Napolitano: What if you needed permission?

Published on Oct 20, 2016

 Judge exposes the “Big Deception”!

(Judge And NSA “The Big Deception” and "Constitutional Chaos" )

(Pretty Radical stuff!)

Note this sequence includes more than one video, and the transition is not obvious.

Gun Ownership v Firearm Deaths

So America has the most guns, but less crimes?

Telegraph: U.S. Top Country for Gun Ownership, Not Even in Top 10 for Firearm Deaths - Breitbart:

On October 22 The Telegraph published a map showing the U.S. leads the world in private firearm ownership but does not even crack the Top 10 when it comes to firearm-related deaths.

The interesting fact, which is not mentioned in the Telegraph article, is that of the Top 10 nations in firearms ownership ... only ONE of those nations (Uruguay) is listed in the Top 10 in firearm-related deaths.

Which once again seems to vindicate Dr. John Lott's assertion that "More Guns = Less Crime".

As Rachel Weisz said in THE MUMMY:

"Take THAT, Bainbridge scholars!"

Oh ... and on a final note:

Many of the "Top 10 in Firearms Deaths" nations permit few, if any, civilians to possess firearms.

Saint, Showman or Charlatan?

Representative Trey Gowdy (R/SC) is a politician, and I instinctively distrust politicians of every stripe.

But I've been watching a lot of videos lately featuring the Honorable Gentleman from South Carolina, and Mr. Gowdy is one hell of an orator!



This is a representative melange of his in-house speeches.

I like a lot of the things he has to say.

(If you haven't the patience for a one-hour video, search youtube or google.)

Clinton as gun control candidate

This sort of campaign rhetoric will NOT hurt Clinton during the elections.

Email: Clinton's 'Forceful' Gun Position Had Some Democrats 'Freaking':

Clinton has supported an “assault weapons” ban and expansion of background checks to gun sales between private parties. She has praised Australia’s mandatory gun buyback program as a “good example” and something that is “worth considering” in the United States, something no other major party candidate had previously done. She also told donors the Supreme Court is “wrong” on the Second Amendment, calling into question the landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which affirmed that the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

(H/T "New Jovian Thunderbolt")

In what may be acknowledged as the most radical presidential election in American History, a radical stance may prove to be the best technique for the Liberal candidate.

“Already, she has been more forceful on guns/gun lobby than any other person who ever seriously ran for president,” 

People who are opposed to her gun control plans won't vote for her anyway, so she has nothing to lose in this demographic.

She is positioning herself with the "Radical Left", and they love it.

On the other hand, they already love her ... so it's not clear that her Gun Control stance is likely to gain her more than a few votes.

And nobody loves "The Donald".

In voting for Trump over Clinton, the American electorate may find themselves in the position of the naval officers in the movie "Master and Commander":

October 19, 2016 4:43 pm
Hillary Clinton’s “forceful” stance in favor of gun control caused some members of the Democratic Caucus to freak out, an email exchange published Wednesday shows.
Campaign staffers and outside strategists discussed the best way to approach issues such as President Obama’s handling of foreign policy, Wall Street, and gun control during a back and forth over an internal strategy memo in December 2015. Much of the conversation focused on how Clinton could differentiate herself from Obama in ways that would be advantageous to the campaign. One consultant pointed out during the exchange that Clinton was already “more forceful on guns/gun lobby than any other person who ever seriously ran for president” and some unnamed Democratic Caucus members were “freaking out about it.”

Hillary quote: Yes, we DO want to take your guns! (history)

Clinton Won't Say if Right to Bear Arms is Constitutional Right:  (Video in link)
June 5, 2016 9:58 am

 Hillary Clinton couldn’t definitively say Sunday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guaranteed the right to bear arms during an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. Republican rival Donald Trump has charged that Clinton wants to abolish the amendment.
While Stephanopoulos said he knew that wasn’t true, he pressed her on her gun views that have increasingly gone to the left. “Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it’s not linked to service in a militia?” he asked.
 “I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia, and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulations,” she said. “So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Translation:  Yes, we DO want to take your guns.

(Quote Provided  for people who want to prove her actual words vis-a-vis 2nd Amendment Rights.
Yes, someday she will deny and/or quibble about her statement: you have proof here.)

It gets worse!

And then it gets MUCH WORSE!  (Toddler Alert!)

How NOT to market "Smart Guns"

German arms maker Armatix to release second smart gun in U.S. | Computerworld:

Yes, it's another article about how great Smart Gun Technology is.

The only problem is, nobody wants to buy them.
Even as new standards are being considered and proposed, nobody wants to buy them anyway.

This article mentions the 'problems' the makers  (Armatix) are having, trying to get someone to BUY their product.  But in the text, it's the bad things about Smart Guns that jump out at the reader.

(1) Useless Caliber

German firearms manufacturer Armatix LLC is planning to release its second smart gun in the U.S. next year after sales of its first model -- the .22 caliber iP1 -- were quashed by pressure from some gun owners and gun rights advocates who saw it as a threat to Second Amendment freedoms.

There's not a lot of people who are looking for a teeny .22LR pistol.   So maybe it is a good idea to build one with an actual usable caliber.

Oh, and BTW?  Nobody likes RFD which might conceivably be over-ridden by "outside agencies"!

Armatix finally figured this one out all by themselves:

 Unlike the iP1, which used RFID technology, the new iP9 9mm semi-automatic pistol will have a fingerprint reader. The iP9 will be available in mid-2017, according to Wolfgang Tweraser, CEO and president of Armatix LLC.

Good for you.  You're making a 9mm .. which is still (in the opinion of 'old school' pistol owners, a "Poodle Shooter".  But it's a step in the right direction.

(2) Overpriced!

So, why would someone want to pay over $1,000 for a tiny pistol?

The iP9 is expected to retail for about the same suggested retail price as the iP1 -- $1,365, which is more than twice the price of many conventional 9mm semi-automatic pistols. While smart gun technology will always bring with it a price premium, Tweraser said that's to be expected, and he compared it to a Tesla electric car.

Yes, well ... the advantage of electric cars is that they will probably, in the long run, save money because electricity is cheaper than gasoline.   But that's a fallacious comparison because you'll never get a return for your dollar by buying a 'Smart Gun'.

(3) Arrogant marketing!

