Oh, spare me your anti-M14 snobs

The "Everything New Is Bad" Mindset - The Firearm Blog

Frankly, I think a lot of people who seem to know what they're talking about ...  haven't a clue.

Speaking specifically about the AR16 and the M14:  I was there.

In 1969 in III corps (RSVN), First Infantry Division, we actively searched for M14 rifles to perform a very important mission:   arm "Point Men" to defend themselves.

Sure, the M16 was great for laying down a volume-of-fire, but for the guys who stalked the jungle one step at a time, trying to watch for trip wires, bunkers, snipers, spider holes, and ambushes ... it wasn't much fun to multi-task when the .556 cartridge was not worth a damn when you're shooting through dense foliage at an L-shaped ambush.   This was the duty of our point men; all volunteers, and among the bravest of us.

True fact, the M16 rounds were great for wounding the enemy, but not so great trying to beat a path through the cover and concealment (foliage) which protected the ambushers.

We looked for M14's so our guys out on the bleeding edge might have a small edge of their own; the enemy was protected against M16, which couldn't reliably break through the cover they used to protect themselves.  The NVA and VC didn't need a lot of cover when first-reaction rounds from American troops came their way.

And our point men knew it.  So we gave them M14s; 50 pounds of hardball that would go through leaves, trees and vietnamese.  (I exaggerate the weight of the M14; but if you carried one, all day and every day ... when your day began it was lighter than a feather; by the end of the day, it was heavier than a mountain.)

Maybe the M14 didn't have QUITE the penetrating power that we told them (our point men) it did, but nobody had any doubts that it was better than trying to back out of an ambush zone with nothing better than an M16 to make Charley duck and cover.   And we willingly lied to our point men; whatever it took to convince someone to lead us through the jungle.

The thing is ... our brave men who knew they were expendable booby-trap trippers also knew that we equipped them with the finest infantry rifle ever invented: the M14.

Nobody else in the company/battalion/division had The Hog.  It weighed too much, it carried awkwardly (you couldn't grip one by the 'center of balance' because it didn't have one!), and it was nearly impossible to get magazines, Level one maintenance, or even ammunition.  But these men were the eyes and ears of the squad/platoon/company/battalion.   They were BY GOD deserving of the best weapon available!

Charley opens up on you?  Shred the jungle with 20 rounds of 7.62 and let their mothers weep.

Think Charley is thinking about opening up on you?  Recon by fire with heavy metal which has been designed to push through leaves, trees and vietnamese.   Don't worry about the Ammo, Private; there's lots more where that came from

(Truth is, it was almost impossible to get M14 rifles, magazines or ammunition.  Every round the point-men fired meant that the company had to take up a collect to bribe some REMF supply officer to order in a shipment.   But we didn't tell them that.   Until the Patrol Leader  could bribe a case of 7.62 from Saigon with six bottles of Jack Daniels and introduction to a new Saigon whore, whatever those guys carried on their web-belts and Alice packs was all the 7.62 ammo in the world.)

YOU CAN MAKE  your own decision whether Point Men in Vietnam were the most naive, or most ignorant, or the bravest men in that hideous war.  What you cannot deny is that many more of us would have come home in a box except for their willingness to learn a trade which no man should become 'good at':   willfully walking into a trap, for the good of his brothers.

We gave him the best weapon we had ... the M14 7.62mm select fire "Assault Rifle" (Ptui the term! but my understanding is that it replaced the B.A.R. --- Browning Automatic Rifle) and wished them luck, and then cowered behind them in hopes that their MUCH MORE POWERFUL weapon could confuse and thin the enemy when they attacked; at least long enough that the rest of us could find cover and concealment to return a 'volume of fire' from our Poodle Shooters (which worked as well as you can expect from the lowest bidder).

Yes, this is nostalgia.  The thing is, nostalgia is the luxury of someone whose life, and the lives of his friends, have been saved by a gullible infantryman who busted up an ambush which could have / would have killed all, or most of them.

So AC97: I recognize that you are speaking as a person who looks at the question objectively.
Also, I perceive that you haven't lived your long life because someone who was armed with an M14 stood his ground for his brothers.

But if you have never had the luxury of a long life because of a brave man with an M14 who broke up an ambush purely because of his more-effective arms, I respectfully request you to STFU!

• −

AC97  Cordite • 3 hours ago

And speaking of the M14, that thing shouldn't have even existed, let alone get adopted. Literally the only reasons that rifle is thought of positively in any way is because of nostalgia and the fact that the M16 had problems caused by cutting corners in vital areas, which have long since been solved.

4  

•

Reply

•

Share ›

• 

  
  
  
  
  

  Kivaari  AC97 • 2 hours ago

  
  

  People forget that it was withdrawn from production because the companies building them couldn't keep them shooting. It was an unreliable and inaccurate rifle much of the time. Only today, 60 years later, has it been made into a shooting machine, it never was during the Vietnam era.

  
  

  
  
  
  
  

  3  

  •

  Reply

  •

  Share ›
  • 

    
    
    
    
    

    Gary Kirk  Kivaari • 2 hours ago

    
    

    You talking about the 16 or 14 brother? Because the same can be said about both..

    
    

    
    
    
    
    

     

    •

    Reply

    •

    Share ›
    • 

      
      
      
      
      

      AC97  Gary Kirk • 2 hours ago

      
      

      There's a difference in that the M14 was a bad idea to begin with. Just look at all of those exposed locking surfaces. The FAL and AR 10 were (and are) more than capable of being better in every meaningful way.

      
      

      
      
      
      
      

      2  

      •

      Reply

      •

      Share ›
      • 

        
        
        
        
        

        Kivaari  AC97 • 2 hours ago

        
        

        AND the top army brass screwed up by insisting on both the M14 rifle and the rifle using 7.62x51mm.

        
        

        
        
        
        
        

         

        •

        Reply

        •

        Share ›
    • 

      
      
      
      
      

      Kivaari  Gary Kirk • 2 hours ago

      
      

      The M14 was stopped and replaced by the M16 (then M16A1). Winchester, TRW and H&R had difficualty keeping the stocks from warping and stopping the proper function and accuracy issues. McNamara pulled the M14s plug. The M16 issues are well known and mostly came down to high level Army officers not knowing a damn thing about the new rifle.

      
      

      
      
      
      
      

      2  

      •

      Reply

      •

      Share ›

A Public Health Approach and a Call to Action to End Gun Violence

A Public Health Approach and a Call to Action to End Gun Violence | Observer:
Ann Twomey is the founder and president of Health Professionals and Allied Employees (HPAE).

When public health advocates first proposed mandatory seat belts, or restrictions on sales of tobacco, some screamed that we were taking away their freedoms.  But years of reduction in car fatalities and tobacco use and related diseases have proven the advocates correct.  We need to tackle gun violence the same way, with research, education, prevention and common-sense reforms.

Ann,

Tobaco, cars these are not objects which save lives.   Firearms will always be with us, and most of the people who use them to take lives are criminals who will not be daunted by any law you can get passed.   Firearms have been used more often to save lives and property than to take lives; cars and tobacco are either a great convenience or a recognized vice.   They have not 'saved lives' as often as have firearms ... in defense of owners themselves; or homes, family, property.

 To address these and other critical questions, Congress must finally restore funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for gun violence research, which was cut off in 1996 at the behest of gun rights advocates. We need to let the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco (ATF) do its job, which is maintaining a centralized database on gun sales, tracking multiple sales, and working with other federal agencies to track the use of guns in violent incidents. Much of the traditional work of the ATF has been gutted in recent years due to lobbying by the NRA. Because of NRA lobbying, we aren’t doing research that could tell us how, when, where and by whom guns are acquired and used. 

