"Arming America" - Bellisles

People who want to undermine your Second Amendment Rights will lie to do it.
Even the best of them.
And I can prove it.
For example, this bit appeared over 8 years ago:
Cogito Ergo Geek: 43:
[March, 2008]

43 That number seems to haunt us, we who own guns and profess that they are a valuable tool for sport, competition, self-defense and other legitimate purposes.. We see it quoted time and again, and yet how many of us are as aware of the significance of that number as are the liberal gun-grabbers . They use that number time and time again as a mantra to define how horrid is the state of owning firearms for self defense.

This is a quote from an article which appeared on this website in 2008.  It was originally intended to debunk the assertions (since disproven) by Arthur Kellerman that :

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine

I won't go into the details of why, how or by whom this assertion was debunked: you can go to my original article here and read the whole thing.  Essentially, Kellerman made up his statistics from whole cloth; he was caught at it and discredited by more honest, reputable historians who were NOT trying to skew historic facts to justify their personal anti-gun bias.

But there are other historians, besides Kellerman, who just cannot resist the temptation to lie to you under the cloth of their scholarly reputation; and when caught in that lie, lose their reputation.

My intention today is to high-light the self-destroyed reputation of a liar named Bellesiles, who claimed that (based on his review of probated wills, etc. from the colonial period), Americans hardly EVER had anything to do with firearms!

Yes, this is another scholar .. an historian ...  (who enjoyed a good reputation before he made up facts to suit his personal political bias) who lied, and was caught at it.

I had written an article referencing Bellesiles in 2003, but thanks to the wonder of BLOGGER that link is no longer available.  I wonder how unkind I was to him then?
I hope I was not as unkind as I will be today.

Here is the story of The Bias of Bellesiles.

POINT:

(From a 2000 GOODREADS review of Bellesiles' book: "The Arming Of America")

In Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles leaps to the forefront of a recent move by scholars toward reexamining this mythology of the gun. To every article of the legend, Bellesiles mounts a relentless and eye-opening barrage of counterevidence, gathered over ten years of research in probate records, censuses, government and military documents, and other primary sources.

 From the first settlements up until the Civil War, ordinary Americans were not heavily armed and were generally neglectful of the guns they did own. Guns of the time were expensive, clumsy, unreliable, and hard to maintain. Opposing other historians' claims for nearly universal gun ownership among the settlers, Bellesiles finds that apparently "at no time prior to 1850 did more than a tenth of the people own guns."

During the Revolutionary War, the civilian militias were, again contrary to myth, ineffective on the whole as a fighting force. One basic reason: The great majority of their members had never bothered to arm themselves or attain proficiency in shooting. After the war was won by professionals, the government labored for the next 70 years to arm a surprisingly resistant citizenry.

COUNTERPOINT: Amazing Disgrace

Bellesiles has a certain claim to fame, certainly, but not as “the target of an infamous ‘swiftboating’ campaign.” He is, and will be forever remembered as, a historian whose colleagues found him to have violated his profession's standards of scholarly integrity. Arming America won the Bancroft Prize -- the highest honor for a book on American history. But far more salient is the fact that the Bancroft committee took the unprecedented step of withdrawing the prize.
It is true that he drew the ire of the National Rifle Association, and I have no inclination to give that organization's well-funded demagogy the benefit of any doubt. But gun nuts did not force Bellesiles to do sloppy research or to falsify sources. That his scholarship was grossly incompetent on many points is not a "controversial" notion. Nor is it open to dispute whether or not he falsified sources. That has been exhaustively documented by his peers. To pretend otherwise is itself demagogic.

COUNTERPOINT: WIKIPEDIA

In [two] scholarly articles,^[15][16] law professor James Lindgren of Northwestern University noted that in Arming America, Bellesiles had

• purported to count guns in about a hundred wills from 17th- and 18th-century Providence, Rhode Island, but these did not exist because the decedents had died intestate (i.e., without wills);

• purported to count nineteenth-century San Francisco County probate inventories, but these had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire;

• reported a national mean for gun ownership in 18th-century probate inventories that was mathematically impossible;

• misreported the condition of guns described in probate records in a way that accommodated his thesis;

• miscited the counts of guns in nineteenth-century Massachusetts censuses and militia reports,

• had more than a 60% error rate in finding guns listed as part of estates in Vermont records; and

• had a 100% error rate in the cited gun-related homicide cases of seventeenth-century Plymouth, MA.

Critics also identified problems with Bellesiles's methods of citation. Cramer noted that Bellesiles had misrepresented a passage by George Washington about the quality of three poorly prepared militia units as if his criticism applied to the militia in general. (Washington had noted that the three units were exceptions to the rule.)^[17] 

(Note that Clayton Cramer's blog appears regulary today)

ARTICLE (January 06, 2003) by Clayton Cramer on The History NewsNetwork

Michael A. Bellesiles’s Bancroft Prize for Arming America has been revoked—the first time that a Bancroft Prize has ever been taken away from an author.[1] He has also resigned from Emory University after a blistering criticism by a blue-ribbon panel.[2] Is this embarrassing moment for the history profession a fluke, or indicative of deeper problems?
I fear that it isn’t a fluke. Arming America reveals that there are some very serious problems in the history professorate, and they are not confined to just one history professor’s demonstration of hubris.

- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1185#sthash.IA7OusWG.dpuf
 Cramer Article continues (in part):

My first reaction after reading the first few chapters was a mixture of “There’s a logical flaw here” and “What? Could this possibly be true?” When I reached chapters that covered periods that I knew well—the early Republic—my incredulity increased. Then I started to find Bellesiles using quotations from travel accounts that I had read—and the quotations didn’t match either my memory of them, or the texts, when I re-read them.
I sat down with a list of bizarre, amazing claims that Bellesiles had made, and started chasing down the citations at Sonoma State University’s library. I found quotations of out of context that completely reversed the author’s original intent. I found dates changed. I found the text of statutes changed—and the changes completely reversed the meaning of the law. It took me twelve hours of hunting before I found a citation that was completely correct. In the intervening two years, I have spent thousands of hours chasing down Bellesiles’s citations, and I have found many hundreds of shockingly gross falsifications.

- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1185#sthash.IA7OusWG.dpuf

SUMMARY:   BELLESILES LIED!
When the flurry died down, it had become obvious to researchers that Bellesiles had quoted sources ...  wills and testaments which were patently not available, partly because of widespread flooding which had destroyed a pletohra of historical documents in the basement of the library which he cited as his primary source ,,, and also whole-clothedly misquoted documents which remained available to other historians; if they cared to look!

Fortunately, Cramer cared, and looked, and reported.   Again from the same  HISTORYNEWSNETWORK source:

Clayton Cramer, a historian, software engineer, gun enthusiast and early critic of Bellesiles, later argued that the reason "why historians swallowed Arming America's preposterous claims so readily is that it fit into their political worldview so well... Arming America said things, and created a system of thought so comfortable for the vast majority of historians, that they didn’t even pause to consider the possibility that something wasn’t right."^[4] Historian Peter Charles Hoffer, an advocate of gun control, lent support to Cramer's charge when, in a 2004 examination of the Bellesiles case, he noted that influential members of the historical profession had "taken strong public stands on violence in our society and its relation to gun control."^[5] For instance, the academics solicited for blurbs by Bellesiles’ publisher Alfred A. Knopf "were ecstatic in part because the book knocked the gun lobby."^[6]Bellesiles energized this professional consensus by attempting to play "the professors against the NRA in a high-wire act of arrogant bravado."^[7] For instance, he replied to Heston’s criticism by telling the actor to earn a Ph.D. before criticizing the work of scholars.^[8] He pointed out that Cramer was "a long time advocate of unrestricted gun ownership" while he was a scholar who had "certain obligations of accuracy that transcend current political benefit."^[9] After Bellesiles claimed he had been flooded by hate mail, both the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians endorsed a resolution condemning the alleged harassment.^[10] As Hoffer later wrote, Bellesiles was convinced that whether the entire profession agreed with “his stance on gun ownership (and I suspect most did), surely academic historians would not let their expertise be impugned by a rank and partisan amateur like Cramer.” ^[11]

NB personal from this writer: The disappointment of scholars seems not to be so much  that Bellesiles' publications played the professors against the NRA, as it is that he was clumsy at it. Second Amendment Advocates are accustomed to being lied about by academics; professorial knee-jerk reaction against Constitional rights are commonplace. We are accustomed to it, consider the source (academians, insulated from the real world), and we dismiss their "ivory tower" pronouncements ... as is reasonable, logical, right and proper.  I'm amazed that you criticized Bellesiles!

