Why? Fear!

It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them. | New Republic:

On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what’s feasible keeps what needs to happen—no more guns—from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically,  if it’s to be reckoned with.

Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a writer living in Toronto. She is writing a book with St. Martin’s Press about the idea of privilege (2017).

Phoebe (did you notice that she is living in Canada?) is only one of many folks who allow their timidity to overwhelm their good sense.

They (Phoebe and her kin) think that banning guns would stop gun violence, which is usually perpetrated by criminals who are often violating the law by the mere possession of a firearm and compounded by the criminal acts they perform.

They don't stop to consider that firearms are often used to stop crime, or to protect self, family, home.  All they see is the downside of firearms, never the benefits.

I think that these radicals are afraid of firearms.  Well ... I'm quit certain of that.

Why?

The reason is because they are unfamiliar with firearms ownership, and they project themselves into a place where they see that they might have a gun and they might then be unable to control their inner violence.

No, no, I see you shaking your head.  I'm sincere; I believe that they are unable to conceive of themselves being a responsible firearms owner.   Yes, I think they're dumb-asses.  No, I don't think they have a legitimate authority to criticize people who are responsible gun owners.

Okay, let's see a show of hands:  How many of you readers are gun owners who have discharged your firearm within the city limits, outside of a legal shooting range?

Okay, of those of you who are left, how many discharged your firearm within city limits OTHER than in defense of self, family, property?

Oh.  MUCH smaller response quota.

How many of those left have been incarcerated for breaking the law because of this discharge?

(I suspect the response quota is now ZERO, because you're not allowed to respond to blogs from within your jail cell. Which is probably where you should be.)

RESPONSIBLE Firearms Ownership:

Anti-gunners (people opposed to the Second Amendment) tend to be emotionally involved in The Movement.  They think that nobody should be trusted with a gun, because they don't think they can be trusted with a gun.   They judge others by themselves, and the rest of us appear lacking in judgement because THEY don't trust themselves.

It's that old meme, supported by such 'trusted' sources as the New York Times in their December 4, 2015 opinion article "End The Gun Epidemic In America" where the editors opine that

"It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency."

That Grand Old Lady, NYT, suggests:

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

Certain Kinds of Weapons/Certain Kinds of Ammunition

We wonder, as we should, what the word "Certain" defines.  And we wonder more who defines it, and why, and what their imperatives must be.

The NYT article 'certainly' avoids being specific, so if you agree with their philosophy, should we likewise agree with the particulars ... particularly when they are so careful to avoid being specific?

This is the kind of opposition that legal, responsible gun owners face; a huge megalopolous newspaper has made a decision about a constitutional issue, and they certainly have the subscriptions to persuade a bunch of readers in a state where firearms are almost totally BANNED.

As Ned Pepper said in the movie: "That's Bold Talk from a One-Eyed Fat Man!" (*See Below)

But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, as Ned Pepper discovered to his disappointment, just challenging The Law isn't the same thing as obviating The Law.   The thing about Laws is, the folks who enact them generally understand that a certain degree of specificity is required.  Otherwise, the first wise guy who runs up against it hires a lawyer who (in turn) destroys a poorly written law, and his client goes free.

Which is the sort of thing which gun owners usually like, and the folks who fear gun owners don't like.

Let's get back to that part about:

... yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

In the first place, those of my "fellow citizens" whom I count as 'friends' are not willing to trust their lives to "a policeman on every corner"; they carry their own protection, and are prepared to defend themselves against the plethora of neer-do-wells who would do them harm.  As do I.  In the state where I live, a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) is not difficult to acquire .. it's a "Shall Issue" state; and they have availed themselves of the legalities.

In the second place, anyone who is not prepared to defend himself is assuming the "Cop On Every Corner" defense, which is ridiculous.  The police can't be everywhere, and to believe otherwise is to expose yourself as a victim to every nut-job in the neighborhood.  That's just stupid.

And in the third place ... well. there is no 'third place'; if you don't care enough about your own life to defend it in this era of global terrorism (which can strike anywhere), then you probably don't carry a jack and a spare tire in the trunk of your automobile, either.  Dumbshit!

Getting back to the quote above, I don't consider it an act of concern "for the good of (my) fellow citizens" to give up my weapon(s).

Those folks back East, who remark nonchalantly about the Second Amendment as if it were an inconsequential option, are far too trusting in their Police Departments for my taste.  I've seen the cops in my little college town, and they are fat, dumb and happy.   They don't expect things to 'go wrong' .. instantly, without warning, and fatally.

 See Florida, and California, and El Salvador.
(By the way, these are 'places' where Gun Control is often The Law Of The Land)

And while I'm not a 'one-eyed fat man', I admit to being outspoken on the issue of self-defense.
BOTH my eyes are functional.
*

Kerry: Still "Unfit For Command"

Kerry: Media Would 'Do Us All a Service' If They Didn't Cover Terrorism as Much | Fox News Insider:

 During his first official visit to Bangladesh, Secretary of State John Kerry held a press conference and addressed the threat of terrorism. Kerry offered a novel way to combat terrorism, suggesting that the media would “do us all a service” if they didn’t cover it “quite as much.

Kerry, who proposed himself and was awarded a Purple Heart for 'a hangnail',  (actually a scratch, when he fired an M79 Grenade Launcher at a non-target which was too close, and suffered a slight wound from his own round)  has chosen to exercise the duties of his office as Secretary of State by placing the blame for the world's Terrorism Woes on the media ... he sees the problem not as an indication of too much violence by terrorists, but too much coverage by the press.

In the meantime, Kerry has nothing to offer as a resolution to the world-wide problem of terrorism.

Well, that's not his job, is it?

 “No country is immune from terrorism," Kerry said at a press availability in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on Monday. "It’s easy to terrorize. Government and law enforcement have to be correct 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. But if you decide one day you’re going to be a terrorist and you’re willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”

Since Kerry seems to think that his job is too hard, perhaps President Obama might consider finding some one who is 'fit to command'.   Certainly, some idiot who thinks the 'solution' is for the public to not "know what's going on" doesn't strike most readers as someone who has proposed a real solution for a problem which he doesn't even understand.

 Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton reacted on America's Newsroom, slamming Kerry's comments: “If you really think that less publicity would help reduce the terrorist threat, then really after you should apply for a job after you are secretary of state to be editor-in-chief of “The Onion”,” Bolton said, referring to the satirical newspaper.