But the manufacturer thinks the introductory price is reasonable:

"Always the latest technology comes with a higher price tag. As you make hundreds and thousands of units, then the price will change also," Tweraser said. "We're not going to replace regular guns because of the price point also."

And you wonder why you can't sell your guns in America?   You are so cocksure in the value of your product you ignore the fact that you have to build a market almost before you build the product.

You're not doing that.

Hell, you can't even find dealers!

When your firearms are competitively price, you will at least get a few people to buy the gun.   Maybe they will try it, discover that it's worth more than they paid for it, and tell their friends.

 You're not going to replace regular guns until you can COMPETE with regular guns!  Your marketing strategy today ... sucks.   Today, you can't afford to  "make hundreds and thousands of units";  when you start SELLING "hundreds and thousands of units", that's when you can start jacking up the price.   It's also called "The Law Of Supply And Demand".  Right now, you have too much supply because you have no demand for your product.

(4) Identify, and Sell to  your market

Who buys guns?

Hunters, Home & Personal Defense folks, plinkers, competition shooters, collectors, military and police, Governments, new firearms owners .. that's the potential market.

This product appeals Plinkers and New Firearms Owners in the .22 caliber configuration.  Not a big market for a small pistol which costs almost $1,400.

In the 9mm caliber, you MIGHT get some "Home & Personal Defense" people interested.

Hunters, Competition Shooters, military & police, they're not going to ... I think the expression is "I wouldn't touch that with YOUR dick!"   So, your market is probably limited to Home & Personal Defense buyers.

That's a very SMALL niche market, especially since the sub-set of that group will probably be "New Gun Owners", and they need to be romanced carefully.

You're doing okay with emphasizing how SAFE your gun is, and probably many most buyers are  will be young homeowners with children in the house.

Your niche just became much smaller.

Now all need to do to sell to a sustainable market (hopefully, more than 100 a month, nationwide) is to get them into the hands of this group, and let them do your marketing for you.

Did I mention  young, homeowners, children?

They're dealing with bloated mortgages and childrens' college trust funds, and you want to sell them a pistol for $1400 (plus plus ... license, taxes, permits, etc.)  Thank Goodness you brought it out in 9mm, which at least justifies some of the cost.

New Jersey!
New Jersey was the 11th of the original 13 colonies.

And it was the first in America to pass a state law that, as soon as (well, 3 years after) a "Smart Gun" became available for civilian purchase an America, only "Smart Guns" would be eligible for purchase in the state.

Unfortunately, the ARMITIX was the only gun in America that met the criteria, so after it came on the market the entire state of NJ was locked into selling only YOUR firearm ... what a great marketing moment for you!

Too bad your version was untrusted, and the available make/model/caliber was so limited, because suddenly you started a whole new revolution.  

Dealers who attempted to retail your gun were threatened because of the precedent which was set by ONE idiotic NJ Salon, and ONE underfunded manufacturer  (cough *Armitix*) was unable to meet the demand, provide a sufficiently wide range of desireable make/model/caliber, and the world came to an end until the NJ Governor nixed the whole damn thing.

Not a great publicity moment for Armitix.

So, I am guessing that the corporate gurus in Armitix are trying to figure a way to dig out of this black hole.

Here are a few suggestions, if you wish to continue making a "Smart Gun":

• make it in many calibers
• find a better platform
• get it tested AND ACCEPTED by LEO and military ... because if they won't trust their life to it, no civilian is going to trust their life to it in a self-defense situation
• find a price that will allow you to get it on the market, even if you have to take a loss
• about New Jersey ... sorry about that.  You lose.

Hope you have a large number of investors with very deep pockets, because you need to rethink your concept, design, marketing, vision and leadership

And after that?  

You're still screwed.

You're building a product which just isn't good  enough  to meet a market which just isn't big enough to justify the effort.

And very few people who are BUYING guns wants it, anyway.  They don't trust it.

Only state legislators want it, and they're all a bunch of pusillanimous idiots that nobody listens too!

"Maybe in six or seven years" ... (as John Wayne said to Ben Johnson in "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon").

The Weapon Shops of Isher

 "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free"

That is the theme from a book by A.E. van Vogt, ca 1941.

A.E. van Vogt wrote a series of short stories (or almost novelettes) starting in 1941, and eventually all three were compiled into this single novel:

The Weapon Shops of Isher (eBook): A. E. van Vogt

Here's a blurb from AMAZON website:

With the publication, in the July 1941 issue of Astounding Science Fiction magazine, of the story Seesaw, van Vogt began unfolding the complex tale of the oppressive Empire of Isher and the mysterious Weapon Shops. This volume, The Weapon Shops of Isher, includes the first three parts of the saga and introduces perhaps the most famous political slogan of science fiction: The Right to Buy Weapons is the Right to Be Free. 

Born at the height of Nazi conquest, the Isher stories suggested that an oppressive government could never completely subjugate its own citizens if they were well armed. The audience appeal was immediate and has endured long beyond other stories of alien invasion, global conflict and post war nuclear angst.

Bear that in mind, as you read this segment from President Abraham Lincoln's immortal 1863 Gettysburg Address:

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow, this ground-- The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.

Unfortunately, the world (and America) have forgotten "... what they did here ...".

And we have largely forgotten why those men dedicated their lives to either preserve the union, or to divide it.

The Gettysburg Address begins: "Four-score and Seven years ago ...", referring to the number of years (87) between the Declaration of Independence (1776) and his current date (1863).  

Van Vogt wrote his seminal novel starting in 1941 ... only days before the beginning of the Pearl Harbor Attack on December 07, which initiated America's entry in what became World War II.  In Lincoln's parlance, that would be "three score and 15 years ago"; not quite as impressive as Lincoln's reference to the gap between the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Gettysburg (1863), but still it is a significant period between 'then' and 'now'.

If Americans had not thought about "Defense" since The Great War (WWI .... 1914-1918), they were certainly beginning to think about it after Pearl Harbor.   Perhaps Van Vogt's novel, which detailed the value of 'personal responsibility' and 'personal defense' found a more receptive audience than it might otherwise have received.

Now we find our country divided again.  Amazingly, the issue now is much the same; what vision for our country must we support?  The Constitution, or appeasement of those who would undermine our rights?