Well, you didn't actually disagree with him, did you?  You merely thought his research was poorly documented.

And so in the end, when he was caught with his professorial pants down, Bellesiles chose not to defend his academic accuracy, but to attack his accuser; Cramer.

JUST LIKE KELLERMAN, Bellesiles used shoddy research techniques, exagerated the results, lied when the data didn't match his thesis, and in the end proved himself indefensible by the ageless schoolyard retort:  

DID NOT!

Unfortunately, Wikipedia provides the death-knell to Bellesiles' career:

Historians who initially admired Arming America ceased to defend Bellesiles. The nationally prominent historian Garry Wills, who had enthusiastically reviewed Arming America for the New York Times,^[25] later said, in a 2005 interview on C-SPAN, "I was took. The book is a fraud." Wills noted that Bellesiles "claimed to have consulted archives he didn't and he misrepresented those archives," although "he didn't have to do that," since "he had a lot of good, solid evidence." Wills added, "People get taken by very good con men."^[26]Historian Roger Lane, who had reviewed the book positively in the Journal of American History,^[27] offered a similar opinion: "It is entirely clear to me that he's made up a lot of these records. He's betrayed us. He's betrayed the cause. It's 100 percent clear that the guy is a liar and a disgrace to my profession. He's breached that trust."^[28] Historian Pauline Maier reflected that it seemed historians had "ceased to read carefully and critically, even in the awarding of book prizes."^[29]

Good Bye,  Michael A. Bellesiles, PHD, Liar.  See ya!  Glad I don't have to Be Ya!
(How's that  job at MacDonald's working out for you?)

Death of the founding fathers - Jul 04, 1826

Death of the founding fathers - Jul 04, 1826 - HISTORY.com:

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the second and third presidents of the United States, respectively, die on this day, the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Both men had been central in the drafting of the historic document; Jefferson had authored it, and Adams, who was known as the “colossus of the debate,” served on the drafting committee and had argued eloquently for the declaration’s passage.

Incidently, I have been watching the Seven-part miniseries "John Adams" (on 3 DVD discs), which was presented by HBO in 2008.   I highly recommend it.  It was based on the book by David McCullough.

Fourth Of July

Independence Day

Full of Sound and Fury

Because America

Click on FULL SCREEN! (You Know You Wanna!)

Happy Geek Independence Day!

This didn't have to happen

Father Accidentally Kills Teenage Son at Florida Gun Range - NBC News:
July 04, 2016 6:01pm ET

A 14-year-old boy was fatally shot by his father at a gun range in Sarasota, Florida, Sunday, according to police. 

William Brumby, 64, was at High Noon Gun Range when he shot his son, Stephen Brumby, according to the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office. The boy was taken to Sarasota Memorial Hospital shortly after 3 p.m., but died there of his injuries.

Witness accounts and surveillance video revealed that a shell casing had ricocheted into the elder Brumby's shirt, police said.When he went to pluck it out, using the hand in which he was holding a loaded handgun, he accidentally pulled the trigger and shot the son who was standing behind him, according to a statement from the sheriff's office.

I can only don't want to imagine how that man must feel.

INDEPENDENCE DAY!.

As strange as it seems .. there are still a few people who know what Independence Day actually means.

[H/T: War On Gun]

Okay. You have to search for them.  But Thank Goodness there are still Blondes in the world to put the Jocks in their place!.



 (Okay .... not a lot of Smart Blondes, but a lot more than Smart Jocks!)

Yes, I liked the guy (sufer blond, that's okay) who actually KNEW some of the "Founding Fathers" were more than the name of a bar in "BONES".

But I fell in lust with the tiny blonde in horn-rim glasses who said:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Actually, that was the Preamble to the Constitution, which was ultimately signed in 1987   1877     (September 17, 1787)!  [credit for getting three out of four digits correct, for interviewes!]

(The Declaration of Independence was signed on July 04, 1776, and starts:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

Today, there is controversy as to whether the current form of govenment meets the standards thus enumerated.  Indeed, considering several Executive Decisions ("Unilateral Decisions") imposed by the current administration, it seems that the 'consent of the governed' has not always been consulted, nor considered.

When .. and HOW ... can we regain control over our own government?

A Liberal can no more be impartial than a snake can be thankful

NJ2AS President Assaulted by Congresswoman's Chief of Staff: West Orange, New Jersey – (Ammoland.com)-

While attending Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman’s Gun Violence Prevention Roundtable on June 29, 2016, New Jersey Second Amendment Society President, Alexander Roubian, peacefully attempted to ask why she would be advocating for stricter sentencing and laws for firearms while at the same time her sons served a fraction of their sentence for armed robbery.

(H/T: Codrea at War On Guns)

As Roubian began to ask his question, Colemon realized the point of his preamble and interrupted, saying that he would not talk about this during the session!

When Roubian protested, he was forceably escourted from the premises ... a house of worship.

Which gives a whole new meaning to the term "Violence Prevention".

Apparently, violence is permissible if inflicted by the lackeys of the congresscritter

The over-reaction should be excused, because (a) the chaircritter was a Liberal and (b) she had the muscle and (c) she cares no more for the First Amendment than she does for the Second Amendment.

Face it.  Liberals are snakes in the grass.  They don't like to be called "Hypocrites", because as they see it they are only acting according to their political (and personal) nature.

Roubian was  evicted because he just didn't understand the way things work around Snakes, so please get off their grass!

Putin Rattling Sabers ... Again

Now furious Putin threatens WAR against the West as NATO bolsters troops at Russian border | World | News | Daily Express:

The ruthless Kremlin leader is taking an aggressive hard-line stance on NATO’s military action close to Russian soil by vowing to “neutralise potential threats” as tension in the region builds. British, American, German and Canadian troops are currently situated on the Russian border in the Baltic region as part of the Eastern European deterrent force.

So Rasputin (Sorry ... "Putin" .. he should live so long!) feels obliged to get all hissy-fit because some bumbling westerners are having a Jamboree camp-out in his 'hood.

"Are you looking at ME?"

As if The West didn't have its own problems.

Why, just today a Kraut Swat Team found a ton of illegal guns "near a German Mosque".
(Okay, it was actually in a Delicatessen, but thank *OD the Germans were too P.C. to point a finger at the Jews!)

In the meantime, this is what a REAL Saber  SABRE Dance looks like; as performed by the

"Armenian National Dance Ansamble" (sic)

 Music by Aram Khatchatarian. *



* (If you're as ignorant as I am, you probably recognize the music but never knew its name.)

"Hey, Bubba ... Watch THIS!"

House Democrats are milking the "Terrorist Threat" to undermine the Constitutional rights of every American.

Democrats say the Cornyn bill doesn’t go far enough since it includes a “probable cause” standard that would require law enforcement officials to prove that a gun buyer is an actual terrorist rather than a suspected terrorist.
Instead, Democrats want a vote on legislation that would bar firearm sales to anyone on a terrorism watch list or no-fly list.