Ann, that's a bald-faced lie, and you know it.

The NRA pointed out that the CDC was not doing its job; the CDC had a political agenda, and was slanting its reportage to suit its agenda ... not to educate the American public or to point the way to a better understanding of the way firearms fit in the American culture.  The leaders in the CDC had already decided that the NRA was not the way they wanted America to progress, so they did everything in their power to undermine the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

All on their own.

They can't even blame anyone else for influence; they (CDC) took full responsibility for their political Lies, Half-Lies, Omissions and Obfuscations.

When Congress investigated the NRA claims, they discovered that they were accurate; the CDC was violating the terms of its congressional mandate: they were not reporting the truth about guns; they were reporting a jaundiced and politically driven bias which had originated in the CDC ... not in an external agency.   That's why Congress demanded that ... while the CDC was free to research and report on any health-and-epidemiology issue they desired (which was the original charter ... NOT treating firearms as an "Epidemiological issue"), they could no longer receive federal funding for research which was deliberately slanted against civilian possession of firearms.

The CDC brought the slashing federal funding upon it-selves, so please do not blame the whistle-blowers!

We could test the truth of the claim that people who have guns in their homes gain protection from the weapons, rather than put family members at greater risk. We could also tell which state and local gun control measures are most effective and examine whether access to mental health services and bans on gun sales to those at risk of violent behavior would reduce incidents of gun violence.

Ann, you twit, that's exactly what CDC was originally mandated to do, and they demonstrated that they could not be objective were unwilling to do it when the issue of firearms ownership was involved.

Now you make this great heroic plea to allow the CDC to 'do its work', suggesting that without funding their hands are bound.

In truth, the CDC has recently received funding from the state of California to conduct a study (completed, I believe), to prove that firearms are harmful to American Society.  They did so, and the resulting report was less anarchaic than the reports which they submitted under Federal Funding.

I submit that the CDC has learned that biased 'scientific research reportage' is not part of a profitable future for them, at least under Federal Funding, and they are finding other funding.
(Not that the report doesn't sway toward the results which California was looking for.  A successful prostitute, once bought, stays bought.)

HONOR IS A SACRED thing, and once it has been compromised, it's almost impossible to regain.
The CDC has violated its own honor.  It has proven itself not worthy of the trust which once was its shield.

ABOUT ANN:

Ann. I've read your resume.
We are not swayed by your facile arguments.
When the CDC gave up it's integrity, America quit believing it.

There are few .. if any ... arguments you could make at this time to sway the taxpaying pubic.   Why should we support an agency which lies to us?

Perhaps someday the CDC will be less disingenuous.  Maybe someday we can trust them to look at BOTH sides of an issue (and that won't happen as long as CDC treats the second amendment as a 'cancer'!)

But this is not the day.
And yours is not the persuasive argument

And as long as you, with your thinly disguised quest for GUN CONTROL remain a spokesman for the renewed politicization of the CDC, it's unlikely that America will find it in its heart to accept the federal agency (which I, and every American, are paying for) as an agency whose reports we can trust, honor, and accept.

Trust is easy.    You expect it from your friends.

Trust, when violated, is nearly impossible. Your friends find it impossible.

The mere fact that time has passed since they (CDC) last time they stabbed us in the heart is insufficient grounds for us to accept the "common-sense reforms" which you have asked of us.

There is a crude, but appropriate, response  to the leniency which you have asked of us:

"Pound Sand"

The Sound Of One Hand Clapping

Judge denies UT-Austin professors' attempt to block campus carry | The Star-Telegram:

A federal judge has denied three University of Texas at Austin professors’ initial attempt to keep guns out of their classrooms under the state’s campus carry law.

University of Texas (AUSTIN) faculty are uncomfortable with a new law which allows students (and staff, and faculty) to carry guns on campus.

College and University faculty have always been an insular bunch: from TA's (Teaching Assistants), to Instructors, to Professors, to "Full" or"Tenured" Professors ("you can't fire my ass ... nana nana boo-boo!") they have become accustomed to the rights and respects due them by their position and experience.

So when someone tells them that they "MUST" allow students to carry arms into the classroom, they are righteously indignant:

 U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that the professors, who had sought a preliminary injunction to block implementation of the law, had failed to establish their likelihood for success. UT students resume classes on Wednesday, and the professors' case will continue to work its way through the court while the law remains in effect. ... In the suit, the professors said the possibility of guns on campus could stifle class discussion in their courses, which touch on emotional issues like gay rights and abortion. They argued that was a violation of students' First Amendment right to free speech.

Why am I not convinced that their objections had anything to do with the student rights?
Why do I think they just don't trust their students?
Why do I think they're a bunch of ostriches, with their heads buried in ... the sand?

These Academicians have been insulated for their entire professional career from the cares of  'normal' social interaction.   They have been told and trained to enjoy their prerogatives to control their classrooms as they see fit.

They have ignored, generally, the inconveniences of campus massacres:

From the Enoch Brown massacre of 1764 (attacked by Indians; Brown and nine children were killed. Two scalped children survived their wounds.Four children were taken as prisoners ) to the El Centro College massacre of July 17, 2016 (Dallas, Texas: Five police officers were fatally shot and seven others wounded Thursday on and nearby the campus of El Centro College in downtown Dallas during a protest over recent police shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana) ... students, police and instructors have always been vulnerable to violence. In America ... well over 100 before 1970 alone!

And then it got really bad.

Why is that so?

Why do so many people attack schools, in a country which loves its children and which believes that the road to success leads through education of the masses?

The reason is, of course, because we have never felt it 'appropriate' to protect our children with guns.  Nobody is armed at a school.  It might frighten the little children ... or the collegiates.

But now, today, everyone knows that it's not a question of "if", but "when" some insane agenda-driven madman person (I'm trying to be Politically Correct in my terminology so as to initiate any "Triggers")

[Trigger: U. Alberta definition]
(See what I mean?  You can't talk to these people unless you understand their definitions.)

Unfortunately, the people in your classroom who are likely to be armed are less likely to be those who attack you.   Yes, it's possible that they will be ... see Virginia Tech.   Which only makes the case:  

If Seung-Hui Cho had opened fire in his classroom and a few of his classmates had been armed, then it would not have been possible for him to successfully assault the "... advanced hydrology engineering class taught by Professor G. V. Loganathan in room 206... [where he] first shot and killed the professor, then continued firing, killing nine of the thirteen students in the room and injuring two others."

Do you see the part where he shot the professor first?   Don't you think that Loganathan wished that someone had shot Cho first?

Personally, I think the University of Alberta definition of "Trigger" which I referenced 4 paragraphs before is much less important than the definition that Cho was using.

Thus Endeth The Lesson: Sic Transit Gloria Magister.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Part 2

Alternative title: there's always someone to sue

Family of gun instructor killed by girl of 9 using Uzi to sue over his death - Mirror Online:

Now, a wrongful death lawsuit has been filed by Vacca's wife Stephanie against the range and its owner. The lawsuit alleges Bullets and Burgers Corp acted negligently at the outdoor facility and claims the girl received "limited instruction" on firing the Uzi and never should have been given the weapon. The lawsuit says: "The Uzi was an inappropriate and unsafe weapon to entrust to a 9-year-old girl ... thereby creating an unreasonably dangerous and unsafe environment for individuals in the area, including Charles J. Vacca, Jr." The suit is seeking unspecified damages.