And if Americans cannot find the energy to consider whether their current political climate might be the precursor to Tyranny, they might pay more attention to the Party of Exclusiveness which is striving to infringe upon our Constitutional Rights ... now, more than ever.

"... Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta feared “blowback” from their own supporters if they pushed gun control in Arizona".

Regardless, the book has been hailed as a classic for decades,   Not just because of its timeliness, not just because it's well-crafted, but because it delves into the heart of the America Experience.

 "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free"

The next time someone asks you "Why would ANYONE want to buy a [name the currently least politically correct firearm]", you might consider using those eleven words.  
It's easier to remember, and much shorter than an extended dialogue with a gun-grabber.

(And ...yes, I DO have a paperback copy of this book, somewhere in a box in a shelf.  I'll have to dig it out and read it again.  As I recall, it's well worth the read.)




xxx

EDNDO and Gun Control

Support Gun Control You Child Hating Bigot
This has already been published, but if anyone who reads this doesn't read EDNDO (I know, silly)
... you probably will be informed, or at least entertained, by the simple Democratic Imperative:


YOU DO WHAT I SAY!!

The Ugliest Gun In The World!

POTD: Pumpkin Glock 19 - The Firearm Blog:

While I was pulling up some information on the Glock 19 for the review we just posted, I stumbled across this monstrosity. The pumpkin pie Glock looks to be a rather well abused Gen 3 gun with one of the worst stipple jobs I have ever seen, or are those teeth marks?

The author apologizes for being "a bit harsh" in his criticism.

I say he didn't go far enough.

I've always contended that a Glock was the ugliest gun in the history of gun-making, but this goes FAR beyond!

And I live in a town where the College Colors are "Orange and Black"!

New Jersey: "You do what I say you do!"

NJ holding police depts hostage to push 'smart guns'... - Gunmart Blog

I'm not sure that the mayor of Newark has the power to dictate to Major Firearms Manufacturers.

If the police departments in New Jersey require firearms which are "Dependable", rather than "Politically Acceptable ... aren't the police the people who are putting their lives on the line?

Shouldn't the police, who live or die by the reliability of their firearms, be the people who are defining the specifications for "acceptable weapons"?

Perhaps not:

(Newark Mayor Ras J. Baraka demands:)

Surrounded by clergy and bi-partisan groups on the steps of Newark City Hall Thursday afternoon, Baraka called on all New Jersey mayors to convene before purchasing additional weapons for their law enforcement agencies and create a list of manufacturers who are listening to their concerns, chiefly: safer gun distribution practices and technologies.
"We put our money in places, with people who support what we think is right for our community," Baraka told NJ Advance Media following the press conference. "You're talking about over 560 municipalities in the State of New Jersey. If we can get a quarter of them to say, 'Look, we agree with this, and we're not going to purchase bullets, guns or whatever from these four or five manufactures until (they) do what we ask them to do.'"

Is this guy requiring smart guns?  Or has he made under-the-counter deals with a few manufacturers just for the badda-boom?

Is it all about the money?

Is that what it's all about?  Where the mayor of Newark wants to put his money, determines what quality of firearms are distributed to the police, who need to defend their lives every day?

"You do what I say you do!

Not "carry friendly"? Texas has an AP for that!

Personally, I don't know if this is necessary.  But Texas is a big state and it would be a disappointment to travel a way to get what looks like a good deal only to find the business doesn't support your 2nd Amendment  rights.

Texas Phone App Shows 'Second Amendment Unfriendly' Businesses Near You:
(October 11, 2016)

Gun advocates and licensed to carry holders can search for and add businesses to the interactive website or use the iPhone and Android apps for free. The founder of the website, Russell Jones told Breitbart Texas, “This is not a for-profit venture. We are in it to help the community because it’s important to know both who supports the Second Amendment and who allows us to protect ourselves and our families.” The Texas3006.com website has almost 11,000 registered users and 9,200 updated entries.

(H/T: thegunfeed.com)

I am fortunate that I live within walking distance of a Kroger store (Fred Meyers).   They don't post rude signs on the door, and they have a corporate philosophy that CHL folks are their friends and neighbors ... and darned good customers.   (Now they have a gas station in town, so they even get my business there,)   I purchase most of my 'consumables' there, but they don't have much of a sporting goods department.    So I just go to Bi-Mart for those items, (including ammo in calibers I don't reload) which is another business without rude signs on their door.

Why give your money to a business that doesn't trust you?

Debate doesn't talk about gun control? Good choice!

Personally, I don't believe either Presidential Candidate understands either the Constitution or the "common man".   So when they are asked to address the Second Amendment, both are thinking about their bodyguards ... they're not worried about you and me.

Gun-control groups fume over debate omission | TheHill: The bipartisan Open Debate Coalition posed a series of questions Americans voted to ask the candidates.

The most popular question: “Would you support requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales?” The second-most popular question: “How will you ensure the Second Amendment is protected?” 

Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, briefly spoke about guns without being prompted by the moderators.
"I respect the Second Amendment, but I believe there should be comprehensive background checks and we should close the gun show loophole and close the online loophole and we should try to save as many lives as we possibly can,” Clinton said toward the end of the debate, according to the Brady Campaign.

It's not reported here whether Ms. Hillary addressed the second-most popular question".  As far as anyone can tell (and we're just guessing), she has absolutely no intention at all of protecting the Constitutional rights of Americans.

PS:   There are no loopholes.  There are merely constitutional rights which Hillary doesn't like.

Mexico moves to arm private citizens..... legally!

A Mexican senator has moved to allow citizens of his country the legal right to "keep and bear arms", using the U.S. Constitution as an example.

PAN  (Mexican) Senator Jorge Luis Preciado made public the initiative to carry guns on vehicles and businesses, supports the Second Amendment of the US Constitution staunchly defended Donald Trump

(NOTE: Quotes in this article represent automatic translation from the original Spanish.  The sometimes labored translation is a computer feature, not an attempt to make the language sound less comprehensible.  It's my fault, I can't speak Spanish!)