Remember Jeff Foxworthy's brilliant series of comedy routines, loosely categorized under the heading:  "You May Be A Redneck If ...."?

We have a whole raft of things to watch nowdays, and there's nothing funny about them.

They're called: "Watch Lists".

Using the pretext of  'fighting' terrorism (which is The Real thing),  Dems are splattering the door of the Constitution with slimy bills of every stripe, hoping that one or two of them will slide through the cracks.    They have been unsuccessfully attempting to undermine the Second Amendmend with "Gun Control" bills, so now they are trying to re-enter the same bills under the misnomer "Anti-Terrorism" bills.

The latest volleys have include an arbitrary measure to deprive people in America of their Civil Rights because a 'similar' (or the same) name has appeared on any of the many anonymous "Lists" circulating the (increasingly less hallowed) halls of Congress.   Apparently these lists ("Terrorist Watch List"and "No Fly List" are the only two I've heard of so far) have no public justification for their existance.  Except for the "I'm keeping an eye on you, potential scumbag" factor.

But then, since notifying anyone that they're on the list(s) would be counter-productive, there is no 'warning'.  You try to buy an airline ticket, and you are notified that you are on a "LIST", so you can't fly on an airline.

Three year old girls and congressmen have been denied entry to a domestic flight because of these lists.  The Congressman made his flight 'anyway'; chances are the parents of the child had a bit more trouble

We don't know who is on them, or why their names appear there ... or, if 'we' are on them, we don't know how to demand removal.   We are informed that "there is a process" but our Paternalistic Federal government has not been able (or willing) to provide that information to the general public.

This sounds to me like the first step toward what has been called "Death Squads" in the southern hemisphere.   Someone decides that 'steps must be taken', and they are.  So far, nobody has been murdered because their name appears on A list.  (That's an assumption.)

Have we become a Third World Country ruled by a Junta?

Or do we still believe in The Rule Of Law?

This whole thing sounds like the (very bad; sorry about that, Tom.) Tom Cruise movie "Minority Report", where ...

In a future where a special police unit is able to arrest murderers before they commit their crimes, an officer from that unit is himself accused of a future murder.

Show Us Your Papers

Somebody please tell me how America got to the point where, because of our fears, our Federal Government has arbitrarily and anonymously imposed travel restrictions on Americans?

Somebody please tell me how our elected representives, who seem to have forgotten who they work for, can justify not only instigating new restrictions, but are then building on them to  further infringe on our Constitutional Rights.

it's not that I don't understand that terrorism is a major issue, it's just that I don't understand what happened to "The Most Transparanet Administration".

And people thought George Bush had ambitions beyond his station!

Democrats call for 'family sit-ins' on guns

Democrats call for 'family sit-ins' on guns | Washington Examiner:
(6/27/16 4:14 PM)

House Democrats on Wednesday plan to stage a "national day of action" against gun violence that will feature "family sit-ins," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced. Pelosi said the action would "carry forward the momentum" from the Democrats' takeover of the House floor last week. Democratic lawmakers staged a 25-hour sit-in which included attempts to disrupt the floor schedule and votes. 

Oh, yes.   The Pity Party strikes again.  

 They demanded the GOP leadership allow consideration of two gun control bills, but relinquished the floor hours after the GOP adjourned the House for a week-long recess. Their efforts gained them praise and attention on social media, where lawmakers broke the House rules by streaming their sit-in live from the floor of the chamber. 

Yes, the Democratic Party certainly raised the Moral Level, or something, with their catered photo opportunity  (illegal) strike.

Well, the house doesn't 'do' filibuster, so I guess they had to do something ... although when Senate Republicans last filibustered a bill, the Democrats complained that the Republicans were 'just mean!' .  (And then kicked sand at them)

 Democrats also used the event to ask for money from donors.

Oh.  Okay, that explains everything.

Not-so-smart NJ and not-so-smart Smart Guns

You recall how New Jersey had her knickers handed to her when the smarmy law requiring "Smart Guns" to be sold as soon as they had become available? Uh huh. They still have sores from the bite marks under their nickers.  (And the Smart Guns are STILL not all that 'available'!)

Now, New Jersey has has backed WAY off its original arbitrariness.
Not far enough, though.

New Jersey Assembly Approves Bill For More Smart Gun Sales  CBS New York:

 More smart guns would be sold in New Jersey under a measure that cleared the state Assembly Monday. As WCBS 880’s Kelly Waldron reported, the measure would create a roster of so-called smart guns, which can only be fired by authorized users, available for sale. The bill would also require most New Jersey gun retailers to carry a couple of smart guns in their stores.

[H/T: The Gun Feed]

("MORE" Smart Guns?  Have they sold even ONE, yet?)

So far, the "Roster" includes one small .22 caliber pistol, underpowered for any 'practical ' purpose, and it costs an arm and both legs more than most pistols of that genre.

Oh, and it's not all that smart, having failed in a significant number of tests.  Boy, Howdy, that's the pistol *_I_* would want to have in my nightstand to protect my family against a home invasion!

So the wise solons in The Garbage Garden State have declared that all they want to do is to have every gun shop have 'a couple of smart guns in their stores.

Great.
Beat up on the small retailer stores much?   How may other products does this state's legislature mandate that stores carry in stock?   Is it just firearms?

Yes, it is "just firearms".

Thank Goodness for the Second Amendment which ... provides absolutely NO protection for a specialty merchant, as long as the State Legislature is composed of a ignorant sore-losers who don't mind sticking it to their constituents who are just trying to make a living.

Well, those ignorant elected officials are still smarting (no pun intended, but it seemed appropriate) from the public embarassment they sufferred last year and somebody has to pay the price.  Guess who?

This is a valuable product useful for home defence  competition plinking at tin cans absolutely nothing.   And NJ wants every small retailer to carry them in stock ... rather than have them available for 'special order' in the (unlikely) possibility that someone would really like to own one.

Not that the State Assembly wasn't aware of that; this is merely another transparent attempt to run gun stores out of business.  The law serves no other purpose.

You can bet that if a gun store actually had someone ask to buy one of those not-so-smart guns, the retailer could put an order in to the manufacturer and it would be delivered the next business day by the president of the failing company (who probably has a closet full of unsaleable guns in his basement).

The ironic thing is, the good people of New Jersey will probably re-elect the idiots who wrote the original law requiring that only 'Smart Guns' be sold ... when they were both unreliable and unavailable.

No word from NJ on whether the original law, mandating that only Smart Guns be sold in NJ as soon as one became 'available'.   Well, you can't blame them for not wanting to advertise their lunacy any more.

How .22lr is made

How .22lr is made - YouTube: Published on Mar 11, 2016 CCI .22lr factory ammo production



Boring factory line jobs; but .22's are a lot of fun to shoot!

Limit 'Ammunition Clips'

The really charming thing about Professional Politicians (aka: "Those Sucking On The Public Teat") is that they feel free to state broad generalizations for publicity, but they're not so good on details.

During the June 26 broadcast of Meet the Press, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) said the U.S. needs to put stricter limits on the capacity of “ammunition clips.”

Host Chuck Todd initiated the focus on gun control by asking, “Are you in favor of an assault weapons ban?” Kaine responded, “I have voted for it, but I think there’s a better way to go at the problem–and that is limitations on the size of magazines and ammunition clips.”
Kaine said the way to undercut manufacturers’ ability to skirt bans is to say, “You can’t sell an ammunition clip or a magazine that would have more than 10 or 12 rounds, that is a very strict [ban].”

Problem?

There is a problem?

I wasn't aware of it.  Just what 'problem' would be 'gone at' by limitations on the "size of magazines and ammunition clips"?  (Ignore the awkward and semi-literate phraseology of the Democratic Senator from Virginia.  We all know he's talking about how many rounds may be loaded into a firearm before it must be reloaded.)

