Thorne said. Thorne is the executive director with Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence. To try to stop the bill from moving any further through the Senate, the coalition and about 10 other organizations are having a “virtual lobby day” Tuesday, April 5.

[emphasis and link added]

If the 'virtual lobby day' is successful, the only people who have guns "where they don't simply don't belong belong" would be the people who go there to shoot up infants, school kids and cops.

You know, the typical 'Gun Free Zones' which have already proven themselves to be a mecca for gun violence.

"I'm Doing MY Part!"

Of Arms and the Law: GunFacts is fundraising:

Right here. Guy Smith, its central person, hopes to expand efforts toward pro-gun Youtube messages and undertake other projects. "To continue this winning streak, we need your help. We want to continue educating the masses, like we did last year when we:
• Broke the code on why some polls show gun ownership steady while others show it declining.
• Showed that "lax law" states are not the source of crime guns, but that "strict law" states are.
• Launched a YouTube channel with snappy 60-second videos for you to share.
• Showed why "universal" background checks are not universal, and why they make no difference in gun crime

Geezer Central

Who says Old Pharts can't handle a gun?

[HT: Never Yet Melted]

(Thanks to CLAIR for providing links to the oh-so-smarmy  ORIGINAL ARTICLE)

"Need More Bulletts" - Pro and Con

CON:

 Newtown activists on Thursday helped introduce the first gun safety bill in this Congress, officially kicking off the gun control debate on Capitol Hill.
The bill would ban large capacity ammunition clips for everyone but military members and law enforcement officers. It was introduced by Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-5th District, in the House and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., in the Senate.

Well, we can certainly understand their concern that criminals with "high-capacity magazines" have the capacity to kill and injure more innocents with their evil high-capacity magazines which allow them to kill more people without reloading.   Did we mention "evil"?  A law restricting access to evil "high capacity magazines" makes sense.  It would keep them from killing and injuring many people, because when they run out of ammunition they can't .. kill and injure so many people.

Why would anyone need a "High-Capacity Magazine" (except for the military, because they are designed to kill people!) anyway?

 What about a private citizen who was trying to keep home invaders from killing her?

I  know ... the Liberal Press says that (almost) "Never Happens".

But "Almost" is not the same thing as "absolutely never happens".

Case in point:

PRO:

Woman Shoots Suspect, Runs Out of Bullets, Plans to Buy 'Another Gun' - Breitbart:

 According to CBS DFW, the woman grabbed her gun when she heard the suspects in her home. Upon seeing them, she opened fire, shooting one in the stomach but emptying every bullet in her gun without hitting the second suspect. She surmises that the suspects heard her gun as it began to “click” and realized she was out of rounds. At that point, the uninjured suspect allegedly began to beat her, leaving the woman with “a concussion and her face was covered with cuts and bruises.”

But she kept the almost-never-happens "Home Invaders" from killing her, even though she was not immediately able to drive them off because ... hey!  Criminals and other socially-unreconstructed victims of the Republican Mean-ness are angry and disenfranchised, so they deserve the recognition of White Privilege which makes them Killer Bees.

Or ... something.

Do you know what she said, when the whole thing was over (and she was alive, because she kicked their ASS!)?

"I got to get another gun".

The one she has ... doesn't hold enough bullets.

Nobody is going to tell HER that "High Capacity Magazines don't have a societal value.

And when it's your ass against the buck-wahs breaking down  your door, Liberal Doofs, you're going to want "as many rounds as it takes" in your home-defense gun, too.

Don't tell me you don't own one.

Nobody wants to have strangers barge into their home and beat your wife, leaving the woman with “a concussion and her face was covered with cuts and bruises.

Introduction to USPSA: Administrivia

This is such a mundane topic, I hesitate to even mention it.

But it's important, because I'm running a one man show when I schedule students for my "Introduction to USPSA" class at ARPC, and the training is sometimes less complex than registering students.

"Professional" trainers (those people who get the Big Bucks for running a class) are probably aware that scheduling classes and registering students are activities which potentially take more time and effort than actually running the class.

I'm not a "Professional".  I'm an "Amateur".  I've taking courses in training in the business world, but there are few classes for Firearms Training outside of the NRA, which I can afford.  And nobody is going to pay me to take a NRA INSTRUCTOR class, so I fall back on my native ability and previous professional (including military) training.

Here's the deal!

I have a link from my home-club website to my personal email address, where people who wish to pre-register for my "INTRODUCTION TO USPSA" class can let me know that they plan to attend.  Sometimes they show up, sometimes they don't.  That's life.

But one thing I absolutely insist upon is that I know who is so determined to take the training, they will pre-register.  That performs two functions:  (1) I know who has already committed to the class, and (2) I know how many people I will be training.

That last part is important, and (2) supports (1).

If attendees just "show up" without pre-registering, I may have too many people in the class to allow sufficient time for each attendee to work through the Live Fire Exercise portion of the course.  That is the most important, because the 'Lecture' portion only tells the students what is expected of them.

The Live Fire portion of the course is where the students have the opportunity to demonstrate their (relative degrees of ) gun-handling expertise.

Realism Reveals Incompetence:

You may not believe it, but when I tell students that their score on a test depends on being able to perform basic functions of gun-handling under the pressure of time, they sometimes get so flustered that they are unable to perform even the simplest demonstration of gun-handling expertise.