There is an unsubstantiated rumor going around that Kerry applied for a job with "The Onion", but his application was rejected as being insufficiently credible.

"Deplorable"?

David Correa draws our attention to an 'incident' in Oregon where a single-mom and her children came home to find a man hiding in her closet.  (See the link for details.)

She shot him dead.

SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO THINK that the only time you are justified in armed defense is when you KNOW your invader is armed and you KNOW that he intends to do harm.

Those people are a dying subspecies: they do not take into account the natural instincts of a Mother.

Lesson Learned: the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

I am NOT "The Only One"!

Oh, Good!
I was worried that I was The Only One who couldn't decide which candidate to vote against!

Reliably Red Ohio County Finds Both Trump and Clinton Hard to Stomach - The New York Times:
(September 09, 2016)

DELAWARE, Ohio — Donald J. Trump is not popular in this prospering county north of Columbus. The Republican nominee’s dystopian language does not resonate here. Signs that read “Now Hiring” outnumber “Trump” campaign placards. But many residents of this reliably Republican county, which last voted for a Democratic president in 1916, simply cannot imagine voting for Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. And that goes a long way toward explaining why she has struggled to separate herself from Mr. Trump in this bellwether state.

I don't blame the good citizens of Red Ohio County for their dyslexic choices in the upcoming Presidential Election.

I guess it depends on which  dystopian choices you find least impalpable ... and which candidate you choose to represent those choices.

In Brave New World,  we face these societal changes:

• Abolition of natural reproduction. Human embryos are raised artificially in "hatcheries and conditioning centres". 

• Educating children by the hypnopaedic process, which provides each with appropriate subconscious messages to mould the child's self-image appropriate to their caste.

• Discouragement of critical thinking.

• Discouragement of individual action and initiative

• An abundance of material goods. However (presumably because of advanced technology) conditions of work are not onerous, in contrast to the contemporaryMetropolis in which the workers are forced to arduous exertions. To maintain the World State's command economy, citizens are conditioned to promote consumption (and hence production) with platitudes such as "ending is better than mending".

In "1984", the choices are subtly different ... but perhaps not SO different:

Nineteen Eighty-Four, often published as 1984, is a dystopian novel by English author George Orwell published in 1949.^[1][2] The novel is set in Airstrip One (formerly known as Great Britain), a province of the superstate Oceania in a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation, dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (or Ingsoc in the government's invented language, Newspeak) under the control of a privileged elite of the Inner Party, that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as "thoughtcrime."^[3]The tyranny is epitomised by Big Brother, the Party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality but who may not even exist. The Party "seeks power entirely for its own sake. It is not interested in the good of others; it is interested solely in power."

The problem is .. which dystopian world should be assigned to which current candidate?
It's a vexing question, and your choice would be as private as your vote.

BOTH worlds discourage "Critical Thinking" (sound familiar?).

CLINTON's Democratic background seems to lean toward "abundance of material goods" in that the welfare society is one of the mainstays THE Mainstay of the Democratic party; pointing toward the "Brave New World" schematic.

For myself, if I HAD to make a choice, I would consider Hillary Clinton as the Avatar of that 'party'.


TRUMP's isolationism seems more of the "1984" variety, although the "... privileged elite of the Inner Party ..." resonates for both candidates.  However, while the "Cult of Personality seems to be critical to both candidates, I'm inclined to nudge that caste toward Trump more than Clinton for the sole reason that Clinton at least has a history in Government, while Trump has nothing more than his financial success and his personality.  (Such as it is ... and it isn't much!)

Still, you need to weigh "English Socialism" on his side, as Trump is on the record as resistant to non-english-speaking-peoples emigrating freely to America.

On the other hand, "1984" promotes a Socialistic Society, which is much more congruent to Clinton than Trump.

Or is it?  I'm not sure, but I wouldn't trust either of them if they were given the reins of power.

Not to suggest that EITHER CANDIDATE HAS A PERSONALITY ... at least in the sense that you would want to take them home to meet your mother!

But BIG BROTHER is all about Trump; not saying he's a bully, but Clinton seems much more ... nuanced ... in her drive toward Total Thought Control.

And she is quite as much of a bully as Trump, except she seems more comfortable in that role.  Let's put that down to 'experience'; after all, she bullied President Bill Clingon Clinton for eight years (although with little success in suppressing his excesses.)

=========

So there you have it.

Clinton is the "Brave New World" candidate, while Trump is the "1984" Candidate.

Or the other way around; it doesn't much matter, because if you just watch their lips you see that Trump is the liar with the fat lips, and Clinton is the liar with the thin lips.

 I see both candidates as One Giant Step Forward toward a Dystopian Society, and I don't like it at all, at all, at all.

Any group of responsible individuals which can't find a reason to vote for either candidate has my sincere appreciation for their judgement, and my great sorrow for their lack of choices.

Oh, and why oh WHY, in this nation of nearly a billion peoples, can we not find Presidential Candidates which are not only electable, but admirable?

My Dear God, have we sunk this low?

Murphy's Law

My article about Senator Murphy's degrading comments on American Gun Owners  posted yesterday evinced an pertinent comment: from ANONYMOUS (who posts a LOT here!)

The fact is many high government officials do not believe that the average American citizen DESERVES protection from international or homegrown terrorism, or common criminals.

That's true; for various values of truth ... and I think it deserves a place in the Gun Blogger's Hall of Fame.

I'm declaring this "Murphy's Law" (with apologies to the movie by the same name, which was .. not so much of a much).

Someone may come up with a more terse version, but I don't think it can be much improved upon.

If I were to put it into a general case, rather than the specific, I might suggest:

Government officials do not believe that American citizens DESERVE protection from terrorists or criminals.

And thanks to my VERY good friend ANONYMOUS for continuing his fine tradition of helping me to make the point when I labor clumsily against the language.

Ammunition Encoding

The NRA is making a (relatively) Big Splash on recent state efforts to require that every bullet, and every cartridge case, carry an unique serial number which (supposedly) can lead crime investigators to identify the person who purchased the ammunition used in a crime.

I say "supposedly', because the proposal has exactly zero chance of (a) aiding crime investigators and (b) being enacted for any purpose other than infringing on America's Second Amendment.