So, it's a 'very strict ban' to SELL (not possess, not import, not manufacture)  "magazines and ammunition clips" which would have more than "10 or 12 rounds".

In what way is this "a very strict ban"?   What should it be, TEN or TWELVE rounds?  Why is one number 'better' than another?  Why not Six, or Seven?  Why not Thirty rounds?  Where do you draw the line, and what should be the penalty if your TEN ROUND MAGAZINE (for example) is proven to accept ELEVEN ROUNDS if you push hard enough ... even though it may not feed reliably?

The question may sound ... facetious.  But it's actually a point of law.  It's only that the 'limit' is so arbitrary, and proposed as a law which will be enforced (fine or jail time???) that People Want To Know!

Would this make a felon of an honest citizen?  Are the people who propose these laws actually aware of the harm which they potentially do?  

Do they even care?  Or is all just a media event?  (Which doesn't mean they won't enact that, or a similar, law; they have done that before !)

(My "Ten Round" .40 cal/10mm magazines can be converted with a vise or a pair of pliers to accept and feed 11 or more rounds of 9mm ammunition ... or I can just put the magazine on the concrete garage floor and stomp on it until the feed lips are close enough to single-feed 9mm ammo.  Does this make me a felon?)

The point is .. this is all arbitrary, there is no justification for these proposed magazine limits, and these people are making it up as they go along; but you and I are the ones who face penalty, confication, prison time if we break these unreasonable and arbitrary "laws"!

No idea where The Honerable (if ignorant) Gentleman from Virginia pulled that number ... probably someone in a Gentlemen's Lounge brought it up in casual conversation, and the Honerable (if ignorant) Gentleman from Virginia though to himself:  "Hey, this is a headline grabber!"

WHAT PROBLEM?

One of the things that Effective Problem Solvers do is follow a Six Step Process:

STEP ONE:  Define the Problem
STEP TWO: Propose a solution; define the aims of the solution
STEP THREE: Define the alternatives, and possible consequences, of the solution
STEP FOUR: Test the solution
STEP FIVE:  Refine the solution; retest until (if necessary) discard it
STEP SIX: If not discarded, implement the solution

The Honerable (if ignorant) Gentleman from Virginia skipped Step One, went DIRECTLY to Step Two, and ignored everything else.

Just like a politician.

Here are just a couple of questions which one wishes that 'real reporters' would have asked:

• Why would "limiting ammunition clips" solve A problem?
• What is "The Problem" that this measure is intended to resolve?
• Why does The Honerable (if ignorant) Gentleman from Virginia think that this measure would solve ANY problems?
• How did this idiot get elected

Here's the BAD news:  Senator Kaine is on the "Short List" for Vice Presidential Candidate under prospective Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton.

God Preserve America, because this composit list of IDIOTS political incompetents certainly will not.

Just saying ...

God Protect America and Americans, because our lawmakers are idiots who know not what they do ............ not do they really give a damn as long as it looks good in the newspapers.

Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA

Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA | Scott Adams' Blog:

On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime. On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense. If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.

Scott Adams continues his Delbert Persona into the scary cobwebs-and-squeaky-doors House of  Gun Control.

I'm glad he chimed in on this contentious issue, because it's a magnificent commentator who can skewer both sides, and leave everyone laughing at themselves (in a contentious manner, of course, because we're all a little weird from bickering all these years on an issue we'll never agree on).

But ... that's just one viewpoint.

Let's look at another blog, saying "you can't regulate guns, until you know how to use one".

Yishan Wong writes that he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,   Specifically:

I am a pro-gun-control liberal who does not believe in the Second Amendment.

Well, that's a tough act to follow.   It's kind of like the Queen of Hearts:

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

While offering to coach people who don't understand guns, as a public service, Wong continues:

I also possess five guns: three handguns and two rifles — one which I built myself from parts. It was fairly easy and a lot of fun, as I am an engineer by training.
I also believe that guns at home are more likely to result in injury than be used successfully for home defense, so I believe in storing them at the local gun club or armory.

There are still things I haven't learned.  Perhaps this is one of them.

Business As Usual; Thanks, Mac!

Yesterday I had posted (since deleted) that I was voluntarily discontinuing my instructor's position with my 'home' gun club, and I was disappointed that matters seemed to make this adviseable.  It was not a disagreement with management that caused me to make this difficult decision, but a matter of liability insurance.  

More than that, it was a missed communication because the dialogue was conducted by email, and misunderstandings were conveyed by everyone in the loop.   That's the problem with email; you don't have the 'personal touch', and it's too easy for misunderstandings to occur.  

MY concern was that I had asked about liability insurance, and the response was that the club and the directors were covered quite adequately.

Any participant at any range event is covered.

What I took from that was that instructors were not specifically covered by any liability insurance.   And so I backed away, with reluctance, from the position which I've filled for more than five years.

I wasn't afraid of getting shot; I've been shot at before and it doesn't hurt when they miss.
I was afraid of getting SUED!

This afternoon, "Mac" ... who pretty much runs the joint (until he retires at the end of the month,  and who is a past-president of the club and a current Board Director, as well as a personal friend) ... decided to enter the dialogue.

He did it the old fashion way:  he phoned me at home.

It was nice to hear from him, and within a few minutes he resolved the mixed understandings with his usual good humor and fine appreciation for 'the human touch'.  Yes, the club is fully covered, and as an official instructor I am personally covered both for liability as well as injury to a limit of ... well, more than I make all year.

Which means that next Saturday I get to go back to work at the best job I've ever had:  introducing "new shooters" to the gentle sport of Practical Pistol Shooting!   I feel much as I use to feel on the last day of the school year, way back in ... uh ... y'know.  Back then.    (vague wave 'thataway')

As the sun is now officially over the yardarm, it's time to raise a cup to the Peacemakers of the world,  and I don't mean a Colt Revolver.   I mean "A Man Named Mac".

PS to "The Hobo Brasser"   yes,  I will be taking in more matches, just as soon as I load enough 10mm to get me through a match, including all the 'misses' I have to make up.  I figure 250 rounds should get me through a 140-round match.

Murderer's Row

At Pulse Memorial, Obama Blasts Republicans For Arming Terrorists - Breitbart:

Standing at the memorial for the victims of the terrorist attack at a gay night club in Orlando, Florida, President Barack Obama implicitly blamed Republicans for the attack because they blocked gun control laws.

Idiot.

Gun Control laws CAUSED the massive deaths, there and in other public places which we shall identify as "Murderer's Row".

How DARE Obama blame a political party for this monstrosity!

NO "gun control laws" would have prevented that killing, and for Obama to take political advantage of this tragedy is like a hyena feeding upon the leavings of an African predator,

But to liken Obama to a Hyena is to desegregate Hyenas.
 Also Jackals, Dingos, and other bottom feeders,

vs:

Which is more lovable?

Betrayal of Trust

Innocents Betrayed





But this could not POSSIBLY happen here .. this is AMERICA!!!!!

There are two men in this world who define us as "wannabe's"

The first atavar of American Masculinity is Denny Crane:



The second  ...   and MUCH longer in the presentation .. is Al Bundy.



The Wisdoms of Al Bundy - YouTube:

I hope you all were taking notes

Any questions?

No?

Good.


.

Stop! Just STOP the Baloney. Crooks Have Guns Already!

I am SO sick, and tired, of all the BS about Gun Control.

Criminals already have guns.  Their cousins have guns.  Their aunts have guns.
Guns are "'merchandise', not 'product'.

These people get guns from all over;  Guns are under-the-table sales, they're stolen, they're bought from burglars ... why do "You People" think people rob occupied homes, anyway?  Because they're after your Bank Card .. which you carry with you?