Preciado is by law to arm citizens, evokes amendment 'flag' Trump | Excelsior:

Rodriguez ruled that this initiative demarcation of their obligations to the authorities responsible for providing security to citizens; in this regard, he considered that this measure will help to assist the state in this issue. He asserted that the Mexican State has failed in its duty to protect citizens from crime, since in the United States, where it is allowed to carry firearms since 1789, the homicide rate is 4.7 per hundred thousand inhabitants, while that in our country the average is 21 homicides per hundred thousand inhabitants; and he pointed out that in states like his native Colima, or Guerrero, the figure is 56 homicides. He explained that this initiative seeks to prevent crime, since a criminal will think twice before attacking a house or a business.

Preciado is generous in recognizing that the rate of homicides in Mexico exceeds that in the United States by a factor of over 4 times as many murders per 100,000 citizens.

Personal opinion:  As is the case in America, the high "gun-violence" rate in Mexico is driven by gangs and drugs  (ie: cartels).

Unlike America, the average citizen in Mexico is unable to legally possess a firearm.  Which makes them victims of the criminals (back to the drug cartels) who do not fear the legal consequences of having been found to possess a firearm.

(The Cartel members just shoot the Federales and impose their own laws on what they consider their own private turf.   Oh, and they own the judges ... except for the few who are used to 'set an example' by killing the honest judges and their families, in horrible ways.)

I think it's about time that Mexico chose to allow private citizens to keep arms in defense of the criminals, which are the underground government by virtue of the fact that they are armed, and most law-abiding citizens are not.

Since the police and the army are also owned by the cartels, that puts the honest, private citizen in the position of facing hundreds of potential attackers with nobody watching his back.

As unpopular as it will probably turn out to be, Rodriguez is trying to keep his fellow citizens from being nothing more than targets that can't shoot back.

Viva Zapata!

Diversity is more important than reliability: DOJ

DOJ: Criminal Background Checks, Citizenship Requirements Barriers to Police-Force Diversity:

The Department of Justice decided  that it's a bad idea to keep "undocumented aliens" (non-citizens) from working in Law Enforcement jobs because ... diversity.

These people know other languages, and legal Americans don't.   Good point!

That's important when you're interrogating people who cross the American borders illegally.  You know, like drug mules and rapists and murderers.   These people need to be interrogated in their native language, to determine whether their motives to immigrate illegally are societally valid.  

It's a shame that America only judges emigrants based on legal issues; isn't it enough that they want to join us because they can work for low wages?

Why SHOULDN'T we hire them to police our laws?  Should we hold it against them, that they have demonstrated their willingness to break the law in order to gain admittance?   Are we that petty?

Shouldn't we trust our Government?

Let us give Hillary our vote ... and all of our firearms

In the immortal words of Father Francis John Patrick Mulcahy (*M*A*S*H*) ....

Jocularity, Jocularity, Jocularity!

The Hillarity has spoken, and plans to decree gun control by ... well .. decree.

Wikileaks Release: Hillary Clinton Press Sec Says Gun Control to Be Implemented by Executive Order - Breitbart:

Breitbart News has previously reported that Clinton pledged gun control by executive order. She began pushing executive gun control right after the shooting in the Umpqua Community College gun free zone. That incident occurred on October 1, 2015, three days before Fallon’s email that Clinton “would support…closing the gun show loophole by executive order.” This is in line with a Washington Post report that Clinton wants to use executive orders “to go further than Obama” went  on gun control.

Incidentally, the "Gun Show Loophole" played no part in the Oregon massacre (UMPQUA Community College is two hours drive from my home).   The murderer passed all the bells and whistles of the Background Check which had been recently and universally imposed in Oregon.

Good to know that with new restrictions on firearms purchases, nobody in Oregon need fear a massacre.  Other than the one in Roseburg, of course.  But it's not the fault of Oregon Voters ... they already made that a crime!

But I digress.

Hillarity's proposal (we have this only by quotes from by the members of her personal staff) is to require back ground checks on all firearms transfers, both public (dealers) and personal (private citizens who don't sell firearms for a living .... like me giving my .30-30 to my son, etc).

That will surely stop all these nasty massacres which are upsetting the people.

Did I mention that the Umpqua shooter passed a background check?

Is it possible that politicians (Hillary) know that background checks don't constrain mass murderers, but they put us honest firearms owners through massive impositions on the 2nd Amendment just because it makes the politicians look really good on video?

Oh, and the background checks require that the firearms involved be identified by make, model and serial number.   Nobody knows how that affects the verification of the buyer and the seller, but it DOES provide data to a Universal Data Base on who own why firearm.

I suppose it would be petty for us to assume that this is part of the greater plan to populate a registration database.

And ... oh, apropos of absolutely nothing at all:

Cops won't use "Deadly Force" because of fear of "social media"

Some police today are so conscious of "Social Media" that they would rather take a beating with bruises than take a beating with social ostracism.

This is "Chi-town"?

Chicago police officer feared using gun while being attacked | abc7chicago.com:

"She thought she was going to die. She knew that she should shoot this guy, but she chose not to, because she didn't want her family or the department to have to go through the scrutiny the next day on national news," Supt. Johnson said. 

I know I couldn't do the job.  
Being a police officer .. that's the toughest job in the world. And I'm not "up to it".

But to learn that some police would rather risk their own life, instead of just shooting the asshole who is pummeling them, is something that I've never considered.

 A nearby business captured surveillance video of the incident. The owner didn't see the incident firsthand, but saw how the incident unfolded on the surveillance video.
"It is terrible. It is total disregard for law enforcement. They put their lives forward every day for us and to see somebody do this, to pummel the police officer is terrible. It is a terrible thing," business owner Louie Rainone said.

I want to be proud of this officer, who is willing to give her life at the hands of a brute who thinks nothing of pummeling a sworn officer to the point of ... possible ... death.   But at the same time, I'm appalled that she would make that terrible choice and let this VIOLENT BRUTE go free.

How is it, that we are so conflicted with the duties of our police, that we cannot support them in the execution of their duties?

Why do we ask so much of them, that they are willing to risk death, and accept the certain infliction of pain and Public Mortification, for the sole purpose of protecting their fellow officers from social ostracism?

Can't we just let them do their job, and take into custody the obvious "Bad Guys" without concern for how their legal actions would look bad in the Press?

Since when has the Fifth Estate taken a greater importance than the reasonable imposition of Law and Order?Surely, there are opportunities for sworn officers to abuse the power of their office.