I have yet to find any source which can confirm that Vacca was a paid employee of Bullets and Burgers.  Given that the range's website advertises you can "Shoot a .50-caliber and fire a wide range of fully automatic machine guns and specialty weapons at a private outdoor range just outside Las Vegas" suggests that this is part of its business model.

Shoot a .50-caliber and fire fully automatic machine guns and specialty weapons at a private outdoor range just outside Las Vegas, plus enjoy photo opportunities and a hamburger lunch on this exciting tour.
The adventure begins with transportation from your hotel via a shuttle to the Bullets and Burgers range. Once at the range, you'll shoot in a "Desert Storm" atmosphere in the Mojave Desert with the help of a certified ex-military firearms instructor. You will choose from a variety of guns, machine guns, specialty guns and belt fed machine guns (depending upon your package level), including actual guns used in the movies "Rambo," "Terminator" and "Jumanji."

Bullets and Burgers, besides offering a range where you can shoot machine guns, offers 'adventure tours'.    This marks them as a 'big pockets' business, so they probably have insurance far beyond the ten million dollars which is considered prudent for most private ranges.

So the Vacca family will sue, and they will win, even though the family is aware that Vacca took the job willingly, and died as a consequence of his own actions.   They will receive a ton of money.   This will not recompense them for the loss of their loved one, nor will it provide compensation for the little girl who had her finger on the trigger when a man died.   This is a lawsuit which will invariable come to pass.

(PARALLELS: I recall an incident of a few years ago, where two men were tasked to steam-clean a tank in a chemical factory which had been used to process toxic wastes.  Their protective clothing, or their oxygen masks, or something failed; they both died.  They were there willingly, but their families sued and won.   There are dangerous jobs which are accepted by men who are just trying to earn a good living for their families; and when the worst happens, any amount of moralizing is facetious ... until the courts get into it.)

CONCLUSION: Quite apart from the multiple tragedies, this will have a chilling effect on the Second Amendment.  "Politicals" will seize upon the opportunity to use this incident as an example of "GUNS ARE BAD", and it will become another arrow in their quiver to skewer the Second Amendment rights of Americans.  Even though full-automatic weapons are already not "ordinarily" available to private citizens, the Left will conflate them with legal semi-automatic weapons.

New laws will be written to circumvent the Second Amendment, and eventually we will all suffer from the avalanche of condemnation.

Screw you if *_I_* can't take a joke

This Comedian Was Fined $42,000 for Telling a Joke: Reason.com:

"Unacceptable remarks made in private do not automatically become lawful just because they're made by a comedian in the public domain," wrote Judge Scott Hughes in his decision forcing Ward to pay Gabriel. "Plus, having a such a platform imposes certain responsibilities." Ward's mistreatment is a reminder of the importance of the First Amendment—something that doesn't apply in Canada. But it's also reminiscent of the current state of free expression on American college campuses, where administrators often behave as if they are not obligated to obey the Constitution. A recent documentary, Can We Take a Joke?, explores the death of comedy and challenges to free speech rights at universities and elsewhere ...

Well ... this is Canada.

But I wonder if America (with it's vaunted First Amendment Freedoms) isn't as likely to be as critical of a Jokester with a vicious streak?

The author of this article at Reason was obviously critical of the Canadian judge who arbitrarily imposed a fine of $42,000 on the 'perpetrator' of the canard.

The joke concerned Jeremy Gabriel, a 19-year-old Canadian singer who suffers from Treacher Collins Syndrome, a debilitating disease. Ward's joke was that the constant media coverage of Gabriel overlooks the fact that "he was supposed to die… why isn't he dead yet?" Ward suggests that Gabriel "stole a wish" and is now, in fact, unkillable.

An unkind statement?  Yes.
Cruel? Perhaps.
Actionable ... I don't know;  you tell me.


FROM THIS POINT ON, this is talking about children, not about comedians:

 Characteristics of Treacher Collins Syndrome include:

• Down-slanting eyes
• Notched lower eyelids
• Underdevelopment or absence of cheekbones and the side wall and floor of the eye socket
• Lower jaw is often small and slanting
• Forward fair in the sideburn area
• Underdeveloped, malformed and/or prominent ears
• Most children with Treacher Collins have normal development and intelligence; however, it is important that there be early hearing tests. Most children with Treacher Collins Syndrome benefit from early intervention speech and language programs.

The unlettered explanation of the syndrome is that it affects very young people who look really ... odd.   The appearance is permanent; they never outgrow the distortion of their face and head.

Sounds like those afflicted have a lifetime of being 'different' to bear, and anyone who has that kind of life to look forward need a lot of support, not casual jokes.

The Clue Meter: Gun Skool Thoughts, Part II

The Clue Meter: Gun Skool Thoughts, Part II:

 So, when talking to folks who have never been to formal training that did not involve everyone wearing the same clothes and addressing others as "Sergeant" or "Sir", I've found some... odd ideas.

(There's also a Gun Skool Thoughts, Part I.)

I thought Part I was okay, but Part II was bang on!

I found that the points made by the author were pertinent and important.   So you should go read it.

As you may have noticed, I have used the word *(I)* a lot already, and I will be using it all through this article; the reason is that I will be discussing my personal experience as a firearms trainer.

I've been instructing in a class named "INTRODUCTION TO USPSA" at my local club for the past six years now; sometimes nobody registers, my largest class has been 15 students, but the perfect class size is about 7 members.   That's enough for them to learn from each others' mistakes ... which is a powerful learning tool.

(I've talked about this a LOT over the past few years.  If you're heard it all before, this is a good point for you to move on to a much more 'fresh' topic.)

Tom Arnold's Gun Control Essay Presents a Passionate Argument

Tom Arnold's Gun Control Essay Presents a Passionate Argument | Hollywood Reporter:

 Because I've had personal demons, I worried about those who would come back as heroes to everyone but themselves, and now might find themselves alone, without their team, sitting in their basement with their drugs and their guns.

Tom, bless you for your concerns.  But I think that you might pay attention to the fact that since you are a "name", people will listen to your words.  Most of whom are not .. excuse the word .. suicidal.

That may be what you want ... not the suicides; the discretion.  But what happens is that a lot of perfectly sane people who own firearms might be tarred by the same brush.
(Sorry: feel remorse and consider suicide as a viable alternative to live.)

I know you're a big hollywood star, and I've seen both of your movies (one of them had AHNOLD in it, I can't recall the other movie right off-hand) and you were married to that revered woman celebrity ... the one with the mouth?  Yeah, that one.  Rosanne?  (Correct me if I'm wrong, sorry.)

Anyway, you might consider the effect your words have on the millions of people who are responsible gun owners.   Their experiences may not quite parallel yours:

My nephew Spencer was a sweet boy, but he was small, and I'm sure he was picked on. He was kicked out of the Army after attempting suicide. He was diagnosed as chronically depressed and unsafe around weapons. Yet he was able to get a concealed weapon permit from the state of Iowa and buy five guns. Like me, Spencer was a substance abuser. He refused my offer for help with that as well as his mental illness, so I was very concerned. Last fall, when I saw on Facebook that he had joined a crazy, racist, neo-Nazi (I'm Jewish, as is my mom) gun group and videotaped himself showing off, drunkenly shooting his assault rifle and calling President Obama the N-word, I headed to the airport to go see him.

Tom ... can I call you Tom?  I don't want to presume on you, but you're being quoted in the press as an expert on firearms, and I honestly regret your loss of a beloved nephew due to suicide.  I know that's hard to deal with; I've had friends and family who were also victims of firearms violence.