Pugil Stick Fighting in Army Basic Training

When I was drafted into the army, in 1969, I was the oldest man in the platoon at 23 years old.  Also, I was the only married man (I got married six days before my report date!) so my platoon cadre chose me to be the "Platoon Guide", which is an honorary position; it means that I was responsible for anything BAD that happened in my platoon.  I had no actual power, except that I would assign platoon members to all the shit details that were assigned to my platoon.  This did not make me the most popular guy in the platoon.

The Cadre made the appointment before we showed up for Basic Training at Fort Lewis, Washington (just outside Tacoma), so they didn't actually know that I was a physical weakling, and total wimp.  They only knew I was a college graduate, old, married, and they assumed I had something going for me.

They may not have noticed that I only weighed 126 pounds, and that I was 6' tall.

Which was not all that bad a thing, because I was able to accomplish administrative tasks remarkably well.

But I didn't know how to fight.

Then came the day when they introduced us to PUGIL STICK TRAINING.

Not On My Watch!

Gun shop owner thwarts possible mass shooting at Ohio University | cleveland.com:

ATHENS, Ohio — A Hocking County gun shop owner may have prevented a mass shooting at Ohio University in Athens, authorities said. John Downs, owner of a Logan gun shop, refused to sell a gun to 25-year-old James Howard. Howard passed a background check, but he made statements that indicated he may want to harm himself or others,

H/T: Massad Ayoob

Local police think Downs may have prevented a disaster.

Three Ways Alito Defends the 2nd Amendment

The NRA is not perfect, and sometimes they are just a little bit too sensitive.  It's not "A Guy Thing",
so their opinion is often subject to some other opinions.  Which I'm happy to provide.

NRA-ILA | High Court Opinion Hardly the “Stunning” Reaffirmation of Heller Some Portray It to Be:

Significantly, Justice Alito’s opinion not only argues that the Massachusetts stun gun ban is clearly unconstitutional under Heller, it does so in a way that defeats the reasoning of prior lower court decisions upholding so-called “assault weapon” and “large capacity” magazine bans.  He states, for example, that “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes” and that if “Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” Alito also admonishes that a state cannot use relative numbers to establish that a weapon is “unusual” when large numbers (in the case of stun guns, “hundreds of thousands”) are already in use by private citizens for defensive purposes. Finally, Alito preempts the argument that some popular arms can be banned as long as others remain available: “the right to bear other weapons is ‘no answer’ to a ban on the possession of protected arms.”

I don't understand what the NRA had in mind when they posted this , but I think I disagree with the NRA analysis, because I believe they haven't evaluated Justice Alito's opinion in a "practical" context.   Here's how I interpret Justice Alito's opinion:

(1)  Guns are dangerous.  They were conceived, designed and built to be dangerous.  To consider guns as anything less than a 'dangerous weapon' is to relinquish them to the trash-heap of errata.

Here, Justice Alito acknowledges the lethality of guns, accepts it as a fact of life, and dismisses any arguments that firearms should be considered in any other context.

(2) Given the first argument, it logically follows that when anyone attempts to define one class of firearm as 'more lethal' than another, it is a fallacious attempt to impose restrictions based on trivial issues.

Is one gun capable of making a person more dead than the next gun?  Although he is too polite to say so, Alito dismisses such arguments as pompous pedantry.

(3) Alito accepts and affirms that the Second Amendment is not limited, and that attempts to limit its scope are antithetical to the Constitution.

When the argument is that 'okay, we will let you have flintlock pistols, because the Second Amendment says we have to give you SOMETHING .. but we won't give you automatic pistols because we don't have to .. nanny nanny wa wa and go screw yourself!'  Alito says that this is juvenile justice and puerile pedantry.     Essentially, Alito is saying that ... 'if you're going to allow the common man to possess arms for whatever purpose, it's insanity to force his descent to the 'least common denominator'.  Rather, allow him access to firearms which are at least equal to the foes against which he might find himself'.

Okay, I made up all the quotes ...

... but I think that the interpretations might have been a small part of the factors which encouraged Judge Alito to rule as he did.

We who live by the Constitution do still have a friend in court.

It's chi-town

Violence Surges in Chicago Even as Policing Debate Rages On - The New York Times:
By MONICA DAVEYMARCH 28, 2016

I didn't even bother to read this story.  I've read it a hundred times already.  And so have you.

Oh, did I mention the mayor *you know who* has (and I'm extrapolating from previous, similar incidents) promised to "do something about this" in a time frame which "has not yet been completely determined"?

Sorry.  I forgot.

White House shooting

Reports of shots fired cause lock-downs at White House and Capitol Hill – Rare:

A shooting at the Capitol Visitors Center on Monday afternoon caused a lock down to be issued at the Capitol and the White House. In a press conference following the incident, Capitol Hill Police Chief Matthew Verderosa said that the incident was “an act of a single person, who has frequented the Capitol grounds before.” 

Sounds familiar ...

Flying With Guns

Transporting Firearms and Ammunition | Transportation Security Administration:

You may transport unloaded firearms in a locked hard-sided container as checked baggage only. Declare the firearm and/or ammunition to the airline when checking your bag at the ticket counter

I've written about this before, but it has been a long time.  Rules may have changed by now, so the above link is effective as of this date.

If you are travelling by air, there are some strict regulations which you must follow considering how your firearms and ammunition must be stowed.

Firearms must be in locked, hard-side cases.  The plastic case your gun came in does not meet standards.