I'm know a number of Police Officers, and I've known them to be honorable, and compliant with the duties of their office.   I live in a small town, in a small state, and perhaps police in other jurisdictions are less ... attendant to the duties of their office.  

But I've never met a police officer who was other than polite, respectful, and competent.

"Send In The Clowns" ... NOT!

Fort Wayne Man Dressed As Clown Shot In Head; Condition Critical - Daily Finesser:

FORT WAYNE, INDIANA –  Fort Wayne police were called just after 10:30 p.m. Sunday to an address at 4701 Plaza Dr., near Standish Street just south of McMillen Park, on a report of a shooting there. When police arrived they found a man in a clown costume shot in his head in critical condition. Fort Wayne Police Department spokesperson Michael Joyner said a white colored suv pulled up alongside of the clown. A man was driving. Joyner said the man got out of the car and fired several shots. The man then got back in the suv and headed north on Plaza. 

Hmm ... let me see what this means:


Clown mask to be banned in USA: wearing one could cost you $50,000

Congress Has Authorized Police Officers to Shoot and Kill Suspicious Clown

Woman mistaken as frightening clown shot and killed at Walmart parking lot

Woman with too much makeup mistaken as clown; attacked by angry mob

Are we REALLY this entirely, clue-less, that we're freaking out because of Clown Warnings?

Or is the American Press quite so ready to so over-report 'exceptional events' that they willingly start anew meme which is killing people?

My best guess is: "YES!"

But no, not really.

All of these "reports" are from the same website, AKA:  "Daily Finesse"

And here am I, accidentally and irresponsibly promoting what might be the WORST website on the internet!

I should be ashamed of myself ...

...  but I'm not

(By The Way .. this should show the fierce clown mask .. if it takes longer to load than you expect, or if it doesn't load at all ... Be Very Afraid, for Halloween has occurred earlier than scheduled!)

Kim Kardashian robbery

Celebrities are set to increase their security in the wake of Kim Kardashian robbery | Daily Mail Online:

In the wake of Kim Kardashian being held at gunpoint and robbed of  8.5 million worth of jewellery in Paris, high profile celebrities look set to increase their security.

As if we care.

Barbra Weighs In: The 500 lb Gorilla Speaks!

Barbra Streisand endorses California gun control initiative | The Sacramento Bee:

Barbra Streisand is hoping California voters will soon make gun violence the way we were. In a fundraising email Wednesday, the Oscar-winning actress and singer endorsed Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 63, the November ballot initiative that would institute background checks for ammunition purchases and other new gun control regulations. 

There's something squeaky about The Way We Were: we didn't use to have to wade thorough background checks to purchase ammunition, as Proposition 63 would mandate.

Why would this be an issue?  Is this all about "Gun Control"?

No, it's just about control, and it's an attempt to impose every impediment imaginable in the interest of impeding California Citizens from exercising their constitutional rights to Keep and Bear Arms.

BY THE WAY, this isn't the first time that California legislators have imposed draconian laws to impede the Second Amendment Rights of Californians:

GO SCREW YOURSELF MOMENTS: A Sample

• DROP TEST ... California Legislators made it a law that pistol manufacturers must subject each firearm to test-to-destruction tests to prove that their guns will not 'accidentally' fire when dropped six feet onto a concrete surface.  S&W (if I recall correctly) discontinued all sales to California rather than subject their guns to these tests ... at their own expense.
• They also passed a law which essentially required that Ronnie Barrett's  .50 BMG rifles must be regulated;   Barrett responded by discontinuing all support for maintenance for California LEO sniper rifles ... California LEOs must now perform all "factory level" maintenance on their own rifles.  Sucks to be you, California Highway Patrol!

This is only the most recent manner in which California Legislators have shot themselves in the foot, and it probably won't be the last.   But they don't care about their citizens; they only care about their own political agenda.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with firearm safety; but it has everything with California trying to get around the Second Amendment rights of free citizens.

Now they want every citizen who purchases ammunition to go through the same tiresome regulatory procedures every time they want to reload their guns.    

Someone needs to put the bridle on the horse and the bit in her mouth, to keep California from inventing new ways to impede Second Amendment Rights (which by the way, apply to ammunition as well as firearms.

SPEAKING OF WHICH, in 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects ammunition purchases as well as firearms ownership ... but it's complicated.

PS: Olympian campaigns Against The Bill!
Who you gonna listen to? The chick that sings, or the chick that shoots?
You know where my money is going .. but I'll probably lose that bet.

Gun Grabbers Rewriting History. Again.

Democrats are making noises about the Gun Control Conspiracy again, accusing mean ol' Republicans of not playing fair after they took the Dem's Favorite Toy (CDC Gun Control Research Funding) away.

Dems press ATF to update decades-old gun violence data | TheHill:

House Democrats are calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to update a report it last published nearly two decades ago about gun violence to help inform public policy on the issue.

Yes, that 'old' report was biased and misleading, which is why that toy was taken away until Dems grew up.   They haven't grown up yet, so they can't have their dangerous toy ... CDC.

The ATF last published a report titled “Following the Gun,” which reviewed how criminals obtain firearms, in 2000.

If the Donkeys really want to know how criminals obtain firearms, here's how:
          THEY BREAK THE LAW!

The lawmakers said that a new report with more recent statistics would provide the public with more understanding of how gun violence occurs in America. The lawmakers noted to Brandon that congressional offices and research organizations “continue to regularly cite possibly outdated statistics from the report.” “Updated research and reports will aid policymakers as we continue to confront this crisis we are facing as a nation,” Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who spearheaded the letter, said in a statement on Tuesday.

The Honorable Jackass from Illinois could, if he was really interested in stopping crime in his crime-ridden state (you know, one of those with the toughest gun control laws in the nation),  could cut down on crime in a single year if he focused more on GUNS and less on CONTROL.

The way to cut down on gun crime is to make it illegal to use a gun in the commission of a crime.

I know, that sounds obvious ... except to the oblivious.   But here's the kicker:

ENFORCE THE LAW!

If Illinois would seriously penalize use of a firearm in commission of a crime ... any crime on the books ... and make it stick, then criminals will eventually figure out that that they're better off with the traditional knife, brass knuckles and baseball bats.   You know ... the same tools they use at home to slaughter their wives.