Why do "You People" think you can regulate guns by passing laws?
The only people that are going to pay attention to your precious new laws are the people who are "law abiding", and you'll probably make criminals out of THEM when they recognize that your new "common sense safety measures" are unconstitutional, and they won't obey them anyway.

So why bother"  If you're a Politician, I know you're in it to look good for the ideology  idiot-olgy which supports you, but why do you listen to them?  Make sounds, and then vote according to the Constitution; nobody will notice.  They're busy watching the Southern Border, and cheering on their new best friends; their latesr 'home boys'.

(Oh, never mind, the liberals won't allow Wetbacks in their neighborhoods, unless said Wetbacks are carrying a leaf-blower.)

Crap.  Crooks could get your gun by mugging you on the way to work.  But you don't CARRY guns .. which is why the bad guys feel quite comfortable about mugging you (thank you very much) because no matter how much you squawk on the Internet about how you "Carry 24/7", they know you're a liar.

You're wearing a suit?  Who do you think you are, Denny Crane?

You can't control the guns.

You can't even drink three beers at the end of the day without peeing your pants before you get to the Little Boys' Room.  What makes you think you can control guns?

I don't know who you are, and I don't care.  I would just like you to (please .. I'm trying to be nice here) get the heck out of my life and quit trying to decide how I should LIVE my life.

".. you can't even run your own life; I'll be damned if you'll life mine!"

Tempest in a Teapot Dome Scandal

Rangel: No Guns For Americans But I Need Police Protection [AUDIO] | The Daily Caller:

Like Maryland, California, and the District of Columbia, New York’s firearm permitting approval requires that applicants must provide good cause to carry a firearm. The laws surrounding New York City’s firearm issuing authority have been criticized in the past for favoring retired police officers or those with the right connections within the police department to get a concealed carry permit. The 37,000 issued licensees include prominent business leaders, elected officials, journalists, judges and attorneys. What about Rangel’s own constituents in his Harlem district? Should law-abiding residents who live there have concealed carry permits too? “I wouldn’t want them to have it. I know what you’re trying to say. Corruption is corruption, and it’s bad,” Rangel said. “Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun. You’re not gonna push me in that direction,” he said, standing just five feet from a Capitol Police officer, who stood at his post by the House Speaker’s Lobby.

There are TWO issues at stake in this New York controversy, and Representative Rangel knows it.

When asked by The Daily Caller his thoughts on the difficulty of getting a concealed carry permit in New York City and how rare it is for such permits to be issued by the NYPD, Rangel replied, “I’m glad to hear you say that very few people get it.”

“We don’t need that many guns,” he continued. “I didn’t know that briberies were involved in getting a gun, and that is wrong, but overall, if it is difficult to get a concealed weapon permit, I’m glad to hear that.”

The FIRST issue is that Rep Rangel does not trust his own constituents ... not a single one of them, whatever justification which they might present for his Almighty Justification.
"?
Can we say "Mister and Mrs America, turn them all in?"

Frankly, if I was one of Mrl. Rangel's constituents, I would be all about the "Anybody But Rangel" movement.

Issue 1.5 is: 
. “I didn’t know that briberies were involved in getting a gun...:"

Gee, Charly, where are you ... New Haven?  No, you're not. You're in New York, and you didn't know that people bribe cops to get guns?


The SECOND ISSUE is that Charly sincerely believes:
"Law Abiding Citizens Shouldn't Have To Carry A Gun"

Can't argue with that, except ... well, as long as there are muggers and murderers in the neighborhood, I think I would feel a lot better if I were "ALLOWED" to do so.   You know .. as a law-abiding citizen, and all that?
 But if you live 'there', and your representative is 'him', you're pretty much screwed; unless you want to get a gun 'anyhow' ... so badly that you (an otherwise honest citizen) is willing to risk Jail Time in order to find the means to defend himself and his family.

You think that's BAD, Charly?  Maybe you should put yourself in THEIR place!.

SO, if your constituents feel that they are at risk' and they can't get a gun legally ... they'll get a gun by 'other means'.    While you MAY think you're protecting them, by taking away their means to protect theselves, you are actually putting them at greater risk of predation from the guys who do NOT obey they law and are already armed.

.. does that make sense to you, Charley?

Great representation; deliberately making criminals from honest citizens.

Way to GO, CHARLY!!!!!

(You SO rock!  And don't mind that you won't let us defend ourselves against drug dealers, aggressive teens, and other folks who think we don't have the balls to defend ourselves: ... it's not important in the Liberal scheme of things!)

When asked by The Daily Caller his thoughts on the difficulty of getting a concealed carry permit in New York City and how rare it is for such permits to be issued by the NYPD, Rangel replied, “I’m glad to hear you say that very few people get it.”

“We don’t need that many guns,” he continued. “I didn’t know that briberies were involved in getting a gun, and that is wrong, but overall, if it is difficult to get a concealed weapon permit, I’m glad to hear that.”

The Teapot Dome scandal was a bribery incident that took place in the United States from 1921 to 1922, during the administration of President Warren G. Harding. Secretary of the Interior 

As far as I know, it has absolutely nothing to do with Charly Rnagal or the Daily Caller.  Or Charleys' constituents, for all I know.l


But it does help to jazz up the headline.

Uncle Bill's Coyote Trap

One of the latest deer-hunting trips I took with my father was in around 1970-1972.  I can't be more specific, but I got back from overseas in late September of 1970 and it wasn't long before I tired of hunting .. so this is the best estimate I can provide.

I went hunting  with my father (and my mother, and my wife, in a large trailer-thingie behind a Dodge Pickup) in late 1970's, immediately after I got home from my tour of duty.

My father wanted me to go hunting with him in the Elgin, Oregon are where he had many relatives.  I had become distanced from much of my family , so I wasn't much concerned about  ... whatever that whole "family" think was bout.\
...
The Coyote:
Anyway, there was only one reason why I agreed to go hunting with my father, and that was because I had missed him while I was away, and I wanted to reconnect with his wise and experienced self.

There was only one incident which made the trip worth-while to me: that was the deer-hunting trip of 1970.

I had an uncle on my mother's side, who was not someone I admired.  He fancied himself a trapper.
But he didn't trap beaver: he trapped Coyotes.

Uncle Jack and The Pitiful Buck

"Social" hunting story:

Social means ... your wives are along on the trip; so you're not so much
Back in the seventies, I went on a deer hunting trip with my father.  Almost the last trip we shared together.

We were hunting with a childhood friend of my father ... let's cal him "Jack".

The hunt occurred in a deep-canyon/mountainous area in Eastern Oregon, and Jack was foolish enough to shoot a deer deep in  (actually, ACROSS) a canyon.  I followed my father and Jack deep into the canyon where the deer had died, and it was a scrawny specimen.  But Jack had killed it, so we were obliged to reap the meet.

I carried the rifles of my father and Jack, and my own .. it was a sufficient burden to make the trek up the step slope ... burdensome.  I was only 15 years old, and scrawny at that!

I was glad I wasn't trying to drag that skinny buck up the mountainside; it was more effort than it was worth.
When we got the buck back to the mountain-side, the carcass had been beat to death; all they could do (Jack and my father) was drag it up the mountain, with one hand for the antlers (which provided a convenient handhold) and one hand for the new-growth firs with which the area had been recently re-seeded.  Yes, Jack had gutted the deer, but even a mere 80 pounds of deer is a handful on such a st eep (50 degree) slope.

when they had finally humped the yearling back to the campsite, my father and I enjoyed a LARGE whiskey; not in celebration so much as a grateful end to a boring and perilous trek.

JACK was left with the chore of dressing the buck.

I watched as Jack skinned the buck (he hat gutted it before we started back up the mountain .. guts are heavy! ... and after he got the hide off, every bit of meat we could see was dark with blood-shot.

Jack took over an hour to find some viable meat on that carcass, after he took the hide off.  It was all blood-shot as hell, and he threw away more than he put into the bucket.