America's 1st Freedom | The Truth About Illinois’ Ammo Serial Numbering Scheme: Do you like to hunt or shoot? If so, hang onto your wallet, because ammunition could soon become prohibitively expensive if some Democrat lawmakers get their way.  An Illinois state representative wants to impose a scheme that’s not only been proven to be a multi-million-dollar failure at solving crimes, but could also make ammunition unaffordable for honest citizens*, while leaving criminals—who make millions dealing drugs, guns and (if this legislation is passed) ammunition—untouched.  And don’t just shrug if you don’t live in Illinois: As Fox News reports, similar bills are pending in at least 20 states.

The curious thing is, this isn't the first time this proposal has been aired.  And back in 2008, when it first was caught in the spotlight, I spent some serious blogging time exploring the whys and the wherefores.

Here is a link to my accumulated list of blog articles.  It's long, because the subject is complex, but it might mention a few issues which haven't been mentioned in a brief NRA warning message.  (Feel free to skim through it; not all of the issues are mentioned in only a single article.)

Here's a brief summary:

• It would be financially impossible for ammunition manufacturers to reliable encode each bullet with the case bearing the same unique identifying number ... let's call it "ID" for simplicity.*
• Packaging at the plant would be a vital, yet labor-intensive step because if one bullet/case combination got into a package with a different ID, the manufacturer would (probably) be liable to civil suit in case one round was used during the commission of a crime, and the wrong person was arrested based on this scheme.*
• Even that is a "mega-event', because the technology to match a bullet with the case bearing the same ID is not currently available.*
• ...WHICH IS EVEN MORE complex, because the original scheme proposed that the bullet would have the ID engraved on the BASE of the bullet ... which suggests that the "Quality Control Survey" would necessarily take place before the bullet was loaded into the case.  So much for Mass Production Technology.*
• The cost of such intensive quality control and inspection* (remember these are tiny little numbers, even it can be made to happen with the machinery) would require minutes per round, rather than the less-than-a-second progress which modern manufacturing technology provides.
• The cost of the complete cartridge would therefore be magnified* by a factor of  .. oh, a thousand?  A two-cent cartridge would cost you two dollars, because bullshit-factor.

Ultimately, manufacturers of complete ammunition would refuse to upset their entire industry, and therefore their ammunition would NOT be sold to states with this kind of absurd legal requirements.

WHICH IS THE POINT OF THE EXERCISE!

These states aren't trying to "Solve Crimes"*; they're trying to do an end-run on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

(PS:  What happens when you reload your own ammunition?  In 'these states', there's a bit of a problem because you can't GET bullets with the same serial number as the cartridge case you're reloading!)

I'm pretty sure this is what the NRA is saying in their article, but they can't go into such fine detail as I can because (a) they're professionals, and (b) they assume everyone else can figure it out for themselves, and (c) they hope their warning-article will be read.

Happy Anniversary! Give Up Your Guns! Please take the back seat in the Troika!

On this, the 15th Anniversary of America's most deadly attack on home soil, it has become increasingly obvious that our elected officials on any but the local level have not the resources, the determination, nor the will to protect Americans in our homeland.   It falls upon us each and every one to "provide for our common defense" because the people who begged us to elect them to high office have thrown us to the wolves ... apparently on the basis of the "We Will Eat You Last" philosophy.


Sen. Chris Murphy rips into gun-rights movement - Connecticut Post:
(September 08. 2016)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy on Thursday took a deep dive into the interwoven worlds of the gun-rights movement and gunmakers, saying anti-government “neo-anarchist’’ Republicans are aligned with a firearms industry desperate to sell more guns to a shrinking customer base.

Funny, there are so many NEW purchasers of firearms that the number of gun owners has become significantly skewed even MORE to the right.    And although HE cannot protect us, he begrudges us the right to do the job that he can't won't do:

...  Murphy said hostility to government has become a right-wing standard, especially since the election of the nation’s first black president, Barack Obama, in 2008. ... “In an era where anti-government positioning is a hallmark of the modern right, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that increasingly Republicans are absolutist in their views on the right of citizens to own guns,” Murphy said. “They want to preserve the right of revolution as a means of showing how much they truly hate the current government, administered by President Barack Obama.”

Actually, while Constitutionalists despise all attempts to undermine the Second Amendment, and they disdain the pathetic efforts of our current President to impose a socialist system of federal and economic systems  ... the only gripe is that Obama has proved himself incompetent (or unwilling) to fulfill the duties of his office.

We just want a President who executes "The Rule Of Law" rather than  "The Rule Of Fiat".

 The gun industry, which already markets guns based on the need for self-defense at home, was only too happy to oblige, Murphy said. “Only one-third of Americans today are buying guns, as opposed to half of Americans 30 years ago, meaning that the industry is reliant on a smaller number of gun owners buying large caches of expensive weapons like the AR-15,” he said. “The number of buyers has shrunk, so the simple solution, the industry realized, is to just sell more weapons to this smaller-sized market.”

Um .. firearms sales are going up, in spite of the rapid increase of firearms ownership since the Democrats took office.  President Obama has already been hailed as "The Best Salesman In History" for the Firearms industry.   Every time the President speaks against the Second Amendment, more people rush out to buy guns for fear that He Who Will Be Obeyed might impose some arbitrary draconian edict which limits our Constitutional Rights.

Murphy thinks we're arming against Obama?  He's no threat, except that he is quite earnest in undermining our Constitution.     We're actually more concerned about the growing trend toward Domestic Terrorism, against which there IS no defense except that the common man be able to defend himself, his home, his family ...

The market is almost saturated now; most people who think they might want or need one have already "got theirs", and until those new owners learn that firearms are worth having for reasons other than home defense (hunting, competition), there should be a slump in sales.  But it hasn't happened yet.

 Another aspect of the anti-government marketing strategy, Murphy said, is convincing gun owners law enforcement cannot protect them against terrorist attacks. 

Well, actually ... Law Enforcement cannot protect the ordinary citizen against terrorist attacks.
Or criminal attacks.  Or Animal attacks.  (*LEOs cannot even protect us against attacks by our elected Congressmen!*)   Due to "budget cuts and attrition, police agencies in California are not even 'just barely holding their own' against local violence.

In point of fact, more police agencies are suggesting that citizens arm themselves because (as the police themselves warn us) they "..can't be everywhere ...".

See for yourself.