Well, actually, I'm thinking mostly about the 18 year old kid who was killed by a booby trap in VietNam, in 1969.  Not the same as suicide, I know, but the feeling of loss is almost comparable, except my kid died thinking he was fighting for his country, and your nephew (obviously closer, personally, to you than this kid in my platoon) was morbidly depressed because ... ah .. well, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure he was experiencing some tough-to-handle things, unlike my happy-go-lucky friend in ... you  know ... the army?

So just because I was in the army, and 'over there', doesn't mean that I don't feel your pain.  It's hard to lose a loved one, especially someone who was such a close relative as a nephew.

Anyway, even though my friend wasn't a substance abuser, he DID have firearms.  (Not that it did him much good, but that's another story.  I carried his M16 and his web gear back to base camp, after his body was picked up by the helicopter.)   I don't think we can label him an "expert on firearms", although he did carry an AR16 for the rest of his life.  Which ended at age 19.

I don't think my friend called the president an "n-word", but that was a different decade and a different president; Nixon?   Is that an "N-word"?  Whatever, my friend gave his life for his country, not for his president.

Sorry; it's been a lot of years, and sometimes I get confused about just which president sent us to the beautiful, balmy country of South Vietnam.  It was ONE of those guys, probably a fucking Republican (and you know how THEY are).

Or was it Kennedy?  Or Johnson.   Never mind, I kind of zone out from time to time.

Where was I?
Oh yeah, now I remember.

Tom, I'm sorry your nephew blew his brains out.  I've seen it, it's not a pretty sight.

So please accept my most sincere  ... um ... condolences for your personal loss.  Nobody should have to suffer as you obviously have, at the loss of your son.

Oh, no ... sorry .. NEPHEW!   (Knuckling my head, why can't I get that straight?)

Sorry for your lose Tom.  Truly.  People think that Celebrities shouldn't be like real people and feel pain at the loss of a loved one.

There is no shame in suicide.  Happens to the best of people.

Well, you already know that.

Healey’s Office Illustrates Lack of Firearms Knowledge - GOAL Blog

Healey’s Office Illustrates Lack of Firearms Knowledge - GOAL Blog:

(Massachusetts Attorney General Maura) Healey’s office continues attempt at re-writing law for MA Legislature via her “Enforcement Notice”. In the last 24 hours a new page has shown up on Attorney General Healey’s website, titled “Guns That Are Not Assault Weapons”.
 8/19 Update: The Q&A page has been updated again today, and incredibly, adds to the confusion and worse, adds new “enforcements”. Here are the questions, just added. We now know that the AG’s office has limited knowledge of both firearms and MA law pertaining to them.

(INFORMATIONAL LINK FROM THE BOSTON GLOBE, which is all for an "Assault weapons ban ... if they could just figure out that an "Assault Weapon" is.)

From the GLOBE article:

It’s no surprise the Orlando killer chose an AR-15 style assault rifle. It’s a weapon of war, originally created for combat, and designed to kill many people in a short amount of time with incredible accuracy. It’s in the same category as weapons chosen by killers in Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino. These are not weapons of self-defense. They are weapons used to commit mass murder. And they have no business being in civilian hands.

So Boston finally clicked that the rifle used in Orlando wasn't actually an "AR-15", but it was an "AR-15 style assault rifle".   Given that the AR-15 is the semi-automatic version of a rifle with a pitiful 5.56mm caliber bullet, and is not select fire (as is the M16) .. aka "Poodle Shooter", I suppose that it's perfectly reasonable that journalists who have never touched a firearm can reliably identify and define a "Weapon Used To Commit Mass Murder".

From OTHER MA websites:   Laura says: "I have not only the authority, but the responsibility, to enforce the law."

Some call her one thing; some call her another. Some say she's turning legal firearms owners into "felons in waiting" because of what some may consider her imposition of "Ex Post Facto" laws:


So if I am, what are you?

I'm just guessing here ... call me crazy ... but I have a .22 caliber rifle with a scope.  It's a semi-automatic tube-fed rifle, which holds 10 round in the tube.

Would it be ridiculous of me to think I own an "Assault Rifle"?

Yes, it would.

Is my .22 rifle a 'weapon of war'?

According to the Boston Globe ... yes, it is.  And I'm a "Gun Nut", a Neanderthal blow-back, a villain and a potential mass murderer: all for wanting to pay $200 for an "Assault Rifle"!

Okay, I over-paid, but it has a nice 4x scope, was in as-new condition, and I gave all of my other .22 rifles away to my kids ... my "Arsenal" (the coat closet in my front room) had a gap which needed to be filled.   Besides, I have two bricks of .22 LR ammo in my coat closet arsenal, and somebody needs to pay homage to my sagacity in finding and buying these blocks of "Kop Killer Bullets"! before BuyMart sold them to some more sanguine gun nut.

(If there are any hunters arsenal owners in this state who are more blood-thirsty than I.  Which I doubt, because although I haven't gone hunting since my Father died in 1994, I'm still sitting on the arsenal in my ... well, you know.   Coat closet.)

[Apologies for the digression, but you know I'm a gun owner and every time I start talking about GUNS and AMMO, I get this little tingle up my leg and ... uh ... you don't want to know. 'Kay?]

The Good News is that I don't live in Massachusetts (which state I can't even SPELL right!), because no matter what I do, no matter what I say, no matter what I own ... I'm wrong.

More than wrong.

I'm bad.

More than bad!  (What's more than bad?  I don't know, but if I own a firearm in Massachusetts, I'm really a horrible person.  Because I still cleave to my guns and my second amendment God.)


Okay, I'm done.  And I hope you ignore that "Thrill Up My Leg" moment.

I only have it when I think about B.O.
Me and Chris Matthews.  Y'know?

And yes, if you find this entire article to be "incomprehensible", you're not alone.
I don' understand it, either.

Welcome to Gun Control.

Is GOP PAYING this DEM to campaign for Trump?

A Hillary Clinton Loss Would Hobble Gun Reform, Says Connecticut Senator | TIME:

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy does not shy away from the fact that guns on are on the national ballot this November.“If Donald Trump wins, it will be a pretty dramatic setback,” says Murphy, who has emerged as the Democratic Party’s most vocal champion of new gun regulation. “Not just because how terrible he’ll be on the issue, but the fact that a presidential candidate who ran asking for a mandate on guns lost.”

It appears that Gun Rights have just topped the list of  campaign issues.

And I can't think of any single sentence which would more likely sway independent voters to join the TRUMP camp, than an outright confession that the Democratic candidate has the Constitution in her Front Sight.

Thank you, Senator Murphy, for turning the Presidential Campaign into a straight "Up or Down" vote.

Randomly Hitten

Those of my friends who wish to contact me directly, the email address for this blog is:

Jerrydgeekblog@comcast.net

AMERICAN BY CHOICE: "Gun Control Does Not Work"

Gun Control --  Dissenting opinion:

Gun Violence is not an endemic issue in America.

(NOTE that much of the text here is taken from the video, and may not have been transcribed in perfect accordance to the original context.)

("Hensen Enge"?)




My name is is Henson Ong  (Waterbury Resident) .. forgive me, English is not my first language.

You probably already know this, but some may be unclear

What the Second Amendment Actually Protects | Eagle Gun Range Inc.: 

Contrary to what one may hear from time to time, the Second Amendment did not create the right of the people to keep and bear arms; neither the government nor even the founders bestowed it upon us. The 2nd Amendment’s inclusion in the U.S. Constitution merely recognized the preexisting, unalienable human right to arms and self-defense already possessed by every responsible human being. It was and is component to natural rights, as the only tangible means to ensure and preserve them.  