By the time he was done, the gut bucket, or the hide, or the bloodshot-bucket held more weight than the usable meet which he salvaged.  I think that was Jack's most embarrassing moment, because he had wasted so much meat by his determination to 'bring home the bacon' that his only pride was that he had made a good, clean one-shot kill .. but had reaped little bacon for the exercise.  It wasn't worth the trek to drag the deer up out of the valley.

Jack took more time to dress the meat than he did to drag it up out of the falley.  He REALLY shouldn't have taken the shot, but his pride wouldn't allow him to pass it up.

I still remember the vision of that skeletal carcass, hanging from a tree-dependent meat-hook after Jack had taken every edible morsel of meat off it. It was pitiful.

It was a bad kill;
we all knew it.

We all resented the effort it took to drag that dead body (it was already not 'game' but a 'victim') out of the deep cut between the tall mountains.  The women were without comment; my mother, Jack's wife, my wife ... Jack was a friend, and we didn't need to tell him he had made a fool of himself.

He knew it.

That was the last time I hunted deer.
I soon learned that Pronghorn Antelope were MUCH more interesteing!

Wyoming Antelope and the Texas Neophyte

Back in the late 70's and early eighties, my father and I hunted antelope.

We hunted and killed antelope in Oregon (another story or two), but this is when we were lucky enough to draw antelope tags in Wyoming.

South Eastern Oregon is  ... or was .. a great place to hunt Antelope.  And I'll talk about that area another time.  But this time, we were hunting out of Rawlins, Wyoming.  One of my favorite places!

There's nothing like finding a small herd of antelope, picking the best buck out of the herd, and busting him.

This is a story about ... not finding a buck, but finding a doe.

My father (here-after "Pop") and I had been hunting antelope for several years after I got home from the army, and I had already got over the angst about killing game.

Rawlins was (as said before). our favorite place to hunt for a couple of reasons:

(1)  there's a lot of open range just a short drive from Rawlins, and:
(2)  there's a lot of antelope on BLM land, where there's no restrictions because (at the time) Pronghorn Antelope were considered .. what's the term?  Oh yeah .. "varmints".  (Landowners objected to them eating the haystacks they had  created to feed their cattle.  Antelope eat hy?  I had never realized that.  Go figure .. but at least it was easy to get permission from landowners to hunt Pronghorns on their land!)

, .. and since we had been there in previous years, we were comfortable with the region.
On this day, we were just kind of working a small area which seemed a reasonable place to find pronghorns.

I had, by then, become fairly proficient in spotting the white-tail of a Phongie, and when we found a mesa with a lot of tracks leading to it, I was reasonable confident that we could find antelope there.

We were right,
but we were wrong at the same time:

,,, the antelope HAD been there, and a fairly large herd.
But by the time we got there. we discovered that the herd had been scattered by another hunter.

My father stayed back wile I move up onto the mesa (which is a misnomer ... it was just a small hill with a flat top) and I found a lot of 'antelope sign', but no antelope.

What I found was, another hunter.

We met, exchanged names, and he told me that a small mixed (male and female) herd had just run off.

I wasn't surprised that it was a "mixed:" herd:  Antelope usually depend on the dominant female to lead the others.  When she signals that they should leave, the take their most delightful PRONG PRONG hopping leaps past all obstacles (especially barbed wire fences, though which the oddly choose to crawl through) and evacuate the area.

On this day, I arrived on a hilltop where I expected to find a small herd, and instead found a texan with a motorcycle.

Okay, the hilltop was a bit smaller than is suggested by the term "MESA", although I'm not sure what the correct nomenclature applies.  And it wasn't really a Honda 50, but close enough to make no never mind.  Cut me some slack here, okay?

So I asked the Texan what had happened, and he told me that he had jumped the small herd which I had expected; he got one shot off, didn't hit anything, and was disappointed that the herd had left the area.

HELLO?

"Flock Shooting"?

He had shot at "A Herd", not hit anything, and they left?  I didn't believe him.

(Would You?)

So I checked the ground and found a couple of small strings of gut; indicative that SOMEONE had shot SOMETHING, but he didn't tell me about that.

If you're like me, you don't like the idea of leaving wounded game;  a closer examination of the ground revealed more gut, and a blood trail leading vaguely off to the East .. down off the hill and (later) toward a small draw.

Antelope like high ground; but when hurt, they seek a hide.  They go DOWNHILL.
This is obviously what had happened.

I talked to the Texan with the Honda, and he eventually (shame-facedly) admitted that he was shooting at the Bull of the herd, but perhaps ... perhaps ... at the last minute an ewe had move between him and his target .. and he may (maybe, perhaps) have hit her instead.  At any rate, the Bull and the rest of the herd got away and he was hot to trot to go after his target!

Walking the ground, I found some more gut (suggesting that the female had been hit harder than the Texan wanted to accept), and a small (dainty) blood trail leading East of the high-ground.  There was a small swale over there, so I suggested to the Texan that he leave his moped behind and come with me while we followed the trail.

He was reluctant.

I flipped the safety of my .25-06 (built by my father on a 1903-A3 Action a few years earlier) and offered a more  friendly suggestion that, since he had shot the ewe, he might have a vested interest in following up the consequences of his bad judgement.

After a short (seconds) period of reflection, he allowed as if perhaps that was the right thing to do.

I pointed him in the direction of the blood trail, and we preceded down-hill to a small swale which was not obvious from our original vantage point.  I walked behind him.

There we found a very small doe, gut shot, not bleeding much but lying on her side and not able to stand.

I told the Long Tall Texan to finish her off, which he did with a single shot to the head at 20 yards through his 7x Leopold.  I was impressed, considering that he was over-scoped for that kind of a shot.

Then I asked him to display his hunting license and tag, which he did.  At my direction, he tore out the 'date' portion of the tag (the 23rd, IIRC) and signed it using a lead-tipped bullet from my .25-06 as a pencil.

*(he claimed he didn't have a pencil; we've dealt with this before, Pop and I.)*

Fortunately for him, we were both hunting on an "Either Sex" tag, so he was the proud possessor of 50 (probably 35)  pounds of antelope meat with no trophy horns to display in his den.

But it was a legal (if reluctant) kill, so he faced no expectation of criminal/game charges being posted on him.

Baby you can drive my car ...

Saudi Arabian Women Love Bumper Cars (But Not for Bumping) - WSJ:

Joudi al-Omeri drove in circles. And when cars came in her direction, she swerved. These were electric bumper cars, but in Saudi Arabia, the ride doesn’t always live up to its name. “I come here to drive,” said Ms. al-Omeri, a 27-year-old homemaker still giddy from the roughly five-minute, mostly crash-free ride in her red-and-green two-seater. “It’s much better than bumping against others,” she adds.

Saudi women are not allowed to drive.  But they can drive bumper cars on special "women only" nights.   I'm glad for them that they have the opportunity to make believe, if only for a few minutes, that they are "people":

"I Am outraged about what you do to Germany, and how disrespectful you are"

16 y/o German girl talks about muslim immigration, destruction of her own country (Engl. subs) - YouTube:

(Presented without comment: all text below is from the youtube context.)



(January 21, 2016)

THE FACEBOOK ACCOUNTS WHERE THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN ORIGINALLY POSTED HAVE BEEN DISABLED: https://www.facebook.com/Freiheitlich... (name of 2nd account withheld for girl's safety)
 Germany and Facebook censor users in order to suppress statements that oppose German mass immigration, islamisation, rape and murder of Germans, mostly by muslims. Censorship has been outsourced to the Bertelsmann company Arvato. Most German politicians, incl. socialist Heiko Maas (SPD) and chancellor Merkel are behind its introduction in early 2016.
 OPEN MIKE CAUGHT MERKEL ASKING ZUCKERBERG FOR CENSORSHIP, HE AGREED:

I Support Universal Background Checks!