The facts of the matter are:

• If Americans ever had any faith that the Obama Administration might be effective in protecting Citizens against terrorist acts, that faith has been drowned in the blood of innocents since Obama took office.
• Murphy's tirade against honest Americans is not due to the increased show of independence against Terrorists; it's due to the increased demonstration that we are not ALL willing to be obedient to the false claims of Government that they can protect us, when it is so painfully that they cannot do so, and they will not even try.  

And if anything, it's worse than You may read here:   The Los Angeles

Murphy is America's own "Baghdad Bob"

You remember him?  He's the Iraqi leader  ("Foreign Minister") who promised that Americans are not, and never will be, in Iraq:

Murphy is in the same state of denial.   He is the joke, but nobody's laughing.

 The politicians don't want us to own guns, even for the express purpose of defending ourselves, family, friends, community,  even against the increasing terrorist attacks against which no government forces can or will stand between us and our self-declared enemies.

Ignore the Murphys who are not for us, but are against us.

It's your family, your community, your country at risk.   Do whatever you think you have to do.

 Period, dot, and of story.

The Unforgiven

Sheriff: South Carolina father said he was trying to make gun safe when he shot toddler daughters - CBS News:
(September 01, 2016)

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- A South Carolina sheriff says a father told deputies he was trying to make sure a gun was safe when he accidentally fired the weapon, killing his 2-year-old daughter and wounding her 4-year-old sister.

I don't know what to make of this horrible story.

Not only that there are few details available, apart from the above quote (and a few incidental comments in the original story), but I cannot comprehend WHY he was fumbling with his firearm.

We don't know why he was touching the gun, or where; was he in a car, where the gun was kept, and he had grown nervous about having his daughters in the car where a loaded gun was kept?  I don't know.

One thing I DO know is ... a responsible gun owner doesn't touch a gun without a good reason.  It should always be in a 'safe' condition, where-ever it is, and the gun owner should always know that it's "safe" (for various values of "safe").

Assuming the firearm was a handgun ... not that it matters ... he violated ALL the rules of gun safety.

(1) He KNEW the gun was loaded ... how was he trying to 'make it safe'?
(2) He had the gun pointed at the most precious people in his world
(3) He had his finger on the trigger ... else it would not have "... just ... it went off! ..."
(4) He had no target, nor intention to shoot, but he had his gun pointed at his daughters?

That first part is the most curious; what was he doing to "make sure (the) gun was safe"?

Set the safety?  Unload it? Store it in a locked case?  Any or all of these actions should have already been done before he touched it.

My guess is, either one of two things:

.  He had only recently acquired the gun, and wasn't familiar with the rules of gun safety; or
.  He had the gun in a car, and only began to worry about it AFTER his daughters had entered the car.

Probably wrong about both of these guesses, but one thing is for sure:

SOME PEOPLE SHOULD NEVER HAVE A GUN!

I don't know what kind of punishment The State should impose on this ... person; but I suspect there is no punishment which would be worse than the HELL which he will put himself through for the rest of his life.

He will never be forgiven ... by his family, or by himself.

OH, yesssss .... my pretty ...

Another Liberal Democrat is levering a firearms tragedy to further his political career

Washington attorney general proposes assault-weapons ban | The Seattle Times:
(Originally published September 7, 2016 at 10:50 am Updated September 8, 2016 at 5:48 am
 By David Gutman Seattle Times staff reporter

Spurred by the recent killings of three teenagers in Mukilteo, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson will propose legislation next year to ban the sale of assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines in Washington. Ferguson announced his proposal Wednesday, flanked by the parents of a fourth Mukilteo victim, who was seriously injured, as well as dozens of Democratic legislators and officials.

The legislation, which has not yet been written, would ban semi-automatic assault-style weapons — like the AR-15 rifle that police say was used by the 19-year-old accused gunman in Mukilteo in July — as well as any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition. “Military-style weapons are designed for killing people,” Ferguson said. “These weapons have no place in civilian use.”

If it need be said, none of the restrictions he proposes would have prevented this tragedy.   Ferguson is merely following the Style Book of the Democratic Party, which has leeched itself to Gun Control as the "New Democrat" talking point as typified by Hillary Clinton's willingness to vilify honest firearms owners in defiance of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

The measures he proposes are cut-and-paste from the Bloomberg/Democratic Game Plan, and have generally been dismissed as being nothing more than smoke and mirrors ... except in the few states (eg: California, New York) where the resident Pols feel they need nothing more than a thin veneer of justification for proposing laws which usurp the Second Amendment Rights of Free Americans.

POLITICS:

Ferguson is a 'marginal' Democratic politician ... but representative of this year's Donkey Kong politicians.
He needs an "issue" for his next campaign, and apparently he has focused on this one. he campaigned hard to get where he is:

Ferguson was first elected to the Metropolitan King County Council in 2003 by defeating Cynthia Sullivan, a 20-year veteran of the Council. Ferguson managed to outpoll Sullivan by about 500 votes. At the time, the council was elected on a partisan basis. He faced no general election opponent in the heavily Democratic district. During his campaign to unseat Sullivan, Ferguson knocked on 22,000 doors in the district,

There is no excuse for the kind of  adolescent rage which resulted in the death of three teens and  wounding of another.  It's difficult impossible to understand.

But after all the tragedy and the pain of loss, it's all too obvious that a politician considers any newsworthy reportage as fair game to further his own personal political career.

Transparency

IRS refuses to abandon targeting criteria used against tea party, conservative groups - Washington Times: ]

The IRS is refusing to recant the targeting criteria it used to single out tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny, according to court filings made public Wednesday that show the tax agency still struggling with the fallout from the scandal.

... and the Federal Government is just fine with a Rogue Agency which arbitrarily imposes significant burdens on groups based on their political affiliation.

Well, the Obama group promised to be "... the most transparent administration in history ...", and they have fulfilled their promise.

Surprise!  "They" have been quite up-front and open about their refusal to perform their sworn duty, which is to uphold the law.   (Arrogantly so, because they know they have the reins of power and the Public  (you and me, etc.) is too ignorant, ill-informed, and/or complaisant to do anything about it.)

 That doesn't mean that the Obama Administration is the most FAIR administration.

The mission of the Executive Branch of government is to execute (uphold) the law of the land.

When that branch refuses to perform its sworn duty, what is a poor naive populace to do?

We've already seen that this administration refuses to enforce immigration laws, now it refuses to execute its duty in regards to tax laws.   And they can get away with that, because ... Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The answer seems to be that NOBODY can force the Executive Branch to perform it's sworn duty.