---

 As students of history know, there was great disagreement between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists on the point of specifically articulating individual rights in the Constitution. The Federalists held that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the people and the several states hold any powers the Constitution do not prescribe and enumerate specifically for the federal government. The Anti-Federalists believed that without the specification of certain rights, the federal government would tread and infringe upon individual rights despite the explicit and general reservations and segregated powers already described in the Constitution. 

 Turns out, both sides were wrong.

I disagree.

Both sides were right.

Brooklyn, you can't afford this

Failed Technology 

This is just one more example of how liberals use false hopes and wishful thinking to undermine the ability of Americans to defend themselves, their families, and their home.  And their sole purpose is to make us LESS safe.

Brooklyn kicks off $1 million smart gun design competition (VIDEO):

Adams says the competition has already brainstormed three areas of interest in personalized handguns: a smart phone app to find lost or stolen guns, firearms with fingerprint biometrics and RFID technology such as a ring worn by the user. But he cautioned these initial ideas are just the tip of the iceberg. “Embracing other concepts such as microstamping* and other technologies that are out there, we can create an environment where gun ownership will not be trampled on but the rights of people living in a society free from gun violence will be preserved and protected,” said Adams.

If the "Smart Gun" concept gains credence in America, soon it will be difficult to find a firearm which will be useful in protecting yourself.  You would have to find a "used gun" for protection,  because the 'new guns' are not reliable enough to serve the purpose for which they are intended.

"Smart Gun" Technology:
There are two ways that Smart Guns prevent unauthorized users from using your gun against yourself:

1. Have the gun keyed to the proximity of an RFD device (a ring, a bracelet);
2. Have the gun keyed to your personal fingerprints.

RFD DEVICE:

Antigunners like to say that it's foolish to use a gun to protect yourself/home/family, because they will just take your gun away and shoot you with it.  (The worst of this verminous pack direct their 'bad advice' against Women, because they think that Women are more susceptible to violence, and more likely to yield their gun to an aggressor.)

If they can take away your gun, they can also take away your ring, your bracelet, or other device and use THAT to take your gun away and shoot you with it.

PERSONAL FINGER PRINTS:

This is even worse.

I'm a concealed carry permit holder, and I go to the Sheriff's office every few years to renew my permit.  They always take finger prints.  What's the first thing they do?  They have you wipe your hands so that sweat, body oils, and debris does not mar the perfection of the impression.

So if you have to use your finger-print protected Smart Gun before defending your home, are you going to wipe your hands?

Of course not.  And you'll be sweaty, your hands will be oily, maybe there is lint from your flannel pajamas ... your fingerprints when you are in an emergency situation may not match the prints you 'registered' on your Smart Gun when you set it up.

So your Smart Gun may not function for you, when you need it.  

This is the same thing as having "no defense at all", because ... you haven't!

But wait!  There's MORE!

"... a smart phone app to find lost or stolen guns ...:"

Gee, how does that work?

You would need an identifier to cull your Smart Gun ID   (an RFID TAG) out of the hundreds in your area, and of course you would have already registered that ID with your local police department because it's THEIR job to find stolen property.   Right?

Which implies that they will ALWAYS know where your firearm is.

This is just like the failed effort to implant RFD devices under the skin of people; except that this will only identify Americans who have guns.

There are some issues with tagging firearms (or people) with RFD tags.

If your personal privacy is important to you, RFID tagging might not be an option which appeals to you.

CONCLUSIONS:

Any alteration to the original design may render your firearm less than perfectly functional.

There are many uses for a firearm, and one of them is for home/property/personal defense.
Which implies (strongly!) that your firearm should be always and immediately available in an emergency, and there should be no alterations to the basic design which may impede it's ability to function as designed.

We know how to use guns safely and effectively:

• We've practiced with our defensive firearms until they seem like an extension of our hand; our thumb and fingers automatically access slide, safety, hammer and trigger without conscious thought;
• All members of our household have been trained until their usage is familiar; if you can't get to your gun, someone else will;
• Children have been acclimatized to firearms, and know not to touch them without permission except in an emergency;
• A firearm which is so shrouded in artificial 'safety mechanisms' to the point where it is essentially useless in an emergency, is nothing better than a large rock with which to batter an aggressor.

That's not defense; that's desperation, and doomed to failure.

* PS: MICROSTAMPING

I'm not sure how that bit of failed technology crept into the original quote, but it's a signature which deserves to be stamped out (sorry) immediately.

Microstamping is a theoretical technology which purportedly embosses some unique identification code upon the base of a cartridge when it is fired.  The breech of the gun is 'stamped' or 'embossed' with an unique identifying code, hopefully to be stamped on the base of a cartridge upon firing, and which can (according to theory) be read under a microstamp to identify the firearm from which the cartridge has been fired.

This has been touted as a 'crime-stopping' technology, and has as yet not been proven to be reliable ... or effective, useful, or feasible.  However, it would add so much expense to the process of mass-producing firearms that it would triple (at least) the cost of a firearm.

If you're interested in the many ways that Microstamping of ammunition is Not A Good Idea, you can go to my home page and type "MICROSTAMPING" into the search box on the top left hand corner of the page.  There about 10,000 words debunking the concept there.  Have fun!

Glock Quality

BREAKING: Glock 17M Recalled By Police Department - The Firearm Blog:

It looks like the new Glock 17M pistols are already experiencing some teething problems with the design changes. There are reports that Indianapolis Metro Police Department has halted issuing the new duty pistol due to problems during dry fire training. The recall comes after the pistols were supposed to be issued on July 31st, but delayed till August 15th due to unknown problems.

It seems as if the slides fall off:

  "... that the slides were falling off during dry fire training... "

(Especially disconcerting if you're a LEO and this is your new issue weapon.)

 And the Indy Police discovered this "Teething Problems"during "Dry Fire Training"?

I've got a couple of questions about this.  But I'm a 1911 guy, so naturally I'm biased (full disclosure) against other designs.   My questions are:

• GLOCK can fix this within two weeks?   A basic design flaw?
• Shouldn't this have been obvious during prototype testing?
• Glock Engineers DO test prototypes before beginning a production run, don't they?
• Did Glock "rush to production" before the new design was tested, just to fill an early order?

Borepatch: Curmudgeons of the World, unite!

Borepatch: Curmudgeons of the World, unite!

Too short to really be a story that one can reference, so I'll just leave you with this WONDERFUL  epigram, and hope that someone has the common courtesy to perform the same service upon my demise:

My Daughter’s Teacher Did Her Hair! Who does she think she is?

It Happened To Me: My Daughter’s Teacher Did Her Hair | MadameNoire:

Thursday afternoon, like every day I went to pick up my daughter from her school playground. As she ran toward me, all I could do was mouth to myself was, WTF!? Seeing my reaction her teacher scurred behind her, quickly offering an exonerating explanation as to why my daughter didn’t look the way she did only a few hours earlier. “I did her hair, I hope you don’t mind?! She said she was hot.” I was furious. My blood was boiling, and there were no nice words I could find. I offered a limp smile, and could barely utter, “it’s fine.” I was fuming. My daughter’s hair had been brushed, with whose brush? I couldn’t tell you, parted, and braided in plaits, and embellished with rubber bands and barrettes, out of the teachers own supply.

(H/T)

I can't comment on this article without I check my "White Privilege" to perform a kind service for a child who as been left in my care by a mother who just hasn't the time to tend to her own daughter.

Bummer, Dudette.  And I suspect that this was a bogus story, because .. WTF???

If not ... I was once married to a woman who was quick to take offense.
It had a "Bad Ending"!

(H/T)

Huh?