Quigley's district represents parts of Chicago, which has seen hundreds of gun deaths so far this year. Democrats have pushed to eliminate a budget provision that has effectively frozen most government research into gun violence for nearly two decades. The provision, first enacted in 1996 under pressure from gun rights groups, prohibits the use of federal funds “to advocate or promote gun control.” The statute has resulted in a chilling effect on government research into gun violence, even though it is not an outright ban on producing data related to the effects of firearms. Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee blocked a Democratic effort in July to allow the Centers for Disease Control to study gun-related deaths.

Someone sneakily commented that it is a BUDGET PROVISION that they want to reverse, not a POLICY DECISION;  The Feds won't pay CDC to follow the party line vis-a-vis gun CONTROL, not gun INCIDENTS.   We know how many people get killed by guns.

And here's how we know: "WISQARS"    Guess what?   The information comes from CDC.

Here is the CDC's report on Leading Causes of Death, by age group.

They amputated the wrong finger ...

They should have amputated the trigger finger, because THAT is the finger that pulled the trigger.

Judge dismisses personal injury case against Smith & Wesson:

 A Tennessee couple, Randy and Vicki McNeal, sued the Massachusetts’ gun maker for more than $75,000 in January. According to their complaint, Randy McNeal was shot in the finger as he attempted to make the gun safe inside a gun store in Murfreesboro, a town just outside of Nashville. They claimed a loose screw on the built-in laser sight of their Bodyguard .380 pistol prevented the slide from locking in position. 

 The couple’s lawsuit says McNeal dropped the gun as he tried to lock the slide back, which he was having trouble because the screw obstructed the locking mechanism, and the gun discharged when he tried to catch it. Afterward, he needed the small finger on his left hand amputated.

I have just a few comments about this "unsafe firearm injury incident":

(A) ... He was handling a gun in gun store, and he obviously didn't understand the controls.
(B) ... Who allows anyone to load a gun in a gun store?   NOBODY!
(C) ... Sounds as if it was his own gun, which he brought into the store.   Why?  Had he tried to disassemble it at home, and put it back together wrong? Inquiring people want to know.
(D) ... A "Loose Screw"?  Ignoring the personal obvious slam, why did he need to lock the slide?
(E) ... If it was, in fact, his own pistol, he should have been aware of the problem; that's the crux of the question (and a question which was never addressed in the article).
(F) ... I'm looking at the Bodyguard 380 on the S&W website, and I don't see any screw.  Do you?          (Note: a view of the pistol is included at the bottom of this article)
(G) ... the complainant is a jerk, an idiot and incompetent.  He's one of those people who should never touch a gun because ... well, mere incompetence is sufficient reason.  What do you want to bet that he has never sought a class in "Basic Firearms Safety"?
(H) ... basic firearms safety: (1) don't bring a loaded gun into a gun store, and (2) don't try to catch a dropped gun.

Need we mention that this is a DAO ("Double Action Only") design, and you have to squeeze the trigger REALLY HARD to make it fire?   We're not talking "hair-trigger" here; merely "Hare-Brained Owner".

This "DICKWAD" (I'm not sure what this word means, but it seem appropriate under the circumstances ... where was I?  Oh, yes) ... this DICKWAD not only proved his own incompetence to possess a firearm, but compounded his own error by suing the manufacturer.  I ask you, does this sound like someone who has a legitimate grievance?  Or is it that pathetic attempt by an IDIOT to not only excuse his own incompetence,  but to compound the error he attempts to sue the manufacturer for building an "unsafe" weapon.

He violated the three rules of gun safety: according to the NRA;
He violated the four rules of gun safety: according to Concealed Carry;
He violated the five rules of gun safety: according to Generation Wild:
He violated the six rules of gun safety: according to Facebook!

(I do not like a lot of those rules, because they often make your firearm unavailable for personal defense.)

Lots of people have various versions of Gun Safety Rules, but one thing is clear:
He screwed up!

Himself.  It wasn't the gun, it was the man with the gun in his hand (or in this case, the man who dropped the gun.  Which presupposes another rule of gun safety ... Do Not Drop The Gun and perhaps also Do Not Attempt To Catch A Dropped Gun!

What is that ... seven rules of gun safety?   Eight?  Never mind; he didn't do ANYTHING that a responsible gun owner should do!   But he blamed the gun.


PERSONAL NOTE TO Randy and Vicki McNeal ... get rid of your guns.  Buy a guard dog.  Let him pee on the carpet.  It will be cheaper, and less embarrassing.  Also, less likely to hurt innocent gun dealers who foolishly allowed you to handle a loaded pistol in their shop.  (Apparently, there is no end to the proliferation of idiocy in America!)

S&W Bodyguard .380

BY THE WAY .... I'm looking at a LOT of controls on this pistol.

The button behind the trigger is obviously the magazine release.

Among the controls just under the slide, I'm guessing that the most forward is the slide lock; the second (middle) is the safety, and the rear-most is the de-cocker.   I have to admit that the plethora of thumb-activated controls can be confusing for a new shooter.   But with a lot of practice, the manipulation of controls should become second-nature for someone who has used the gun enough to become so familiar with them so that they are activated appropriately without conscious thought.

THE TRIGGER IS OBVIOUS, and one which our Dear Friend, Randy, has not yet quite become familiar with.

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't

In New Jersey, you can't even TALK about guns in a positive light!

Anti-gun-control video project gets H.S. student suspended | NJ.com:

A New Jersey High School student, Frank Harvey, said

  ",,, a Manville High School teacher instructed him to create a video arguing against gun control for a junior college readiness class last year."

He was kicked out of school for performing the task too well.

UPDATE:     See the video that started the whole thing here.
(NOTE:   I couldn't get the video to work; it may have been lifted by now)

An Open Letter to "Bearing Arms", et al

Dear Bearing Arms ...

... and any other website which requires a FaceBook membership before they accept my comments:

I attempted tonight to submit a comment to an article on your website, and I was stopped because I was required to have a FACEBOOK membership before I could post my comment.

Rather than do so, I deleted my comment.  I do not have a FACEBOOK account, nor will I ever.

FACEBOOK requires a lot of private information before I can subscribe; I am reluctant to provide that information, and because of that I cannot comment nor can I contribute.  Among other things, FACEBOOK asks for my photo ID (in the form of, for example, a screenshot of my drivers license).