Well, the Courts can ... but they haven't.

And the Legislature can ... but they haven't.

And the People can ... oh, but they cannot!


Sorry, Charley; you're screwed.  And there's not a darn thing you can do about it.

Reverse Sticker-Shock

Amy Schumer: 'I will leave the country if Donald Trump is elected President':

Amy Schumer has said she will leave the country if Donald Trump is elected US President. The actress and comedian is currently in the UK as part of a tour. "My act will change because I'll need to learn to speak Spanish because I will move to Spain, or somewhere. It's beyond my comprehension if Trump won. It's too crazy," she said.

As of this moment Trump has MY vote.   If it saves just one child ....

When GW Bush was running for president,  HUGE Hollywood Stars (Baldwin, Streissand) made the same promise.   Bush was elected, and Baldwin DIDN'T LEAVE THE COUNTRY!   That was such a huge disappointment to me.

I wonder what in the make-believe world of Hollywood Celebrities makes them so arrogant that they believe 'real people' really care what they say, think, or do.

PAST HISTORY:

Outta Here (from 2008)

Academy Award-winning actress Susan Sarandon says "anywhere but here" if Republican John McCain wins November's election. She says she will "be checking out a move to Italy. Maybe Canada, I don't know. We're at an abyss."

However, celebrities in the past do not have a stellar track record of making good on threats to flee if their candidate loses. Numerous stars vowed to pack up if George W. Bush won the 2000 election, including Barbara Streisand, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin and even Sarandon's long-time boyfriend Tim Robbins.

All still currently reside here in the U.S.

Staged Photos: Why "The Mirror Online" is not a valid news source.

Iraqi woman guns down ISIS commander as bloody revenge for making her a sex slave - Mirror Online:

Consider This "News Photo" published on "The Mirror":

"The woman, believed to be be a member of the Yazidi-Kurdish minority, shot dead senior Islamic State commander Abu Anas, according to Iraqi satellite TV network Alsumaria News"

Never mind the text of the news article:
... it's unrelated to the photo, except that the photo suggests to demonstrate a female firing a "machine gun" which may or may not have had anything to do with the headline.

Look at the belt!
There are three rounds  in the extended belt .... in alternating loops feeding the gun.   WTF?
You can't feed a belt-fed machine gun when there's a break in the belt!

Then there are a series of empty loops (or links).  Then there is a six foot length of belt dragging through the dirt until it's draped over a short wall of sandbags.

This is obviously not a .50 caliber (12.7mm) M2 Machine Gun ... looks like an M60 (7.62mm) variant, but there's still a LONG length of  'links' trailing out of the gun, and the M60 (also M2) don't leave a chain of links on the 'ejection' side of the gun.   They spew out "one at a time" to the right side of the gun, scattering indiscriminately.

Nobody runs a crew-served weapon without the Assistant Gunner, whose jobs include:

1. hump extra ammunition,
2. ensure that the feed of ammunition to the gun is not interrupted by failure to link the next belt to the in-gun belt;
3. identify and direct fire to priority targets;
4.  let the gunner know when the barrel is overheating;
5.  with the gunner, help replace the barrel when it gets too hot; and
6.  MAKE SURE THE AMMUNITION ISN'T FOULING THE GUN by introducing plant fibers, dust/dirt or other environmental elements at the gun site.

That last part includes not dragging the feeder-belt through the muck and the blood and the dirt .. which will jam a hot crew-served weapon faster than you can say "Oh, Drat!"

Sure, the photo wouldn't be possible if you had an AG crouched on the left side of the gun; you wouldn't be able to see the gun.  And it's a much more dramatic photo with a single brave female gunner, with a chain of ammunition dragging through the dust and a chain of links (ammunition expended) on the right side of the gun.

It's just ... wrong!

It offends my sense of right, for the cause of presenting a very dramatic photograph supporting the theme of the story.

It's still wrong.

...

Okay, I'll go take my meds now.

Stick a Fork In IT: It's Dead

The Democrats Will Never Confiscate Your Guns. Instead, You'll Hand them Over. - AllOutdoor.com:

 I see and hear a lot of talk about how a national gun registration and/or confiscation would be the trigger that would spark a second American Revolution, as patriots rise up to resist the jackbooted thugs who are going door-to-door taking away people’s arms.
 I have bad news for everyone who’s waiting for national registration or a mass confiscation so they can get their armed rebellion on: a national database of gun owners already exists, and a national confiscation effort will never happen. Ever. Instead, you’ll hand over your firearms peacefully. All of them, even the ones you paid cash for to some random guy on Armslist in the dead of night.

Wow!

You should go read this article and then ... read the comments!

I had no IDEA there were so many people who were willing to " ... pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor".   (oh, go to the link; I went to a great deal of trouble to find it.  Almost 30 seconds!)

My surprise wasn't so much that I found people who considered their Constitutional Rights to be the center and the soul of America; my surprise was that so many people declared themselves prepared to actually shoot at federal officers (or other minions) who might knock on their door and announce: "Hello, I'm from The Government and I'm here to survey your firearms inventory".

I don't know about you, Pal, but if they come to take my Iver Johnson .22 pistol, I'm gonna have it all boxed up and labelled "To Whom It May Concern".

I've got a wife, and three kids, and I work in a Button-Pushing Factory.    When my boss says "Hey, You, Push This Button With Your Left Hand", that's what I do.  I need my job, I love my family, and I don't want any trouble.

And I ain't lying!

Your prescriptions aren't private

If you think your prescriptions are a private matter between yourself, your health-care provider, and your pharmacist ... you're wrong.


Exclusive investigation: Your prescriptions aren't private - Story Longform:
(August 29, 2016)

“I could have lost my family, I could have lost my career,” said Marlon Jones, an assistant fire chief with the Unified Fire Authority of Salt Lake County, Utah. Jones says he was falsely charged with felonies related to doctor shopping as a result of a warrantless search by local police in Cottonwood Heights.

Investigators were looking into the theft of prescription drugs from area ambulances. With no suspects, no probable cause and no warrant, a police officer working the case logged into Utah’s controlled substance database and searched the prescription drug records for all 480 fire department employees. “I had no idea that a police officer, just on a whim, could go into my medical records and then determine what’s appropriate, in his opinion,” recounted Ryan Pyle, a fellow firefighter paramedic whose prescription records got swept up in the same warrantless search.