"Your 2nd Amendment is Outdated!" - YouTube: Published on Feb 21, 2014 The next time someone tries to tell you that, tell them this ;) Visit Facebook page!: http://www.facebook.com/CareyWedler


Oh, watch it anyway.  Cute girl/valley-girl voice.   Worth a couple of minutes of your time.

Besides, you might just enjoy her efforts to make a 'failing' political point.

(Let me know if you do.)

Tea for Two: Republican Congressional Conversation

Congressman Russell and Congressman Gowdy Clear-up Firearm Misconceptions - YouTube: Published on Jul 6, 2016 Discussion with Congressman Trey Gowdy on Firearm Facts during Oversight and Government Reform Hearing on Firearm Inventory and Control Practices. 

 Foreigners already may not purchase a firearm in the United States. There is no "Gun-Show Loophole" because ALL licensed firearm sales require a NICS background check. We know NICS background checks (established in 1998) are working because, in 2014, there were 8,124 homicides due to firearms. This is a 9% decline in gun murders since 2010. This also represents a 20% decline in gun murders since 2005, and a 50% decline in gun murders since 1995. Of the 8,124 murders with firearms in 2014,only 248 were with rifles of ANY kind. To put that in perspective, 435 people were murdered in 2014 with clubs and hammers and 660 were murdered in 2014 with hands, fists, or feet.

(The above is a quote, including an opinion.)

That IS a pistol in my pocket, AND I'm happy to see you

Court: Man wrongfully terminated for having gun in vehicle at work:

A unanimous three-judge panel found on Monday that a Mississippi man could sue his former employer after being fired for keeping a gun in a locked vehicle on the job site.

A man whose employer discovered that he had a (legal) firearm in his parked car while at work has sued, and won, in protest for illegally being fired 'for cause'.

The court accepted that he had a gun in his car, but that wasn't grounds for termination.  
The Corporate Policy was illegal ... not the gun in the car.

I just love a story with a happy ending.

(Thanks to Mae West for a great line.)

Adoption. It's a beautiful thing

Simone Biles Was Adopted by Grandparents Ron And Nellie | The Daily Caller:

Ron and Nellie Biles adopted Simone and her sister in 2001 after they spent time in foster care becasue (sic) their biological mother — Ron’s daughter — struggled with drug and alcohol abuse.

During coverage of the Summer Olympics in Rio, Al Trautwig referred to Ron and Nellie as Simone’s grandparents.  When a viewer criticized him for doing so, Trautwig defended his decision and said, “They may be mom and dad but they are NOT her parents.”

When she was asked about what Trautwig said, Biles had a simple response.
“I personally don’t have a comment,” “My parents are my parents and that’s it.”

I never heard of Simone Biles before today, and I haven't been following the Olympics.

But I'm personally pleased to learn that another "wanted child" has no doubts about whose child she is.

 I have two nieces who may not have been born into the family, but they most certainly ARE family.  They are my nieces, they call their parents MOM and DAD.   They call me "Uncle".
I call them loved.   My sixteen grand-nieces and grand-nephews are my family, too, including a few (of recent years) "great-grands".  And yes, I lose count, but they forgive me.

Their family is the people who raised them, who cherish them, and who stand up for them in the bad times and applaud them in the good times.   Their family will rush them to the hospital when they break an arm, and comfort them when they are ill, and are firm-but-gentle when they do wrong, and pay all the bills no matter what.   What else would a parent do? (Everything!)

I know a lot of people who were raised by their "birth parents" and didn't benefit from the support and guidance which these ladies have received ... and I'm speaking of my nieces and Simone Biles.

When people* correct someone about whose child they are, because of an accident of birth, it merely reveals that they don't really understand people.

Adopted children have a special blessing;  they know for their whole lives that they were really, truly wanted.  

How many of the rest of us can make that claim?

*(The guy was probably a Democrat).

Perfect!

David Clarke, Milwaukee sheriff: 'Progressive left has put my citizens in harm's way' - Washington Times: By Jessica Chasmar - The Washington Times - Monday, August 15, 2016

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke on Monday blamed “the policies of liberal Democrats” for riots over the weekend that left several officers injured and multiple businesses burned in the city’s north side. “The Milwaukee riots should be the last time the policies of liberal Democrats are held up as anything other than misery-inducing, divisive, exploitative and racist manipulation of the urban populations. Unfortunately, they won’t,” Sheriff Clarke wrote in an op-ed for The Hill.

Meet my write-in vote for the presidential election.   David Clarke.

He's not as smart as Trump/Clinton, he's honest, he's pro-Constitution,  and he understands Liberals.

Five Months Ago; Loretta Lynch; Oregon, political

Loretta Lynch Bails On Oregon Gun Forum, Chaos Erupts When Fast and Furious Mentioned (VIDEO):

US Attorney General Loretta Lynch was scheduled to appear at a Portland Police gang task force meeting, but no-showed after learning that folks from Don’t Shoot Portland planned on attending and possibly protesting. In lieu of Ms. Lynch, the moderator at the regularly held meeting used a big easel to jot down concerns and comments from the community to take to Lynch. But the moderator only wanted to hear from certain organizations and agencies, and refused to call on anyone else. Finally, after Penny Okamoto, of Ceasefire Oregon, gave a monologue about wanting stricter oversight of federally licensed gun dealers, one man in the crowd piped up about Operation Fast and Furious, and the event went downhill from there, as the central planners didn’t want to hear it, and soon the entire forum was shut down.

She got OWNED!

Interesting Video.

Oh, THIS is frightening to the Firearns Industry!

One wonders how many Gay People cleave to the "Buy A Gun Every Month" mantra?

Gun Makers must be quaking in their booties.

I wonder if they understand that firearms manufacturer are legally NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for the (mis-) usage of their product after they have been sold?

Gays Against Guns: civil disobedience campaign to target gun companies | US news | The Guardian: Hundreds of gay activists will begin a campaign of civil disobedience and direct action against gun companies and their supporters on Monday, to demand an end to the epidemic of gun violence blighting the US. Members of Gays Against Guns, a group formed in the wake of the massacre of 49 people at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando earlier this summer, said they would “no longer stand by and watch the gun industry profit from death”. Organizers of the collective, which has more than 300 members in New York and chapters in nine other cities across the country, said they were prepared to break the law and get arrested in their fight against gun manufacturers, their shareholders, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its corporate backers.

Trump Asks Gun Owners to .. do WHAT?

Trump ignites new firestorm: Gun backers might stop Clinton | WRIC: WILMINGTON, N.C. (AP) Donald Trump ignited a fresh political firestorm Tuesday by declaring gun rights supporters might still find a way to stop Hillary Clinton, even if she should defeat him and then name anti-gun Supreme Court justices. Democrats pounced, accusing him of openly encouraging violence against his opponent.

Last time I payed any attention to TRUMP, he was candidly coyly blatantly insultingly assuming that gun owners would resort to physical violence to stop HILLARY.   That statement alone came as close to losing him the gun-owners vote as anything he could have said.

He doesn't seem to have learned from the experience.

Responsible gun owners will probably vote for Trump 'anyway', but we will surely be holding our noses when we vote.

I cannot remember, in the fifty years of voting for or against presidential candidates, when we have had such odious choices,

It's the same thing as having no choices at all.

PS:  My first Presidential Election, I voted against Nixon.   He won.  In fact, I've never voted for an elected president.  Maybe I should vote for Hillary?

No, that would break the jinx.

The Tyranny of the Majority

Liberal States (including every state on the West coast ... sadly, including my home state of Oregon) consist of a plethora of Liberal voters, because so many of us/them exist on the Public Dole.   Voters who are dependent on The State for the food they eat will bow down to whatever they think The State wants them to vote.