Ammunition must be also in a locked, hardside case.   Only shotgun ammunition may be stored in the same case as the gun.  (As if that's going to be big enough!)

Ammunition must be in a solid container, not cardboard.

Note: if you're going to a match or on a hunt, it might be easier to ship the ammunition ahead to your destination as a separate effort.  It's probably a lot cheaper, too, considering the cost of shipping it as 'luggage' considering the weight allowances.

MISTAKES:
I once flew to New York from Oregon to attend a match.  When I checked the baggage, I discovered that the nice lady at the check-in counter was not aware of the regulations.  I tried to demonstrate that my pistols (in checked baggage) were unloaded, and it freaked her out.   She had no idea how to determine that the guns were unloaded, and when I took the locked hard-case out of the luggage and opened it up, she was frightened.  She had never actually touched a gun before, so I racked the slide on each pistol to show that the gun was unloaded.

Try it. You'll like it

Hong Kong 3Gun Match - The Firearm Blog:

 3Gun Nation has started official matches for Airsoft. 

Say what you will about Airsoft, but have a look at this video. Racing is racing and this looks like a fun and challenging sport. It has the spirit of 3gun just without the long distance targets we typically see here in the US.

It's an equivalent 'indoor' sport which includes most of the elements of the 'full poweer' version, and the excellence of the competition obviates what I WOULD have said about the sport, before I saw the video.

In a world where so many nations are determined to dismiss the natural right to compete with firearms, this is the best that many people can do.

And it's a lot less expensive than using guns with gunpowder-powered ammunition ... but still just as exciting, still focuses on speed and accuracy.

Perhaps the DVC (Speed/Power/Accuracy) equation of IPSC isn't as important when you delete the "power" part of the equation.

Sometimes "the best you can do under the circumstances" doesn't really take away from the excitement of shooting.

A good shooter is a good shooter, no matter what tools are used in competition.

MAINE: Grandmothers Against Gun Violence

Grandmothers Against Gun Violence to meet | March 24, 2016 | www.timesrecord.com | The Times Record:

BRUNSWICK — The new Maine Chapter of Grandmothers Against Gun Violence will hold their first meeting April, 3, 1 p.m. at the Curtis Memorial Library, 23 Pleasant St. The meeting is open to anyone interested in helping to stem the surge of gun violence. 

Anyone in the Maine area is encouraged to attend and report back to this website, so that we will all know how it turns out.

My best guess (channeling my "Carnac The Magnificent" moment) is that Grandma will bake chocolate chip cookies with macadamia nuts, and I would attend if I was within 2000 miles of the event.

I love chocolate chip cookies, but my grandmother never liked me.
 (Grandma always had good taste; her cookies did not).

Toto, we ain't in Kansas any more!

Kansas is considering 'allowing' students, staff and faculty to exercise their constitutional rights on campus.  And the Administration of the Kansas University System are squirming.

Next summer, in addition to textbooks, laptops and double-strength coffee, Kansas college students will be able to bring something else to class: guns.
Actually, it's not the fear of 'campus violence' which generates this whitey-tighty moment:

Mike Williams, president of the University of Kansas Faculty Senate, says his colleagues are less worried about the possibility of an active shooter and more about accidents and simple disagreements escalating between armed students. 

They're not REALLY citing concerns of an inter-student conflict eruption on the campus:

It's not that a Lover's Quarrel on the Quad might erupt into a firefight, or worry that the campus drug-dealers may start "packing" to defend their 'turf, or even the possibility that there might be an "Accidental Discharge" in the school cafeteria which concerns the university leadership.

No, it's the fear of faculty members that their locked-and-loaded students might take exception to a low grade or a snide comment from their professor during a class-room discussion which soils their BVDs.

A THOUGHTFUL DEBATE:
Oh, to be sure the article addresses the mythical aphorism that "... fear of violence could discourage civil discourse, with students afraid to speak their minds "because of their worry that someone might react with armed violence instead of thoughtful debate." x

That's right.  The faculty has expressed little or no worries about a Gunfight at the OK Corral; they just don't want to get SHOT because they gave a student a lower grade than expected, or because the students feel as if they are being disrespected by the Professorial Ubermenchen.
(As if THAT ever happens in a University Environment!)

Can't blame them for feeling that way, except that:
 (a) folks who want to shoot them will do so whether or not they have a CHL, and
 (b) if "folks who want to shoot them" are in their class, the faculty and staff will be safer with a CHL licensed person in their class, and
 (c) they always have the option to get their own CHL.  But then ... who knows if they are qualified?
 (We do.)  
 (d) and after all, aren't gun-carriers dangerous people?  Why would they want to carry a gun on campus if they didn't want to shoot people?
(Statics show that CHL people are less likely to  commit violent crimes than 'others': see this Texas report of CHL crime statistics.)

Most University websites include the phrase "... our priority is to provide a quality learning environment for our students ..." (or words to that effect).

But really, it's all about the faculty.  And tenure.

Still, fear exists, even if the fearful have "options":

Lib Dems LIKE CDC bias, want to resurrect it!

Senate Democrats: End ban on CDC gun violence research | News - Home:
Oregon's Ron Wyden joins mrore [sic] than a dozen colleagues in plea
 From KTVZ.COM news sources (March 23, 2016)

WASHINGTON -Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and 16 fellow Democratic senators are urging Senate appropriators to dedicate funds for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence..