I am an experienced, highly trained firearms owner and I support Universal Background Checks.

Most Gun Owners Say the NRA Is Off Target | Mother Jones:

A new survey of gun owners finds widespread support for universal background checks and provides new details on who does and doesn't support the National Rifle Association.

But I do support the NRA, and I consider Mother Jones is anathema.  (THOSE people have their collective heads firmly entrenched in their personal nether regions.)

It's all about definitions.

I like background checks, but it has to be under MY terms, not Mother Jones'!  (What a horrible website name!  I gave up mothering when I learned to drink from a bottle!  Preferably, a smooth Rye Whiskey.)

Here are my terms for a reasonable definition of "Universal Background Checks":

(1)  The Federal Government is NOT a part of it!

Oh, sure, they should be a resource of information ... for my convenience, as an taxpayer.  But they should not be interfering in any lawful commercial exchange between two CITIZENS!  I don't want the Feds to be using any of their 'arbitrary rules-of-the-day' to decide whether or not I should be selling my guns.  I don't care how they view the person I'm dealing with.  I'm not a Licensed Dealer, and all of my private transactions are PRIVATE!

You may say that this would result in a lack of control over firearms.

That's what I'm talking about.  It's part of that whole "Shall Not Be Infringed" thingie.  I'm not selling firearms for personal gain.  I determine from time to time that I own guns which are no longer important to me, and I just want to find them a good home.

(Bear that in mind; exceptions follow!)

(2) All transactions should be processed through the NICS database.

Notice what I did there?  The word "SHOULD" is a lot better than "MUST".   It's not what Uncle Sam's Idiot Minions require; it's what *_I_* require!  (Exceptions noted below.)

I want to know that the person who intends to buy my "cast-off" guns is not a crook, a felon, a terrorist or a Really Bad Guy!   If the potential buyer doesn't meet MY personal perquisites, then I'm not going to sell him the gun.  
That's MY decision .. it's my gun.

 So the Feds have set up this really convenient NICS (National Instant Check System) database where anyone can go to it with the name and address and SSN and stuff, and find out if that potential buyer is legally entitled to own a firearm.

The exceptions are conviction of a felony, and .. uh .. who knows what else.

But the problems are two-fold:

(A) it costs money to do the NICS check, and I'm living on Social Security so I can't afford to pay the fees (no, I don't know if there is a fee attached; I just wanted to get that disclaimer in before some crank accuses me of being cheap.  Which I am, but that's a matter of circumstances, not a character flaw.)   And why should the Buyer expect to pay another $x for a background check?   That's your problem, not ours.
If he (the buyer) has a choice of buying a gun from someone who requires a background check, and someone who does not ... if the background check costs him money, he'll go for the irresponsible gun owner every time.

(B) the NICS check is not currently available to Private Citizens!Why Not?  If we private citizens are required to vet purchasers of our guns, they why should we be required to depend on someone else to do that for us?  They may lie to us, and then we (private sellers) are responsible for the consequences!
No, if the Feds want firearms transfers to be based on their records (which they do) and they want to hold sellers responsible (which they do) then they need to give us the ability to vet our buyers.
Note the word 'give' in the preceding sentence.  That's right; don't charge us for this, fellas, 'cause it's your idea.  Not mine.
(If you can't afford to staff your call center, then cut the pay of Congress-critters by 10% and cut the budget for their staff by 70%.   Those folks are only sucking on the federal tit anyway, and 90% of the laws they pass are not necessary.  They're the ones who are proposing laws to infringe on our constitutional rights, anyway. Maybe if they don't get paid so much or staffed so deeply, they'll be less inclined to make new laws to mess up their constituents.  It's a Win/Win deal!)

(3) The Government Should Not Be Involved ...
... other than their duty to respond promptly to requests for verification (via NICS) that a prospective buyer is not a felon or otherwise ineligible to purchase a firearm.

They should just give the information, and whatever warnings which may seem appropriate.

This seems ... odd to you?

Keep in mind that only law-abiding citizens are going to use this facility.  Folks who don't care if they're selling guns to a felon are not going to bother accessing the legal check system.

Folks who DO use the system, need the information to guide them in their determination to only sell to people who are legal firearms owners.  (Even if they don't have a firearm the, they are legal firearms owners if they are not mentally ill or a felon.  Or perhaps if they're on the "Terrorist Watch List", or whatever other mode de jure the Feds are using to  to identify 'bad guys without guns'.)

(4) The Firearm Will Not Be Identified ...
... because when that occurs it constitutes REGISTRATION of firearms, which is NOT constitutionally acceptable because "abridged".   See Rule Two.

When a firearms transaction is contemplated, the only criteria is whether the receiver is legally 'permitted'  by law to purchase a gun.  It doesn't matter what gun, it only matters what person.   I don't want Washington to know what guns I own, because Federal Oversight is just another term for 'infringement' of my rights.  I have a right to own the gun, and as personal private property I have a right to sell it.  Just like a car .. except that a car must be licensed because its ownership is not Constitutionally protected.

If the feds have information about the FIREARM, they will record and track that.  NOT the purpose of the process.  The NICS was not (theoretically) established to track firearms transfers; it was established to keep the firearms out of the hands of felons.

Nobody who goes to the effort of checking with NICS is trying to sell 'crime guns'.  (Yes, I might be willing to discuss a 'different' set of rules for Firearms Dealers; we already know they're regulated to death, but they're in the business and have already accepted the regulations.  If they want to set up their own set of rules, fine;   these are MY rules for PRIVATE transactions of PERSONAL property.  They and The Feds can hash it out between them.  Just don't step on my rights as a private citizen, okay?)

(5) THE  FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW UP ..
on any proposed transaction which fails to certify the prospective purchaser from buying a firearms.
They must do that in person, by sending a law-enforcement officer to the residence and/or place of business of the rejected purchaser.

(As the seller, it's not my job to enforce the law; I need only tell the purchaser that his application to purchase a firearm has been denied, and I'm out of it.  I don't know why 'denied', nor do I care.   The only issue is if the purchaser decides to take it out on me because I won't complete the sale.  Let The Seller Beware!)

The Federal Government has the following obligations:
The (rejected) purchaser, having already provided proof of identity to the seller, should be advised of his/her rights, and a thorough review of the reasons WHY the purchase was denied must be reviewed.  The purchaser will be advised of his/her rights and provided the opportunity to contest the denial, in a court of law.  If necessary, if the purchaser cannot afford an attorney, one shall be provided.

This whole business of arbitrary alienation and abridgement of Constitutional Rights stops right there.

If the investigation disproves of the reasons why the purchase is contravened, then any records which indicate that future purchases will be denied will be expunged.

No, I don't care if the Feds have been 'watching' him/her for months.  If the government makes an accusation, it must show just cause .. if necessary, in a court of law.

No, I don't care if he/she is a 'suspected terrorist'.  Unless and until the matter has been adjudicated, the constitutional rights of the individual apply until they have been formally rescinded and the purchaser has been duly informed.  

If the federal government cannot allow the transaction to go through, then the purchaser should be arrested and charged with a crime.

 If the abridgement is contested by the purchaser, he/she has the right to a speedy hearing and either arrested, or the transaction allowed to go through.

If a trial before a magistrate must be effected to determine the status of the purchaser, then it should be 'speedy' as the Constitution requires.  The trial/hearing should take priority over any other cases before the local court, except for any cases which involve Constitutional Rights, or may result in the prosecution and arrest of the other cases before that court.  (If another court can be assigned the case, then that is an acceptable alternative compared to denying a citizen of his rights; non-citizens may not be afforded the same protections.)

Any Questions?

"The Most Transparent Administration In History"? Depends on

Apparently, if you want to live in a country free of corruption, you must move to Greenland.