There are situations where other health-care providers need to know your medical history, and what prescription drugs you have been taking; this is a separate issue from law-enforcement people using your medical history in an attempt to find someone ... anyone! ... to prosecute.

There's no solution to this problem, except that if you discover that law enforcement officers have access to your medical history, and they intend to use that history to prosecute you, then you should raise holy hell.

If the police use your prescription history against you in court, your lawyer should move that any information attained by this illegal access should not be admissible in court.

We've talked about privacy issues again.  This is just another way in which well-meaning officials can use medical information against you.

Felons are exempt from the laws which require people to declare ownership of firearms, which felons are legally forbidden to possess.  This is a similar violation of the Fifth Amendment .. if not actually, then at least potentially.   See HAYNES V UNITED STATES which protects felons from prosecution from self-incrimination if they fail to register a gun which they are not legally allowed to own!

No, you do not have my permission without a warrant

Who may read my private correspondence without a warrant?

Nobody; except me, the addressee, and my mother.  And my mother is dead.

UPDATE: (9/3/16)  I'm not The Only One who objects to this governmental invasion of my personal privacy without warrant or notice.)  

the Patrick Henry Society.

FBI Director James Comey .... wants to assure us that there's nothing to see here, we should just move on.
In the meantime, he wants to invade our private conversations because he can.  
Not because he should, not because we agree to his invasion of our privacy, but because he can;
if he can break the code; since when must we count on Iphone security codes rather than the Constitution to protect our right to privacy?

He wants to have an "adult conversation"?  Then he should put on his Big Boy Pants and understand that just because that's what he WANTS, that doesn't necessarily mean he can HAVE IT!

Because Constitution.  Because WARRANT.  Because SEARCH AND SEIZURE.

Say I live on Rural Route 12, and my mailbox is a big tin thing with a red flag on the side.  If that flag is up, the mailman knows to stop and collect from my outbasket.  That's okay, that's his job and he's not reading my mail.

When you take my letters out of my mailbox, pal, you better have gone before a judge and presented a valid reason to do so.  And that judge needs to give you a warrant.  One for me, one for my neighbor, one for the stranger who just moved in down the road.  Specific cases ... not some broadly imprecise, the-whole-world "I need to read everybody's mail, 'cause one of them might be part of a conspiracy".

It's my mail, and you can't have it.  Consider that my final offer, except for the shotgun I use to keep the fox out of the henhouse.  And you're looking might red just now, pal.

Knockout Animals

David Codrea recently posted a condemnation of that "social phenomenon" (not his words) called by media "The Knockout Game".

It's not a game. It's rampant lawlessness. It's gang violence. It's a pack of jackals circling a victim


Watch this.

No "Trigger Warning", except: this is America?

  Watch while the animals find, then surround, then take down their prey.
(The video is from a commentator on Codrea's article.)

Watch them as they abuse his unconscious body, then taking his trousers and shoes, passing them around to be tossed into the air as if they were trophies.   They first take down their prey, then they violate his sanctity, then they violate his humanity.   Then they abuse his body with kicks ad punches, pick him up and toss his corpse in the air, in apparent glee.

And at some point during the killing frenzy their prey ... dies.
There may have been some time between the fatal knockout blow and his death for someone to call for an ambulance. Nobody in this video wanted  that.  They wanted to kill him, and were delighted at their success.

What are the odds, eight to one?  Hard to tell from this fuzzy video.

I've never seen anything more horrifying than this short scene.

Finally, a good reason to vote for Trump

Streisand: I’ll Leave The Country If Trump Wins | Daily Wire:

Acclaimed singer Barbra Streisand is joining the list of disgruntled celebrities threatening to leave America if Donald Trump is elected president. She made the comments during an interview with Sydney-based journalist Michael Usher during an Australian news program broadcast on Sunday.

(I'll miss Samuel L. Jackson)

Poodle Shooters

Anyone who considers the 5.56mm/.223 caliber M15 (SEMI-automatic) rifle a "Powerful Weapon" is either an ignoramus, or a Politician.
But I repeat myself.

Editorial: Finally, Democrats Speak About Gun Control:

Democrats, of course, have largely avoided the issue for many years, fearing the electoral consequences of being outgunned by the N.R.A. But in the wake of high-profile mass shootings involving powerful weapons — including a few committed by murderers with apparent terrorist leanings — and notorious killings by and of police officers in a number of cities, the party apparently thinks voters are ready to say that enough is enough. Clinton is said to be committed to making new gun restrictions a central theme of her campaign, and her choice for vice president of Sen. Tim Kaine, a former governor of Virginia who has long advocated stricter gun laws, lends credence to that scenario.

"Credence" my ...

Hillary, that bold political move is going to come back and bite you on the .....   oh, but I repeat myself.

That it wasn't a 'Battle' ... That was the Point

That Time the NRA Tied the Tiananmen Square Massacre to American Gun Rights - The Trace:

 Andrew J. Nathan, a political science professor at Columbia University, tells The Trace that if the Chinese students had handguns at Tiananmen Square, “the result would have been an even worse disaster than what occurred. The students were outmanned by huge numbers” — an estimated 10,000 troops — ”and there is no way that, even armed, they could have won that battle.”

The egrigious comments made at the "The Trace" website demonstrate how far The Left is from understanding the underlying character of the American Citizenry.

In 1989, citizens in Communist China rallied by the thousands to protest against governmental controls on their (non-existent) political rights     There were thousands of unarmed (by fiat) citizens; there were thousands of armed troops, along with tanks, sent by the government to put down a 'riot' by 'hooligans'.

Not a protest by citizens, but a "riot by hooligans".

There never was a battle; nor was a battle planned by the protesters.

Instead, there was a massacre by armed government, with tanks and mortars to back them up, against their own citizens.

Think about that.


ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

Today in America ...

... free citizens demand their First Amendment Constitutional Rights to protest, to assemble, to speak; and they are not machine-gunned by federal troops because of one of the Constitutional Rights which has received a lot of bad press in the past few decades:  the Second Amendment.

Yes, the Chinese in Tienanmen Square would have still been massacred; against tanks, and massed troops with fully automatic weapons, any citizen who tried to fire upon the Government Troops would have been shot down, or crushed by tanks.

Which, by the way, was exactly what happened.   But what if those unarmed citizens had been armed?

They would still have been machine-gunned, still have been crushed by the treads of tanks, and the "rebellion" would still have been crushed along with their bodies.