 (Warning: Ron Wyden is a POLITICIAN who never knew a cause which couldn't advance his political career.  He came to my front door once, decades ago when I lived in Portland, asking for my vote.  I told him I didn't want him to represent me, because his values were not mine.  He thanked me for my honest opinion and walked away ... across my front-yard grass instead of using the sidewalk.  That's the kind of mustard he's made of.   But that's just my political, and personal, opinion.)

“We must take this important step because only the United States government is in a position to establish an integrated public-health research agenda to understand the causes of gun violence and identify the most effective strategies for prevention,” the senators wrote in the letter last week.

Decoded, that means that the Liberal Gun-Grabber Contingent of the U.S. Senate has identified the CDC as a Federal entity which is eager to advance the anti-gun agenda, and DEMS love the things the CDC had to say about guns .... until the Senate ceased funding their political bias.

Read the article for a full list of the "Fellow Travellers".  I'm sure you'll recognize most of the names.

Their names all begin with ("D-****").

For example:

Last year, Wyden, along with Markey, introduced bicameral legislation with Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., to fund research at the CDC on gun violence prevention and firearms safety. The legislation calls for $10 million each year for six years.

You can see that they're all of the same political bent, determined to rewrite America to fit their personal politics, even if a significant percentage of their 'constituents' despise them and their politics.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat

Other voices: Lawmakers, OK gun violence research plan:

The San Francisco Chronicle published this editorial on March 19: 

 The raft of new gun policies sweeping the nation — arm teachers, arm students, flash your piece under "open carry" laws — share one trait: There is not a shred of evidence they work to reduce gun carnage.
That is because Congress essentially has banned federal spending on gun violence prevention research for more than 20 years.

(sigh)

I've addressed this issue SO often, (at least twice in the past 2 years) you're tired of hearing about it.
And I'm tired of writing about it.   But the Liberals keep coming back with the Big Lie ... if they say it often enough, loud enough, some people will believe it.

The Truth Is:
The CDC was defunded after the NRA notified the government that they (CDC) had allowed their own personal bias to skew their (federally funded) research findings on Gun Control.

The CDC was free to publish any opinions that seemed reasonable to them, but they were no longer authorized to use federal funding to finance that research.   NOBODY told them they couldn't continue the research, or publish 'biased' reports.

But they were weren't going to be paid for their Liberal Lies; not by the Feds, anyway.  (And they're a Federal Agency, so 'private donations' are frowned on.)

NO OTHER research facility ... either Federal or State ... was affected by this de-funding.

If California wishes to fund research which will prove conclusively (to them) that Guns Have No Redeeming Value, they're welcome to have at it.  Unfortunately, "The Land of Fruits and Nuts" has lost the cachet which was originally ascribed to CDC, so nobody is going to pay much attention to them because we already know that the Second Most Liberal State In The Union is determined to fund any measures which will undermine the 2nd Amendment Rights of their citizens.

 It's all about mind control; not gun control.  And everybody knows that.

---

I've spent the last 6 or 7 years training new shooters who want to compete in Practical Pistol competition.  All seem to be just honest, good-hearted people who want to find  A Place To Shoot, and to compare their skills against other like-minded people.

And yet, there are people who want to renew the mantra that "Guns Are Bad".

Guns are not bad.  There are some people who use them for bad purposes, but I'm fortunate in that my exposure to 100+ NEW friends a year hasn't revealed these 'negative values' in any of the fine folks who take a day out of their life to meet people with similar interests.

And as for those who are determined to see only the down-side of private civilian firearms ownership?

To quote my old Drill Sergeant:

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

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

Except, of course for my moments later article about Senator Ron!

Trump's Anti-Semitic Haters (?)

My Trump Tweets Earned Me So Many Anti-Semitic Haters That I Bought a Gun - Opinion – Forward.com:

As any high-profile Twitter user with a Jewish-sounding last name can tell you, the surest way to see anti-Semitism flood your mentions column is to tweet something negative about Donald Trump. My anti-Trump tweets have been met with such terrifying and profound anti-Semitism that I bought a gun earlier this month. Over the coming weeks, I plan to learn how to shoot it better.

This is a new political phenomenon, and one which I'm not pleased to hear about.

I've mentioned before that I'm not totally pleased with the depiction of Donald Trump as a "Conservative" Republican candidate  (it's difficult to envision a "Conservative" who is more conservative than I am), but now we're seeing some shrapnel from the bomb-burst which is the Trump campaign.

It seems that "The Donald" has attracted some followers who are ... very outspoken.  I can accept that, but I don't accept the degree of speech religious intolerance which this blogger has reported.

Is it real, or is it memorex?  
It's hard to know whether the people who are hateful are actual "Trump Supporters" or people who are deliberately posing as such, as a method of driving voters away from the Trump campaign.

I do not like anti-semitic speech,  I've said before that "I may not agree with what you say, but I will support your right to say it".

But there's a limit to free speech, and that limit is reached when the First Amendment is used as an excuse to staunch the free expression of others.

(Yes, I'm aware that statement implies a limit to the Second Amendment as well.  But that's a subject for another discussion.)

I don't think it's "A Bad Thing" that the originator of the article has decided to acquire a firearm for personal protection; as long as she seeks training about how to safely keep and bear arms, she will probably be safer with than without it.

(My assumption is that she is entirely without experience, and it's only reasonable that she finds at least as much instruction in bearing arms as she did when she took "Drivers' Education" in High School.)