One of the nice things about BlogSpot is that it allows me to provide commentary with a minimum amount of infringement upon my privacy.  As it happens, I have provided to BlogSpot much of what is required to FACEBOOK ... but not a jot or a tittle more.

I have provided a face picture to BLOGSPOT, and my comments in what I consider a "private" membership are those which any normal person might consider reasonable.

But not my full name and address.
Not a photo ID.

Not my true date of birth, or my phone number; not my driver's license number, and not full access to other items of personal data which would leave me uncomfortable; or data which provides the chance that my personal data would become public knowledge ... and liable to hacking.

If Bearing Arms (or FACEBOOK) think they are entitled to more personal information than I wish to provide before they will allow me to comment, then I will not contribute.   I'm not sure what benefit these intrusive websites expect to garner from intruding on my privacy,  but I AM certain that I don't trust them with my personal information.

Oh ... I probably could have made this whole email more succinct:

Dear FACEBOOK and Bearing Arms:  Screw you.  I don't need you.

b-Bye!

Jerry The Geek

The Rest Of The Story

US authorities fault gun background-check system | Daily Mail Online:

 A US Justice Department report faulted local authorities Wednesday for failing to update a federal database used in background checks for gun sales, sometimes with "tragic consequences." The inspector general's report cited the June 2015 mass slaying at a black church in Charleston, South Carolina as one such case. Dylan Roof, a white supremacist who shot and killed nine churchgoers in cold blood, should not have been authorized to buy guns since he had been arrested previously for a drug offense.

Roof had not been convicted of a crime (drug habituation) at the time, so he was not YET identified as a person who should not be allowed to own a firearm.  Also, the background-check was (reportedly) delayed .. perhaps for that reason ... for more than the statuary limit of time.

The local authorities could not identify Roof as a felon because of the lack of conviction.  He was, in fact, only accused of a crime.  At the point where he received a firearm, he was not legally constrained from firearms ownership.  "Local Authorities" could not identify him as a person who was a danger to his community, lacking a conviction.   This might explain, at least in part, the delay which resulted in his not being identified as a "person" who should not possess a firearm.

Calls for an 'Australian Style" Gun Control Process would probably not have affected his possession.

Gun Control that Really Works: An Offer You Can't Refuse

Anti-gun fanatics proponents have been racking their brains for laws which will keep people from killing people.

Good luck with that.   Abel/Cain?   Samson/Jawbone of an ASS?  Crucifixion? etc.

We won't stop people from killing each other, so get out of yourself.  But what if we can find a law that actually works to ... if not eliminate firearms homicides, at least appropriately penalizes them?

My Modest Proposal (and I know you're going to think I'm a madman for saying this), is, how about we just impose the penalties for firearms possession which are already in the law books?

Most states impose an 'enhanced sentence' for dealing in drugs when a firearm is involved.

Most prosecutors are willing to trade with drug dealers by 'forgetting' the firearms enhancement if the drug dealers will plead guilty to the charge of "dealing" if the prosecutor ignores the gun charges.

In 2004 for example, Marnail Washington, a 22-year-old with no criminal history, was sentenced to 40 years after conviction of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and two §924(c) counts based on possessing, but not using, guns in connection with his drug offenses. That is, 30 years of his 40-year sentence were on gun counts.

Clearly, Liberals are more concerned with the sale of Crack Cocaine than they are with the possession of firearms while dealing in drugs.  Is this not a fine example of "Cognitive Disonance"?

In what way is dealing in Crack more dangerous to society than dealing in Crack while armed?

QUID PRO QUO:
Crack will fuck mess you up;  carrying a gun while dealing in Crack will fuck mess you up Big Time, if you (as a Crack Dealer) find that your 'turf' is being encroached.

DA's will forget the gun violations if the dealer will admit to the drug violation.  QED

It's easier to prosecute for 'dealing' if the felon admits to the crime.  But the sentence is lighter, and it only gets the armed felon off the streets for a relatively short time.   He'll be back on the street in six months, still dealing, and still carrying ... and still a threat to public safety. (Not a quote)

(Granted, he's probably only a threat to his competitors, but I guess the prosecutors consider this "a feature" rather than "a bug".)

Which brings us to the problems of Firearms Violence in such towns as Chicago, Baltimore, etc.

Prosecutors there are equally eager to put dealers away for "Soft Crimes" because it's easy to dump them in the county jail for six months, for dealing Crack.  It makes them (the prosecutors) look like they are "Doing Something", instead of admitting that they are prosecuting 'soft crime' instead of dealing with the threats of armed drug dealers.

Which perhaps explains, in part, why these communities are among the most violent cities in the world.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN ...

... if those same prosecutors could work a little harder on clear cases of an armed drug dealer?   Might they put a few of them in jail for long sentences, with compounded felonies to present to a judge?

Sure, the District Attorneys wouldn't win as many cases; it's harder to prosecute when dealers won't 'cop a plea'.  But the dealers aren't stupid; they know they can 'carry' illegally, plead guilty to lesser drug crimes and not be penalized for it, because the District Attorney won't prosecute them for gun crimes.  And drug crimes are often ALSO argued down to mere 'possession', no matter how much "product" they're holding.

Prosecutors win MORE cases,   if they don't try to convict for gun crimes.

They aren't in the business to get dangerous felons off the street; they're in the business to get re-elected, and eventually to get a soft job in a law office, where their goal is to defend the same oft-convicted felons they have been putting in jail (for six months at a time, instead of seven years at a time) for decades.

It's a symbiotic relationship, and if nobody puts a bright spotlight on the process, then everybody wins.

Except for the victims of drugs and shootings, of course.

• Forget it, Jake.  It's Chinatown.

What does this teach American teenagers?

Flag-stomping teacher has no regrets, wants student punished | Fox News:
By Todd Starnes Published September 21, 2016

The teacher who desecrated the American flag inside a North Carolina classroom told me he has no regrets and wants the student who photographed him to be punished. Lee Francis, a first year history teacher at Massey Hill Classical High School in Fayetteville, has been placed on administrative leave while the school district investigates the incident.

I fought for this flag, and ....

Actually, I didn't fight for this flag.

I fought for " ...  the Republic for which it stands ....”

If some yahoo wants to burn the flag, and I'm there, I may choose to challenge it.