... but in America there is a constitutional right to be armed.   And as bad as the Chinese devastation of their own people was, an American devastation would not be entirely one-sided.

That would result in more than a highly publicized protest; that would result in a Civil War.  One which was not sparked by regional differences, or a demand to Secession  as our own Civil War was.

This would have been clearly understood as a People demanding their right against a Totalitarian, Tyrannical government ... and  it would have resulted in blood being shed on both sides.  It wouldn't been 10,000 troops against unarmed civilians.  It would have resulted in many, many deaths on both sides.  American troops are reluctant to fire on unarmed civilians, but they are more reluctant to fire on armed civilians who are protesting their rights.

OREGON:

Earlier this year we witnessed an attempted protest by ranchers in my home state.  It wasn't settled by the murder of hundreds of protesters; it was settled by the murder of a single leader of the protest.

(And aren't we SO much more 'civilized' than the Red Chinese?)

WAS this a murder?   It was a protest, not a battle.   One can't help but wonder how Andrew J. Nathan, a political science professor at Columbia University might have compared it to Tienanmen Square.

The only difference between China and the current administration in America is that the Chinese government is at least open in it's thuggery; the current administration in America is more .....
,,, selective.

It's nice to live in a civilized society, isn't it?

GOOOOOOOOD Morning Vietnam!

Adrian Kraunaur was one of the most beloved Disk Jockeys in Viet Nam.

I have heard that, but I never heard him; he was there in '65-66, I was there in '69-70.  So I never actually heard him.  I found this video on the web, which was him.  Here's what he really looked and sounded like.



Okay, that's not very exciting.

Now, here's Robin Williams' version:



What's important about the original interview with The Real Adrian?

He describes Robin williams as someone who was insecure and ... well, if you really care, you can go back and play the ENTIRE Adrian Kraunaur interview.

Who every thought that Robin Williams was that insecure?  Until this year.

Back Story:
So I was chatting with a friend and listening to the Radio back in 1987 (I guess) and the radio station came on with a contest:  they playing a song and asked for callers to be the first to name the song and the artist.  I said "Oh heck, that's Pink Sunshine singing "I Never Knew My Daddy Was A Funny Boy", from their album "The Wall"  (I'm making this up .. it was 30 years ago for crissakes!) and when I called the station they said "That's Right!  You just won two free tickets to "Good Morning Vietnam".

So I gave them my address, they sent me the tickets, and my friend and I went to see the movie.

I was disappointed in this YouTube video, because they never showed the punchline .... which I thought was the best line of the movie:

At the end, this cute little VietNamese kid, whom Kraunaur had made friends with, runs off into the middle of Saigon and blows himself up.

Kraunaur/Williams turns to the camera, and says his memorable line:

"That's NOT going to look good on my resume."

I guess you need a really dark sense of humor to appreciate it.

When he hanged himself, I didn't think that really looked good on his resume, either.

Blue Light Special

9 injured after balloons cause Orlando mall shooting scare:

I see where 9 people were injured in the panic resulting from some balloons popping in an Orlando shopping mall, but I don't see any reports of firearms being drawn in defense by CHL carriers.

Wasn't Florida one of the first states in America to legalize Concealed Carry?

Instead, shoppers were so amazed that their expected "Blue Light Special" didn't announce special one-time discounts on merchandise, they trampled each other in panic.

Floridians ... this is NOT going to look good on your resume!

The Witch is Back!

Re-working an old law for a new ‘effective immediately’ gun grab - Personal Liberty:

Gun owners in Massachusetts are running into all kinds of problems as they attempt to deal with Attorney General Maura Healey’s unilateral decision to ban hundreds of previously legal firearms by reinterpreting a 1998 law. Boston Herald reported that Healey is taking a new approach to enforcing the law, which mirrors the federal assault weapons ban which expired in 2004, to keep gun makers from producing state-compliant versions of the rifles on the ban list.

Wimpy HEALEY sez:

"I would gladly ban you tomorrow for a gun that is legal today!"

What we have here is an 'ex post facto law', which means that you (gun owner) are penalized today for some act you legally performed yesterday (bought a firearm); because Healey says that you have purchased an object which, although legal when you bought it, is no longer legal. So you are liable to awful penalties.

Because ... Healey.

There are flies all over this reeking pile of doggie-doo, and only the people who might be directly affected by this the proposed law are calling "SHAME!" on it.

PERSONAL NOTE:  I once had an RTO (Radio-Telephone Operator) named Healey working for me, who proved his courage by calmly continuing to maintain contact with 'higher authorities' under direct fire as I was crying for illumination (flares from Base Camp Artillery) during a fire-fight.   He got through, directed adjustment for consecutive Artillery Flares so we could see what we were shooting at, and was entirely unruffled during the entire kerfuffle.   I hope he is not related to the Healey-creature in question, because I thought he was an exemplary individual.

The Venezuelan Solution

In blood-drenched Venezuela, police may be part of the problem

The police (and the Military) in Venezuela have a tough decision to make every day.

They don't know whom to shoot.

The Militants, the Criminals, or the Citizens?  

Tough call, so the Police and Military have refined their problem until it is no longer a problem:

Just shoot everybody who has a gun.

The Criminals and the Militants have also adopted this philosophy, except that they don't require their victims to have a gun.   They just shoot everybody.

In fact, they often shoot police (and military) just to gain possession of their guns.

The Citizens of Venezuela are in a quandary, though; they're not legally allowed to own a gun, but they know that the police, the military and the criminals consider them to be sheep; all three groups predate on them to one degree or another, and so they have decided that it's better to be shot for a wolf than a sheep.

As a consequence, they find guns, somewhere, if only to protect themselves from the police, the Military, and the Criminals.   Hell, they're going to die anyway!

Which doesn't work out very well for the (otherwise) peaceful citizens of Venezuela, except that they might ... maybe .. someday .. be able to defend themselves against the criminals; who are not necessarily to greatest threat to the peaceful citizens of Venezuela, and their families.

In America, there is a great cry to restrict legal firearms possession to the police, and the military.

Criminals, it is widely accepted, will have guns anyway.

But in a country (Venezuela .. I love that name) where firearms ownership is forbidden, as soon as an honest citizen acquires a firearm to protect themselves ... they have allowed themselves to be a target for the police, and the military.

Well, they're already a target for the criminals.  And in Venezuela, there is a fine line between police, military and criminals.  A line which has been crossed, as a matter of course.