Still, I'm appalled that she has been rendered so in fear for her personal security that she seeks to bear arms BECAUSE SOME ONLINE JERK CONFRONTED HER POLITICAL CHOICE!!

None Of The Above

I'm so SICK that there are no dominant political parties in America who have been able to field a candidate which doesn't make me want to hurl.

Can't we just vote for "None of the Above" and, as in video games and computers, just ...
REBOOT?

Well ... yes. But ... no.

I've just completed reading a most sensible, rational screed by a "Gun Control" advocate I've ever seen in 26 years of surfing the Internet for articles on this subject.

Gun Control Is a Misfire | The American Conservative:

• Gun Control Is a Misfire
• What liberals and the NRA both get wrong.

(H/T: The Gun Feed)

The author, Marc Cooper, said in this March 21, 2016 article in The American Conservative, that he was both a Liberal and a gun owner.   He examines both the point of view of the law-abiding civilian firearms owner, and the activists who campaign to strictly regulate civilian firearms ownership.

Or "gun nuts".  vs "liberals";,
(Cooper notes that "gun nuts" is a pejorative term.)

As the word screed implies, it is a very long statement; but perhaps the term is misused here because there is nothing "tedious" about it, and it is far from a "rant".

I was interested that Cooper correctly identified exactly the parts of Liberal gun grabber approaches which are NOT working for them, as well as those gun nut approaches which are working for us gun nuts. (I can say that, because I are one.)

For the Liberals:

For liberals, the very term “gun violence” has been reified [sic ... 'refined'?  'redefined'? 'deified'?] into some sort of natural force, completely detached from any identifiable root causes other than guns themselves—as if .45 semi-automatics, Bushmaster black rifles, and high-capacity magazines exert some hypnotic gravitational pull that beckons latent maniacs to pick them up and spray innocent crowds with military-like barrages.

AND ...

Most of the underpinnings of “gun violence” reforms are based on skewed assumptions, mixed with a sometimes shocking dose of ignorance on the part of policymakers, re-enforced by a media class that cannot often tell one end of a gun from the other. The rhetoric of the movement also continues to stigmatize just about anybody who owns a gun as a knuckle-dragging supporter of fringe militias. Worse, at least from my perspective, the current gun-control strategy also plays directly into the hands of an NRA that is, in fact, more a lobbying group for the gun industry than for gun owners.

AND ...

Liberals also now recur to the scourge of “gun violence” as a convenient way to betray their own historic commitment to greater social justice. No longer do they need to tackle such daunting issues as urban decay, low wages, and poor education because they prefer to reverse cause and effect: if we could only get rid of guns… It’s become a catchall mantra for the disorder of too many urban centers and the marginalization of their inhabitants, who are the ones doing most of the dying—and most of the killing.

I've been posting articles to that exact point for decades; it's nice that someone has had the same opinion about the difference between "Gun Control" and "Violence Control", because this is a sociological issue rather than a legislative issue.

For the Gun Nuts:

"Ve Haf Vays To Make You Toe Der Federal Line"

Our government has accepted as 'normal' the concept that Americans who disagree with the Presidential Policy are subject to legal action.

US Attorney General: 'We May Prosecute Climate Change Deniers'.:

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch, responding to a question from green activist Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)at a Senate Judiciary Hearing.

(Did anyone notice that "D" after Whitehouse's name?)

She's going to involve the FBI here?
Why?

“Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice brought and won a civil RICO action against the tobacco industry for its fraud. Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme,”

Scheme?

If you don't agree with the proposition of "climate change" being solely due to human activities (as opposed to the influence of solar flares), then you are involved in a "SCHEME"?

So, it's a RICO offense to not believe in the Party Line, now?   I would suggest that this is reminiscent of Nazi philosophy, but I've been frightened away from that sort of extremism by the power of "Godwin's Law".

Scientists don’t use the term “consensus,” despite the regular use of the term by politicians who promote government-mandated action to stop alleged human-caused climate change. The scientific method has little space for opinion, and no room at all for the democratic process.Yet it’s that “consensus” that has U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch investigating whether the Justice Department can and should sue scientists and others who question the human-caused climate change assumptions.

Here's the bottom line:  The Obama administration MIGHT prosecute citizens who believe in the First Amendment, the right to speak your mind regardless of the official "Party Line".

When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson.

THE most Anti-Gun movie ever produced by Hollywood

Blue Steel (1989) - IMDb:

A female rookie in the police force engages in a cat and mouse game with a pistol wielding psychopath who becomes obsessed with her.

If this movie is not the genesis of the egregious term "Ammosexual", I don't know what is.

The part I really like about this movie (Okay, that was a bit over-the-top in the SNARK department) is that it shows a 'common ordinary man' (a successful and wealthy Investment Broker) who happens upon a revolver at a crime scene and it turns him into a raving maniac, obsessed by 'the power of the Evil Gun'.

The thing is, the message of the movie seems to be reflected religiously by the current crop of gun-control enthusiasts, who welcome any excuse to depict guns as tools of the devil ... incarnate.

The actors in the movie are well-known and likable individuals, and they play their roles very well.

Jamie Lee Curtis was just coming off the professional high of a small series of "Horror Movies" (eg: Halloween), and  one wonders if viewers (and reviewers) didn't consider this just another horror flick.