Which means that, in true evidence of "The Tyrany of the Majority", most voters in these states will vote in favor of whatever inane bills which appear on the ballot.

They will vote in favor of this:

Gun control goes on the ballot | TheHill:
Stymied on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures, supporters of stricter gun control measures are taking their cause to the ballot box. Voters in four states will decide ballot measures relating to gun control this November.
In Maine and Nevada, voters will decide whether to expand background check requirements to include private gun sales.
 In Washington, voters will decide whether to take guns out of the hands of people who are subject to extreme risk protection orders, which include restraining orders and people at risk of suicide.

 And in California, voters will decide whether to ban the possession of large-capacity magazines.
The California measure, Proposition 63, would also require individuals to pass a background check before purchasing ammunition. 

Those of us who do not live in major population centers (Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane,  San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego) will probably vote against these unconsitituion bills.

We are out-numbered three to one, and so we will lose our rights to perform perfectly lawful transactions without intrusive governmental interference.

It will be a sad day in American History, when the Federal Oligarchy can rule by fiat.

Hey! Who are you calling crazy?

This guy says he's officially crazy, but he still managed to buy, be trained in the use of, and carry a firearm.(H/T: GUNFEED)

I'm not sure he's more emotional than the guy's I've seen at a match, throwing their magazines downrange because they're disappointed at their performance; but if he says he's a lunatic, I'm willing to take his word for it.

But ..... interesting.

I have a mental disorder. This is what happened when I tried to buy a gun.:
My brain is a massive ocean of too much information. Without my medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, it’s easy for me to get lost in the undertow. No matter how hard I try to fight the current, I still get overwhelmed and distracted by every strange texture I feel beneath my feet. This never goes away.

Fortunately for me, he lives on the 'other side' of the continent.

In Massachuttes?

Not Your Father's Idaho

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” 

That link (above) is SO 1999!

It's now 2016, and the current version is:

"Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled rapists ..."


At the risk of being considered a "something-ist", I think that America needs to be just a little bit more particular about the "huddled masses" we welcome here.

5-year-old victim's father watched the video:

The case, which has largely been ignored or dismissed by the mainstream media, has created a political firestorm as pro- and anti-immigration proponents have clashed about the assault in an election year where the candidacy of Republican nominee Donald Trump has brought immigration and refugee issues to the forefront of national political discussion. Although the establishment press has given little time to the story that does not fit the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s narrative on refugees and immigration, the story has caused a stir on right-leaning media through the work of activists like Pamela Geller.

What they are talking about is a five year old girl (FIVE YEARS OLD!) who was sexually assaulted by a group of adolescent boys.  The parents of the girl ... at least the father .. was "treated" to a video of the attack.

Yes, the boys recorded the attack, and showed it around.  Sweet.

The parents of the girl were 'encouraged' to not report the assault.  Because they all came from a 'rape culture', you see, and so it's not really that unusual much of a "big deal".

Stranahan: “The refugee family was trying to stop you from calling the police?”
Victim’s Father: “Yes. They were pleading with us, saying everything was okay, they did nothing wrong, you know – ‘No police! No police!’ – because they did not speak… they speak Arabic, so they had very few words that they can actually…”

Personally, I think that the boys who were involved in the attack (no matter how tangentially) should be forcibly returned to the country of their origin.
Their parents as well should be deported, because somehow they had failed to teach their children that Rape Is Wrong!

(Who knows what other dicta of a civilized society they do not understand?)

I know not what the culture is in their home country, but I refuse to allow them to import their sick cultural 'norms' into my homeland.   I have children, and grandchildren here. They deserve to live under the cultural norms of my country; which do not include a casual acceptance of rape.

These are not Americans, they never will be, because it's obvious that they just ... don't ... GET IT!

Give me your tired, your homeless, your huddled masses yearning to be free.

That dictum of the Statue of Liberty implies nothing about accepting "cultural norms" which are anethema to civilization, and America.

This is America.

We deal in lead.

Hey Man, why you burnin' this here gas station?

I always wondered why people rioted and burned places up.

Then I found the perfectly good reason for burning up your neighborhood,

“It’s sad, because you know, this is what happens, you know, because they’re not helping the black community,” the man said. “Like, you know, rich people, they got all this money and they not, like, trying to give us none.”

I was sort of hoping that he could help me understand how burning up a gas station might lead to economic fulfillment.

Those rich people?  All that money?  They're not giving to give me none, either.

Maybe I should go burn up the gas station in my neighborhood.
Yeah, that'll do it.  Those rich people are sure to give me money for doing that.

Because, you know, they got privilege and all like that.

But they're not, like,  trying to help the white community.

NRA ad falsely quotes Clinton

NRA ad falsely says Clinton 'doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self-defense' | PolitiFact North Carolina:

NRA ad falsely says Clinton 'doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self-defense'

Actually, that's not a false premise.

It may not be an accurate quote.

However, the facts are that when Clinton was questioned about the "Australian Solution", her reply  "that's something we should look into".

The "Australian solution" was that private citizens had few options available if they wanted to keep a firearm in their home for self defense ... or for most other options.

The "Australian Solution" banned and confiscated guns.

This is a 'fact' which Politifact politely ignored, when the ignored Hillary's comment that that's
"..worthy of looking into".

What Clinton is very careful NOT to say is "That's something that is not on the board in my administration".

If she meant, it, she would have said it.

I doubt if anyone failed to understand what she was saying.

Protection of the Second Amendment Rights of Americans is not only NOT on her list of priorities, but the infringment of the constitition is a HIGH priority to her.   She sees no reason why the Consititution should direct her decisions, should she be elected to the office of President.

That may work for the trusting souls who think that the Democratic Party can do no wrong, but it has a negative effect on those of us who don't trust candidates of EITHER party to "Do The Right Thing" when it comes to protecting our constitutional rights.

And they say that gun owners are "intractable"!

We see Gun Control Advocates changing directions like an IPSC competitor changes magazines ... if this load of BS isn't working, let's try another load.

Gun control goes on the ballot | TheHill:

This year’s measure to limit access to firearms for people under protective orders, Initiative 1491, is modeled on legislation that has passed in states like California, Connecticut and Indiana. If it is successful, it too will be exported to other states.

Protective Orders have their own special place in hell for a male partner who has been targetted by his female partner.

When a partnership disintegrates, accusations run wild and courts have neither the resources nor the inclination to investigate the claims and counterclaims.  If a woman states that she fears for her physical safety, courts will first look for records of police visitations to the home, searching for evidence of abuse.  However, if those events are not evident, the court will still almost invariably accept the woman's statement as sufficient to issue a Protective Order.

Usually, the conditions of that order include that the male partner must vacate the family home, maintain a physical distance from the spouse (and often the children, depending on what arrangements Family Services can establish), and continue to provide maintenance.

This is proper; a relationship which has been established with the expectation that the man will provide sustenance and the woman will care for home and children is a common arrangement, and should not be broken merely because the partners are engaged in a contretemps ... one hopes that they are jointly seeking third-party counselling.

However, in any disagreement between the 'stories' told by both parties in those counselling sessions, the story told by the supposed 'abused' female partner will always be believed.

Unfortunately, minor squables become court actions, and a female partner who feels vindictive can rely on the courts to impose crippling conditions on the ousted male partner.

When the condition of separation changes to include unilateral imposition on the partner's Second Amendment Rights (perhaps to the point where his personal firearms must be surrendered, or his legal ability to purchase a firearm is infringed), then a court hearing should be a part of the process.   It should not be sufficient that in a "She Said/He Said" disputation, the female partner's testimony should automatically be held to be true.