But this yahoo is right.  Living in a free country means that you are not obliged to respect it.   And I think there's more to the story than meets the eye.

I'm not sure if his students actually understood the lesson; 
I hope that he explained that he disrespected neither the flag or the country.
I hope that this was not some demonstration of the BLM/Slavery outrage that's currently in vogue.
I hope that he was illustrating the point that this IS a country where there are no laws constraining our freedom to protest.   To assemble, to speak, to assert our rights even when the means of our expression are unpopular.

But even if none of my hopes are realistic, he was very clear in his point that freedom means we can disrespect, and disagree, and protest.   The Constitution is clear; that's why the First and Second Freedoms are so important, and why it's important that the next generation understand what 'freedom' really means.

America isn't undermined because some first-year teacher tramples the flag.

America is undermined when our young people grow up fearing our government.   We don't have to respect (for example) the representatives which 'other people' have elected, contrary to our wishes. 

I know that I don't respect a lot of our Congress-critters.   I didn't vote for them, but they were elected fairly; I'll protest THAT, and then I'll accept it.

But I respect the system which gives us a choice, even if I have to hold my nose to vote for some of them.

America is a country which gives us hope.  Not a lot of countries can claim that.

America is a country which accepts dissidents, and protest, and disrespect.

That's what I fought for.  That's what I came home to.

It makes me proud to know that I live in a country where a teacher can defile the flag, and the worst consequence is that some people call him unkind names.

I won't be one of those people; I think this teacher earned his pay by teaching a very difficult lesson.

Well, except that he spoiled it all by demanding that the student who took the photo be punished;  perhaps this teacher wasn't quite as convinced that the rights to free speech extend to the students as well as to the teacher.

If the student doesn't get an "A" in the class, then I will have lost all of my respect for the teacher!

Well, the teacher is young; he'll learn as much from the experience as did his students, I expect.

You Light UP My Light ... NOT!

When do light bulbs usually fail?   When you turn them on, and they go , right, and you know you just blew a bulb.

Happened to me last night, except ... I walked out of my computer room (AKA "The Hell Room") and noticed that the bulb which provides the ONLY illumination to the stairwell between the 2nd floor and the ground floor was no longer doing its job.   It had been on for several hours.

Curious.

So I got another new bulb from the shelf over my water heater, and it didn't work either.   I assumed that there was something wrong with the line.  

Because it's over the upper landing, it's on a 3-way switch.  I assumed that either the switch at the top of the landing (2nd floor) or the switch at the bottom of stairs (ground floor) had failed, so having tested the circuit, I took no other steps.   Oh, it's the only direct illumination to the steep stairs.

Sweet.

I didn't notify my landlord at the time, because I didn't want him to hire a contractor to come rewire the house.  (NOTE: the place was built in the 1960's for about two dollars, top, and most of the upstairs lights and plug-ins are on one circuit ... the same circuit serves many downstairs kitchen plug-ins.  It was a "Lowest Bidder" project; I've learned to have low expectations.)

Tonight, I was thinking ... what are the odds?   The original bulb was one of those ECO-FRIENDLY spiral bulbs; the replacement was  a conventional tungsten filament bulb.  Neither worked; I've done my job, it's now my landlord's problem. Right?

Maybe I haven't explored ALL of the possibilities.

So I took a bulb out of bedside lamp, which had been on all evening, and replaced the bulb in the landing-light fixture.

Ta-DAA!  It works just fine.   The wiring worked: it's just that two bulbs were burnt out; one of them new, never been used, and of the 'reliable' tungsten filament type.  Go figure.

I HAD EXPERIENCED JUST_ANOTHER_GEEK_MOMENT!

A 'long life' bulb failed after six months, and a brand new bulb didn't work at all.

But another not-so-new bulb works just fine.

BTW .. neither the spiral bulb nor the first new tungsten bulb worked in my bedside reading light.

PS: I replaced the bedside lightbulb with another new bulb from the 'new' pack; it works great.

Yes, this is a petty domestic issue.

Now I have to decide how to dispose of that curly-spiral bulb which, if you break it, you need to call for Explosive Ordnance Depot experts, or something.

I put it in the "GLASS" recycle box on the curb.  They pick up tomorrow morning.

I hope it gives all those "Do It For The Environment" Weanies a frigging heart attack.  I'm not going to EVER buy any of those spiral carbon mercury whatever light bulbs.  It's all a lie from The Dark Side!

It depends on what your definition of "ISIS", is ...

Them Clinton folks, they always got a little bit of twist in everything they say.

Clinton: Americans need to be as scared of gun violence as they are terrorism | Washington Examiner:

 Hillary Clinton believes Americans need to be as worried about gun violence as they are about terrorism. "[I]t's not only terrorists we need to be worried about," Clinton said in an interview published Thursday afternoon by AARP. The Democratic nominee's remarks came as she explained she has a plan to combat both terrorism as well as the broader issue of gun violence in the US ....

Seems to me, you get rid of the 'terrorists', you got no problems with "gun violence".

I don't think that's what she's saying:  She doesn't care about terrorists so much as getting rid of  private ownership of firearms.  After all ... this is the Politician who says:
 "We Cannot End Terrorism Without Gun Control!"

So ... if I understand correctly, everyone who owns a gun is a terrorist, in her personal lexicon.
That makes me feel so much more confident in her determination to abide by the terms of her Oath of Office, should she be elected POTUS:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I have reservations about her veracity if she should be diligent in protecting the Constitution; she has never made that a priority in her office as a Senator.

BTW:  This is one of the reasons why I never accepted my many 'invitations' to join the American Association of Retired People: They're great on 'benefits', but they don't give a shit about the Constitution.

I'd rather starve than live under Hillary.

Which may happen.

Cans of food gratefully accepted.

HilllaryMail ... It's The Law, Stupid!

18 U.S. Code  2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute:

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. 

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V,  552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,  330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Question: Does this apply only to documents delivered via the U.S. Mail?
Does EMAIL carry the same penalty?

Or does Hilary, in her office of Secretary of State, qualify under the definition " ... in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States...."?

One cannot help but wonder if this Federal Code would apply to a candidate for the office of (or sitting) POTUS.

Just asking.  Nothing to see here ... Move Along!

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.
*