Although, this 1990 1989 movie seems chronologically positioned to feed the hunger of anti-gun causes which welcome ANY depiction of firearms as tools of the devil.

You can read Roger Eberts review here, but he restricts his comments to artistic achievement.   There is no criticism of the basic premise because Hollywood assumes that "guns are bad" and any production which furthers that fantasy is assumed to be a realistic depiction.   (There are a lot of 'external reviews', I won't provide links because there are so MANY opinions!)

SO ... let's be clear about this:

Are we blaming a Jamie Lee Curtis movie for "Firearms Violence"?

No, we're blaming Liberal belief in the fantasy portrayed in her movie for their animosity of a firearm as a source of evil.

Bernie Speaks ... and shoots himself in the foot

ENDO (Everyday No Days Off) posted a video of Bernie Sanders talking about gun control.

I won't deprive the original poster the traffic, but I'm pretty sure that many readers will find the comments of Mr. Sanders .... interesting.

I recently posted a comment on Ms. Clinton's efforts to "out-Bernie Bernie" on the gun control issue.
My point there was that Hillarious was being absurdly obvious about the extremes to which she will willing to go to garner the Presidential nomination.

Apparently, Bernie's staff people have been talking to Hill's staff people, and the have agreed to present the same (or similar) political plank:

Guns are bad. Really bad. Awful, in fact.  And we should be, like, thinking they are bad.

Somebody should do something about the gun-badness in America today.  I'm The One!

Go, watch, it's better theater than M*A*S*H!

ATF accepts responsibility: Well, THAT's a first!

Fast & Furious guns tracked to police killings, 'El Chapo' hideout, ATF confirms | Fox News Latino:

“[The ATF] and the [Justice] Department deeply regret that firearms associated with Operation Fast and Furious have been used by criminals in the commission of violent crimes, particularly crimes resulting the death of civilians and law enforcement officers," assistant attorney general Peter Kadzik said in a Tuesday letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa and House Oversight and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz of Utah, according to USA Today. The letter continued: “ATF accepts full responsibility for the flawed execution of Fast and Furious, and will continue to support Mexican law enforcement in efforts to recover and identify associated firearms."

Perhaps there's hope for truth, justice and the American way ... after all.

Maybe.
If other governmental departments follow the new meme.

Which we doubt.

Advice to new Competitors

Don't go buy a bunch of stuff before your first IDPA or USPSA match | Triangle Tactical:

Oh, internet. You so special. I’ve seen a bunch of people recommending new shooters who are interested, but haven’t shot their first match yet go buy a bunch of gear before they’re first match. What a lie. Just go shoot your first match, you probably have a “good enough” holster, and if not I bet you can borrow one.

Good advice, and I entirely support the premise.

I've been training new USPSA shooters for 6 -7 years, and I've seen a lot of shooters who were initially enthusiastic about competition ... but soon tired of it.

A REAL-LIFE CASE IN POINT:

Mr. and Mrs. "X" came to te class and seemed to do just fine, except that Mrs. X couldn't seem to keep her finger off the trigger when reloading during a match.  She came back for a 'refresher' class, then went to a match and still was Disqualified at the next match.  They never came back. Pity; they both had potential but were discouraged.

 In the meantime, they spent about $1,000 on new equipment; belts, holsters, etc.

Often people go through the class just to compare their skills with others; other people value the training for safety purposes (although my home club offers other classes to develop those skills).

But these people had sometimes spent hundreds of dollars on equipment which was specifically designed and marketed for competition purposes, even though they would have done as well with the generic gear they had at the first class.

At least 50% of the people who take the training never even attend the FIRST match, let alone work past a DQ and keep coming back until they have demonstrated the level of proficiency which they wish to attain.

I ALWAYS caution New Shooters to NOT spend money on new equipment until they have experienced at LEAST one match. Their perceptions may change as they get more experience.

EXPECTATIONS NOT MET:

The Line in the Sand

If there was ever any doubt that Hillary Clinton will make "Gun Control" a major issue in her presidential campaign, this article should disprove it:

Clinton: 'Nothing is more powerful than the gun lobby’ | TheHill:
(March 14, 2016)

 Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton on Monday said enacting tighter firearms regulations requires overwhelming voter support, given the strength of gun lobbyists.

“Nothing is more powerful than the gun lobby,” she told host Chris Matthews during an MSNBC town hall in Springfield, Ill. "This is an issue I am so profoundly disturbed about. We have to take on the gun lobby. The gun lobby really intimidates elected officials. We have got to make this a voting issue.”

Clinton has never been shy about her enmity toward the Civil and Constitutional rights of law-abiding American citizens' right to keep and bear arms;  witness her avocation of the "Australian Solution" (confiscation of all civilian-owned arms).

But now she has dropped the white gloves of diplomacy and displayed the iron hand with which she plans to rule American citizens upon the advent of her Presidency.

She not only advocates the confiscation of guns as a 'side issue', but will make it a talking point ... a political plank in her campaign ... to define privately owned firearms as an issue which she will use against her opponents (notably Bernie Sanders, who she considers 'soft on gun control issues') to gain high office.

We are not unaccustomed to Presidential candidates making extravagent claims on issues which their opponents (in both primary and final elections) have previously stated a position.   But I think this statement is more than a campaign talking point.