Venezuelan military/police have been murdered by criminals for the sole purpose of acquiring their guns.

Some Americans have made the case that firearms in America should only be possessed by police, and Military.

Is this what you want America to turn into?  You want to live in a Northern Venezuela?

Remember .. in America, police have no obligation to protect citizens from crime.   Even the near likelihood of murder imposes on obligation on police to protect citizens.  Their job is to show up when the blood runs cold, and 'investigate'.  Not to stop mureders.

And today, in California, a new law designed to keep arms away from 'dangerous persons' is adding problems to the already addled mix of Laws and Permissions, to the point where nobody seems comfortable with their Second Amendment rights because .... who knows?

It seems to me that when you try to abridge constitutional rights, you've opened a Pandora's Box of complications and confusion which serves no citizen well.  

California has long been a hotbed of conspiracy against the Constitution; the lawmakers there seem to consider their state to be the testing ground of new ways to impose limitations on the civik rights of their citizens.

Other than as an exercise of their power over the people who elected themselves to high office, it's difficult to understand why elected officials in California should consider their High Office as a license to steal ... steal away the freedoms, steal away the protections, and steal away the dignity of their fellow citizens.

I use to live in California.  It has an "iffy" weather pattern, they buy water from other states and could not otherwise sustain their bloated (both in ecological and political terms) population.

There is not a great deal to choose from, between Venezuela and California.

Except that in Venezuela, you get to shoot the bastards.

UC to Students: you're here to be challenged, not to be pampered

U. of C. tells incoming freshmen it does not support 'trigger warnings' or 'safe spaces' - Chicago Tribune:

University of Chicago Dean of Students John Ellison told incoming freshmen in a letter what they should expect on campus. "Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called 'trigger warnings,' we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own," the letter said.

The idea of a "University" is to introduce thinking individuals to the thoughts which are new to them.   It's not to teach them how think; if they couldn't think for themselves, they shouldn't have qualified for admission.

It's not to teach them what to think: they could read books, which they may have selected because the ideas are familiar to them.   Inside their comfort zone, so to speak.

A university education is a waste of time and resources for people who need to be taught how or what to think.   Better that they go back home and marry the high-school JV quarterback or cheerleader and make beautiful babies, who hopefully will grow to be more inquisitive than their second-string parents.

The goal of a higher education is to encourage young minds to grow, to expand beyond what their basic education has taught them: the mechanics, the ABC's, math, geography, Civics ... the basics which give them the tools to evaluate new experiences, new thoughts, new opinions, new world views.

Students are deprived of a "higher education" when they are not exposed to ideas they have not heard, and viewpoints they have not considered.

At the College level, students are all about exploring, but usually it's their physical universe which has expanded.  Sex, Drugs, Rock 'n Roll.  You go gurl!    Learn how to drink and politely find a garden or a toilet to barf instead of inundating your host's Hawaiian shirt with gastric effluvium.

And too often they learn nothing from the academic courses which they (or more likely, their parents) have been saving for decades to teach them.

UC has made the bold step to actually challenge their incoming students, from the first day.
Not a challenge to their social identity; UC chooses to challenge their intellectual curiosity.

And students who don't HAVE any intellectual curiosity may soon understand that the hollowed halls of ivy aren't really where they belong.  Perhaps they're not actively in search of intellectual broadening; in which case they can go home to State U. and get their sheepskin without having to actually think.

They, the University, and the world are better off not wasting their time and ours with the pursuit of casual dalliance.

This is NOT Your Father's University!

White Privilege vs White Guilt

State university hosts 'Stop White People' training: Report - Washington Times:

Read through the convoluted language of the opening paragraphs (I provided the indents between paragraphs), and tell me you don't understand why I am so grateful that I'm no longer sucking on the public tit.

The State University of New York (SUNY) at Binghamton reportedly hosted a training course for residential assistants on how to “stop white people.”
The course, titled “#StopWhitePeople2K16,” was listed on the university’s residential assistant training schedule for an event to give RAs an “overview of disabilities in Higher Education,” according to the Binghamton Review, the school’s student-run conservative newspaper.(emphasis added)

Stop White People?

Geeze, Louise, the entire premise is racist.   It was conceived and implemented by 'people' who don't believe that 'white people' can be the object of racism, because of  'white privilege'.

I don't know what others may think, but I worked my way through college.  My parents could only sign  "Guaranteed Student Loan" papers on faith that I wouldn't default, because they damn sure didn't have the money to put me through college.  I caught a couple of scholarships because of my grades, but I started mowing lawns when I was 10 years old and worked weekend and vacations through high-school, and found summer jobs through college.

Judge Napolitano at Mises: Natural Law | Oath Keepers

Judge Napolitano at Mises: Natural Law | Oath Keepers:
I've never heard Napolitano speak:   I've missed out on one of the natural wonders of the universe.

Thanks to Oathkeepers  for providing this stirring speech by a jurist and a patriot whose subject is: "The natural law as a restraint against Tyranny".

From back in November, 2014, the ... video reaches deeply into philosophical queries regarding the relationship between the individual and a government. 

I won't embed the video here; credit to my source.   Go there and be prepared to spend twenty-two minutes in spellbound awe.

(Hey, I'm not joking around here!   If you're not spellbound, I will give you double your money back!)

“Making legal arms illegal is infringement.”

Page Nine: American Protection of Arms Declaration:

Alan Korwin:

... No degree of legal wrangling, court justifications, developed legal theories, codified opinions, law review articles, so-called popular opinion, telephons or other attempts to rationalize away the obvious can negate the fact that outlawing legal property is an abuse of power, plain and simple. The heinous excuse of outlawing property as a response to crime, the jihad or international threats is among the most corrupt, reprehensible and offensive. These are intolerable acts.

 If guns we have today are declared illegal , that by its very nature infringes our right to keep and bear those arms. Such action is banned -- and ultimately banned by the very firearms themselves.

 But America now has a candidate running whose very platform includes going after arms held by the people. And her followers are so poorly educated on the subject they cheer her -- and her insanely heavily armed cohorts. The irony is beyond Orwellian. It's time for the political class to understand that governement (sic) on these civil rights exceeds delegated power, and the consequences of usurpation are too high to risk. Just so we're clear: “Making legal arms illegal is infringement.” ...

This is the bare bones: go read it for the meat.

Joe Huffman