Constitutional Rights.

Although the Constition should be considered (and it rarely becomes in issue in lower courts), the possibility that one partner is vindictively painting her former partner in the worst possible light should be examined carefully.   Courts generally take the Second Amendment seriously .. except for when they do not.

When a domestic ruling against a partner (former partner) includes the suggestion that his constititional rights be infringed, that is NOT an issue which should be handled in a lower court.

Stephanie Ervin, who is running the pro-1491 campaign, said she expected a similar measure to appear on the ballot in Oregon. “It feels like we’re at a real tipping point, and folks are really engaging in the dialogue around gun responsibility issues,” Ervin said.

Well, yes, it's a true Tipping Point, and one which should be approached carefully, with respect to the rights of both parties in even (relatively minor) domestic disputes.

It's not easy for Domestic Partners to testify against each other.  Except for when it is. 

And it is very easy, when grudges have been allowed to fester in a relationship, and one (or both) partners have decided that "All Is Fair In Love And War!" for a partner to decide to "stick it to" the other partner.  This is no longer a matter of a fair distribution of wealth, and privacy, and support;  it may become a matter of much greater significanse.

Before a lower-court judge allows a judgement against a domestic partner which violates his or her Constitutional rights, it should be moved to a higher court.

The arbirary ruling which deprives a domestic partner of his or her rights should not be decided in family court.

Support by Gun Control Backers:

 Gun rights advocates, too, believe they are seeing the opening moves in a prolonged campaign by gun control backers. They say the proposals for expanded background checks are unenforceable and represent a slippery slope toward something more sinister, like gun registration. “This is the camel getting its nose under the tent. Before you know it, you’ve got a whole camel in your tent,” said Maine state Sen. Eric Brakey (R), one of the leading opponents of the ballot measure in his state.

The Gun Control folks never saw a Gun Control Law they didn't like.

 Expect a strong surge of support for this kind of ruling by Domestic Courts; one which takes away a constitutional right for domestic suits, without strong support by unbiased testimony.

This is not an issue which rightfully should be decided there.  It should be an issue worthy of advancing to a higher court, on at least a state level.

Yes, that would would overload the courts with a case-load of issues which the judges would consider 'minor'.

But the infringement of a Consititional right must never be considered to be a 'minor issue'.

Perhaps, by requiring a Higher Court to become involved in this kind of suit, it would have the effect (eventually) of stilling vindictive terms of separation by Lower courts.

Custer (Washington) Club Matches: Challenging!

If it need be said, these are NOT 'my' videos; I cannot shoot to this level of expertise, but I admire the experiences of those who can.  It's fortunate that 'Gunbot' posts these match videos for the rest of us to enjoy.

Shooting USPSA in the Sand @ Custer | Gunbot!:

Custer’s range is one of the best run with very interesting bays which allows them to design fun and challenging stages. This month’s match had lots of low ports which makes it hard for aging knees to deal with, at least the bays had soft sand. I felt slow in some stages because I was waiting for a perfect sight picture instead of shooting early, calling my shots and correcting them if needed.

I competed at the Area 1 match at this range in 2001 ("The Space Oddity" match) and the range had not been anything like as well developed, nor as sophisticated in range design, as we see today.

You have got to watch this exciting run!
It's not on YouTube ... so please go to the underlined link above to see the embedded video.

Obama: Trying On A New Hat

The President has found himself in a quagmire, so he's pulling himself out by someone else's bootstraps.

Mine ... and yours, if you are a Second Amendment Advocate.


Obama: U.S. Gun Law 'Has Made...Homegrown Extremists' Strategy More Attractive to Them':
By Susan Jones | August 5, 2016 | 5:05 AM EDT

(CNSNews.com) - "In terms of the threat that ISIL poses to the homeland, I think it is serious," President Obama told a news conference on Thursday. "We take it seriously." The president pointed to a New York Times report on ISIS' radicalization efforts to suggest that U.S. gun laws may encourage lone-wolf attacks here.

You can't blame him for the stunning turnaround by the group of desert hobos which he initially described as the "Junior Varsity".   He figures the events have embarassed himself, so he's 'reconstructing the dialogue'.

He has found a way to use pirated dialogue to blame anyone but him:

"But the fact that we have what he referred to as 'open gun laws' meant that anybody, as long as they didn't have a criminal record that could bar them from purchase, could go in and buy weapons. That has made the sort of homegrown extremists' strategy more attractive to them. And those are the hardest to stop because by definition, if somebody doesn't have a record, if it's not triggering something, it means that anticipating their actions becomes that much more difficult.

Translation: (and I'm extrapolating here; he didn't really say any of this, but this is the impression I got from the statement) ---

If those Crackers didn't cling so firmly to their guns and their God, we would by God put some teeth into Gun Control and nobody could own a gun unless we say they could!

So it's not his fault (he is perfect) and it's not the fault of ISIS because they found a crack in our ass; it's the fault of American Gun Owners who insist that the Second Amendment is a Constitutional Right ... which is flawed logic.

If he had his way, nobody would own a gun unless he said we could ... and we would either be a policeman, or a soldier!

Transform America!

His recovery reminds me of one of my favorite comic strips, "Rick O'Shay".   In one episode, Rick goes looking for a new hat because his old one is worn out.  He buys a hat, looks at it and it just looks ... wrong.   So he jumps on his new hat until it looks the way he thinks a hat SHOULD look!

I am probably lacking in the moral correctness which suggests that I should give up my individual constitutional rights for the good of the many, but I have always believed that the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of the group.  People who are much smarter than I am refer to this as "Individual vs Collective Rights".

Being (as I am) a "Cracker", and a stubborn one at that, I'm probably not going to change my opinion just because My President thinks I should.

My President can change his hats as frequently as he talks to another diplomat, and beat it onto whatever shape  best suits him.

For me, my Old Hat works just fine.  I'm not an intellectual, and I didn't grow up in Chicago, so there is probably something that I don't understand about The New America.

The one thing that I do understand is, I have kind of got use to The Old America, and I've learned to love it.

I don't want some Obama-come-lately to be "re-imaging" my country.   My "old hat" may be tawdry in the eyes of a Comsmopolitan, but it fits me just fine.

Oh, and if another "Reshaper Of America" should enter office next year?

Same thing.

FOAD

Dear Mister President

What ... not ransom?

Never mind.

I guess I was wrong about you,

all this time.

"Not Terror Related"

Yes, he was a terrorist, and yes, he was acting under the aegis of a religious motivation.

Russell Square stabbing attack 'not terror related', say police after interviewing Norwegian suspect | Crime | News | The Independent:

A Norwegian man was being held in custody on Thursday on suspicion of murdering an American woman in a “random” stabbing rampage in central London. Investigators say the 19-year-old suspect, who is of Somali origin and moved to the UK aged five, is mentally ill and has no known links to terror groups or radicalisation.

Forgive me if I seem unconvinced, but a "norwegian man ... of somali origin" who "randomly" stabs a number of people in a neighborhood which was historically related to "al-Qaeda inspired attacks that killed 52 people and injured 700" doesn't sound as some kind of a Mental Illness. *
(See "Tavistock Square and Russell Square", below, for historical perspective)

I don't care if he has been described as a "norwegian man"; that's not the important part.
The important part is that he was "... of Somali origin".  Which means he was a muslim, and came from an area which has been suffering violent religious conflict for decades.

You don't need to scream "Allahu Akbar" to make it clear that your motivation is to kill "unbelievers" as a strike for world domination of your religion.   The point is intimidation of the populus, and encouraging the cowering of a free people (or what had once been 'a free people').