Given the Oval Office, Hillary would make Diane Feinstein's "Mr and Mrs America, Turn 'em all in" quote look like a gentle pat on the fanny of a recalcitrant two-year-old child.   (Which is apparently how Mrs. Clinton views her constituents; misguided children who don't know what's good for them.)

This statement is more than an election gimmick, or a platform plank.  It's a promise.

And although we all know that the Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton is a liar and she learned it from her husband (who got away with murder during his presidency ... a figure of speech; Vince Foster was a suicide and they had nothing to do with it),  here she has made the first promise of her campaign which she intends to fulfill if elected.

You Can't Fix "Evil"

In our nation's misguided (read: failed) attempt to "Fix" the problem of Violence in America, our leadership has invariably resorted to the only measure available to them:   they impose more and increasingly draconian "laws" which only affect honest, law-abiding gun owners.

Why?

Because it's cheaper than doing "The Hard Thing", which is to address the societal ills which lead to acts of violence  by the most resource-poor citizens in the country.

People who take an "assault weapon" into a shopping mall with the intent to kill strangers are ... a phenomenon which can be predicted.  And they are a problem.

But we have other problems which are more important, and more wide-reaching in terms of the effect they have on our country.

What Liberals Can Learn From the N.R.A.

What Liberals Can Learn From the N.R.A. - The New York Times:
(March 11, 2015)

VILIFYING the National Rifle Association’s tactics has long been standard practice among liberals. ... Rather than demonize the N.R.A.’s strategies, liberals should emulate them. The organization is, after all, the most effective civil rights group in the United States today.  

This may be the first time that Liberals have been able to put aside their hatred of the NRA and take a close and careful look at just WHY this bunch of "Tiny-Dick 'publicans" have managed to make their message heard .... and their power respected.

RTWT

California funds negative reporting on firearms ownership

In Lieu Of Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research, California State Senator Looks Local - Generation Progress:

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) was, years ago, deprived of federal funding because their research had historically emphasized the negative impact of personal firearms ownership without acknowledging any positive benefit.   In a word, it was biased and not scientifically ethical.

But one state senator from California is trying to change that. California State Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) introduced the California Firearm Violence Research Act, SB1006, which, though it wouldn’t restore funding to the CDC, would establish a research center to study firearm violence in California. The center, which would be part of the University of California system, would take an interdisciplinary approach to examining gun violence prevention, including analyzing risk factors, societal consequences, prevention, and treatment. “The [polarized] discussion is not productive in my view,” Wolk told Generation Progress. “There are people who think guns should be banned and melted down, and there are others who believe there should be no restrictions at all and no control whatsoever. Most people are in the middle on this one, and I’m one of them. I would like to know what policies would be most effective in reducing the incidents of death and injury.”

(emphasis added)
["TREATMENT?"  Does this study propose to 'treat' firearms as an Epidemic?  That's the approach which lead to the defunding of  the CDC project!]

Everyone would prefer to find a means to "(reduce) the incidents of death and injury" due to firearms.

California is certainly welcome to fund its own research on Gun Violence.
But be advised that there are no constraints on how they interpret the data they gather.  In fact, there are no rules about how they either word their questionaires, how they gather data, or how they interpret the data after it has been reaped.

California has so politicized their attitude toward Second Amendment Issues, we can expect that the conclusions they reach will be interpreted so that the question of civilian firearms ownership will be as completely negative as they can make it.

California, and other states, will then use this 'study' to justify whatever extreme constraint on the Second Amendment they feel they can get away with.

The folks who initiate, fund, guide, administer and interpret the data gathered in this 'study' (read: "Necklace Party") do not have your constitutional rights in mind.  Instead, they are agenda driven and no data which supports your right to own and carry a firearm will see the light of day; or, if it is accidentally included in the results, will misinterpreted, misconstrued, or ignored (deleted?).

We should be prepared for the shit-storm of controversy which will be the consequence of this skewed study.  When the results are published, you should rigorously examine the parameters of the study ... what questions are asked of whom, how they are worded, and the multiple-choice questions that are asked.  Be critical, because we know before it starts that there is only one conclusion acceptable to those who have paid for the study.

Especially California State Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis)  who seems to be spearheading the effort.
(WHY is she adamantly behind the study?  We can only assume that she has her own political agenda ... which will only accept 'results' which support her personal opinion.)

Note that Senator Wolk's most recent legislative efforts include ...

SJR 1 - Gun Violence Prevention: Urges the President and Congress to develop a comprehensive federal approach to reducing and preventing gun violence by placing assault weapons and high-capacity assault magazines under the scope of the National Firearms Act, and require a universal background check for all transfers of firearms.  SJR 1 also urges the President to take steps to ensure all states and federal agencies are reporting all necessary records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. (Chapter 83) - See more at: http://sd03.senate.ca.gov/legislation/2013-2014#sthash.wtYPrjl5.dpuf

(emphasis added)

She has identified herself, by her legislative efforts, as an anti-gun proponent,   This fact establishes that her agenda includes undermining the Second Amendment Rights of California gun owners.

Do not assume that she will allow any 'research results' to be publicly aired if they do not support her personal convictions.

Democrats: "Our History"

Democrats.org:

For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers' rights, and women's rights. We are the party of Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, FDR, and the countless everyday Americans who work each day to build a more perfect union. Take a look at some of our accomplishments, and you'll see why we're proud to be Democrats.

Yeah, right.