The Most Corrupt Countries | FindTheData:

Though they didn't crack the top 30 list, Transparency International wrote in a report that the level of perceived corruption in Australia, Brazil, Libya, Spain and Turkey has risen dramatically. Also, note that these countries that made the list are all characterized by some sort of violent social or political conflict.

[Australia??? Really?]

The scale of the issue is huge. Sixty-eight per cent of countries worldwide have a serious corruption problem. Half of the G20 are among them.Not one single country, anywhere in the world, is corruption-free.

Which are the most corrupt (definition?) countries in the world?
(See the interactive 'world corruption map' here.)

Very large scale version of the map here.


From the (2015) report by Transparency, International:

Five of the 10 most corrupt countries also rank among the 10 least peaceful places in the world.In Afghanistan, millions of dollars that should have gone on reconstruction have been reportedly wasted or stolen, seriously undermining efforts to sustain peace.
Even where there’s not open conflict, the levels of inequality and poverty in these countries are devastating.
In Angola, 70 per cent of the population live on US$2 a day or less. One in six children die before the age of five – making it the deadliest place in the world to be a child. More than 150,000 children die each year. But not everyone’s suffering.
Dubbed Africa’s youngest billionaire, Isabel dos Santos made her US$3.4 billion fortune from the national diamond and telecommunications business. She’s also the president’s daughter.

NOTA BENE:
(I've tried to embed the map, but it just doesn't link to BLOGGER all that well;, which is why you may see a large blank space below.   It appears that even the original source is not quite as 'transparent' as one would wish.    I've carefully removed all embedded code which requires a security code to actually access the map by means other than going to the originating website.)

Why "Gun Control" is doomed to fail

Remember Jeff Goldbloom's annoying character "Malcom" in that dinosaur movie?



Goldbloom is still annoying, but the philosophy which the (brilliant) writers imposed on him is absolutely correct: Life Finds A Way.

And so do Armed Citizens:

Homemade submachine guns used in Tel Aviv shooting - The Firearm Blog:

Efforts by terrorists and rebel groups to produce homemade submachine guns isn’t anything new. Small workshops in Northern Ireland during ‘The Troubles’ churned out hundreds of crude but entirely functional weapons which were used in sectarian killings by Loyalist paramilitary groups.

In the 1970s various rebel groups across South America including Argentina’s Maoist ERP set up factories to produce homemade submachine guns including close copies of the Swedish K / M45. Security forces In Colombia have in the past closed down factories operated by FARC which produced versions of the British 9mm STEN as well as MAC-10 submachine guns. 

We’ll likely continue to see more attacks perpetrated with this type of weapon in future, especially in areas in which the smuggling of conventional arms may present difficulties, thus leaving a void for entrepreneurs with drills and hacksaws to fill.

It doesn't really matter whether you are "A Good Guy With A Gun" or  "A Bad Guy With A Gun".

If you want one, you will find a way.

Laws are only obeyed by honest people.

When dishonest laws are imposed, they make honest people criminals.
Witness  "Will Not Comply".


One wonders how the Diane Feinsteins of this world manage to delude themselves into believing that they can make laws which contravene the Constitution,and Free Citizens will meekly bow their heads and comply.

Well .. it may have something to do with the fact that the only people she actually TALKS to are Liberals.

In Defense of IDPA

Yesterday I had a lot to say about IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association) competition, and while the intent was not to be insulting, the comments I made gave little or no credit to what is an increasingly popular form of firearms competition.

It's only fitting that I mention the parts of IDPA which I found ... interesting, and occasionally laudable.   (I'll try to resist the impulse to criticize the format and structure of the IDPA Rule Book, although it will not be easy to do.)

The first thing in the rule book is a clear statement of intent of the sport:

Founded in 1996, the International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) is the governing body for IDPA competition, a handgun-centric shooting sport based on simulated self-defense scenarios.
The IDPA competition format was designed to be enjoyable for all shooters of all skill levels, with a premium put on the social interaction and camaraderie of the members. Participation in IDPA matches requires the use of handguns, holsters and other equipment suitable for concealed carry self-defense.
With that in mind, and keeping the shooters' best interests in mind, IDPA's founders established equipment requirements that are based on commonly  available firearms and gear, allowing individuals the opportunity to compete with minimal investment.

By the way, the rest of this article is ... VERY LONG!
(coming up:  IPSC Abandonment):

Surprising sixty-second analysis by James Yeager: IDPA vs IPSC

I don't usually discuss commercial training websites (although I do look at them), but when someone says something thoughtful, my ears perk up.

Here's James Yeager talking about the difference between competition in IDPA vs IPSC.

"First of all, IDPA guys take themselves way too seriously.   It's not 'training'; a match is not training.
(And I can't get into the goddam vest, I'll be honest ...)"

... and ....

"I tried to get up to MASTER  (class in IDPA) shooting "Revolver", and I got dinged for leaving empty speed loaders behind. (How ridiculous can that be .. it just doesn't even make sense)".

video:



Ooooo-kay.  Here's MY personal opinion about IDPA, and understand I've never even SEEN a match;  I've just tried to read the rule book.   And here's the thing that turned me off:

There are too many rules.  
But "the one ring that rules them all .." is:  

DO THE RIGHT THING!

(Failure To Do Right)

WHA .....?

What does that mean?  Nobody seems to be sure.
I'm torn between interpretations:  Either (1) Karma, or (2) Kumbaya, or (3) "Michael Row The Boat Ashore!"

Isn't there some kind of "Constitutional thingie" that applies here?

Dems abandon 'innocent until proven guilty' to push gun ban | Washington Examiner:

People whose names appear on a federal terror watch list or no-fly list shouldn't be presumed "innocent until proven guilty" for purposes of buying a firearm, according to Democratic lawmakers. "I don't think that innocent until proven guilty is the standard that applies here," Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., told the Washington Examiner. "We're talking about owning a gun, not being convicted of a crime."

Watchlists:

There are a lot (perhaps too many) of "WatchLists" in America today:

• No Fly Watchlist
• Terrorist Watchlist
• No Gun Watchlist 
• Inane Watchlist

Well, that last perhaps is not presumed by  Representative Alan Grayson. ... who urges his colleagues to Ban Assault Weapons.

He must understand that clerical errors can occur in the compilation of any list of names

"Watchlists" are commonly accepted to have been composed willy-nilly by

1. People who are not required to justify their selections;
2. .... and who do are not required to document the reasons for their selections;
3. and the residents of these watchlists have not necessarily been allowed to contest their membership on said watchlists in a court of law.

There is a presumption of innocence in English Law, and Grayson is saying that if a prospective firearm purchaser is on one of these watchlists, he/she should NOT be permitted to purchase a firearm.

Rather, Grayson supposes that a person whose name appears on a 'watchlist' should not be allowed to purchase a firearm.

Period.

The problems are:

• There is no way to find out if your name is on the on The List, until you try to (for example) buy a gun;
• There is no way to appeal the appearance of your name on The List;
• Nobody knows just how 'specific' the identification of individuals is; does it include your social security number, or other identifying information?

For Grayson (et al) to presuppose that simply because your name is on an 'anonymous watchlist' for a good reason is to suppose that everyone's name is ultimately unique; more than that, it presupposes that the anonymous agency which composed the watchlist is perfect in its accuracy.

A better solution would be to be more public in the reasons why people appear on the list; to provide a process by which your name might be removed (or at least be more specific); and/or to be more public in announcing the contents of the list.

Certainly, when we are presented with a list of names without individual identifiers, it performs no public service if it is not extremely careful that it might inadvertently include individuals whose civil rights have not otherwise been otherwise abrogated by trial in a civil court.

To do less is to undermine the rights of honest citizens.

Surely, Representative Grayson did not intend this sort of mischief.