In the 1930s, Americans turned to Democrats and elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt to end the Great Depression. President Roosevelt offered Americans a New Deal that put people back to work, stabilized farm prices, and brought electricity to rural homes and communities. Under President Roosevelt, Social Security established a promise that lasts to this day: growing old would never again mean growing poor.

Today, Social Security is broken; funding is not protected and old people living on their Social Security are poor.  Trust me on this; I've been trying to live on SS for the last few years.   My saving account nest-egg has been severely depleted.

And after President Kennedy's assassination, Americans looked to President Lyndon Johnson, who offered a new vision of a Great Society and signed into law the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

Now Americans who have spend their entire careers paying for Social Security are still being taxed to support people who have never found a reason to hold down a job as long as the government will pay them for not working.

President Johnson's enactment of Medicare was a watershed moment in America's history that redefined our country's commitment to our seniors—offering a new promise that all Americans have the right to a healthy retirement.

Medicare pays for ... some things.  Need an ambulance?  Costs more.  (Thousands more!)  Need pharmaceuticals?  Costs more.  A LOT more!  So Johnson created enough "social programs" to undermine the economy, but never managed to back up his "Great Society" with a renewable source of income.   The end result is a medical support program with more holes than Swiss Cheese, but with the aroma of Limburger.

Plus that whole Viet Nam thing..
 (oh, BTW; thanks for the all-expenses paid tour of South East Asia, JFK and Lyndon; I had a couple of friends who got the Red Carpet Casket tour package on the way home .. in front of their survivors).

In 1992, after 12 years of Republican presidents, record budget deficits, and high unemployment, Americans turned to Democrats once again and elected Bill Clinton to get America moving again. President Clinton balanced the budget, helped the economy add 23 million new jobs, and oversaw the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in history.

And he did NOT have sex with 'that woman'.  Everything else in that statement is puffery.  His greatest accomplishment is NAFTA.  For what that's worth.

And in 2008, Americans turned to Democrats and elected President Obama to reverse our country's slide into the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression and undo eight years of policies that favored the few over the many.

uh .. yeah.  And he instituted the largest raid in American history on the country's economy, with a budget of multiple TRILLIONS of dollars, with no plan to pay the bills.  Guess who is going to pay the bill?  That's right ... the 50% of Americans who are still working ... and paying higher taxes than ever.  But of course, it would be a Base Canard to call Our President a "Socialist".

Oh, and the next Fiscally Responsible (read: "Republican", but I repeat myself) President, who will HAVE to pay the bills.  In the meantime potential workers are being economically encouraged NOT to work, or to save; so, look forward to another Economic Depression, folks.

Under President Obama's direction and congressional Democrats' leadership, we've reformed a health care system that was broken and extended health insurance to 32 million Americans.

No, it's still "broken", but  it's "Borrowing" from Peter to pay Paul, and it has been stretched to the breaking point.

Our only hope as a 'prosperous nation' is to elect a president who has a realistic understanding of the word "Prosperity".  Which means, among other things, not to tax those few Americans who still work for a living to support the huge numbers who are comfortable with living on the dole.

Do I think Obama is the greatest living president?

I put him somewhere below George Walker Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush.   Even though the father (read my lips; no new taxes) was a total failure as a leader.

(Are there any other living Republican Presidents?  Did I miss someone?)

"They" have plans for us ....

Gun ownership and social gun culture -- Kalesan et al. -- Injury Prevention:
 Published Online First 29 June 2015
Abstract: 

We assessed gun ownership rates in 2013 across the USA and the association between exposure to a social gun culture and gun ownership. We used data from a nationally representative sample of 4000 US adults, from 50 states and District of Columbia, aged >18 years to assess gun ownership and social gun culture performed in October 2013. 

State-level firearm policy information was obtained from the Brady Law Center and Injury Prevention and Control Center.

One-third of Americans reported owning a gun, ranging from 5.2% in Delaware to 61.7% in Alaska. Gun ownership was 2.25-times greater among those reporting social gun culture (PR=2.25, 95% CI 2.02 to 2.52) than those who did not.

In conclusion, we found strong association between social gun culture and gun ownership. Gun cultures may need to be considered for public health strategies that aim to change gun ownership in the USA.

(Correspondence to Dr Bindu Kalesan, Department of Epidemiology, Mailman 

School of Public Health, Columbia University)

________________________________________

YOU WILL NOTE that this article has little to say about the positive benefits of firearms ownership; it's tacitly assumed that there are no benefits, only negative consequences

The conclusion,, that there is a need to "... change gun ownership in the USA" is also a basic assumption.

The change?  To eliminate gun ownership in the USA.

There's just this one little drawback to their diabolical plan to emasculate America:

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns

GEEK LAW #1: Any statement citing Brady as a reference source is assumed to be unscientific, unsound, and incorrect.

Doctor to Doctor: Guns are Icky and may cause you to shoot yourself

Physicians: 'Get Rid of Those Guns':
(September 03, 2015)

Doctor, use your brain. Do not make it easy to shoot yourself in the brain, like my own Sacramento surgeon did. Get rid of those damn guns from your house, car, and office. They are much more likely to kill you or your family than they are to protect you.

Doctor George D. Lundberg advises his colleagues to resist the lure of the Evil Gun, because they may tempt an otherwise sane professional to commit suicide.

I should go to my own physician and inquire as to whether there is a cure for Hoplophobia.   Maybe there's a tiny little pill that ... oh, wait!

Carter's Little Liver Pills

That should do it.