"Oh, Lah ... See How Diverse We Are?"

London Police Chief: Terror Victims Show How Diverse We Are | The Daily Caller:

London Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick touted the diversity of the London attack victims in a Saturday interview with the Associated Press. “It’s desperately sad and poignant but among those who died is someone who’s British, there are French, Australian, Canadian, Spanish,” Dick declared.“We believe of course that that’s what makes our city so great,” she continued, adding “It’s a place where the vast majority of time it’s incredibly integrated and that diversity gives us strength.”

Yes, well, your vaunted diversity includes terrorist bombers, doesn't it?

You know what would make your city really great, Ms Dick?

If you could protect your citizens from these unknown and undocumented murdering asshats  your country admits EVERY DAY!

You won't even arm your First Responders, you blathering blob of British Political Correctness!

PC should stand for Police Constable.   Or hasn't anyone bothered to explain that to you yet?


(H/T: IRONS)

Speaking of "Say Uncle" ...

This is a mildly interesting article in itself .... but oh my the comments section is on fire!


SayUncle  Where Great Britain Used To Be:

Americans Reveal The Terrifying Things They Keep In Their Pockets Also, a police commissioner there suggested that civilians with gun licenses could help defend against a terror attack, a true statement. The higher ups did not approve. Share

I guess it had to happen sometime ....

I use to say that IPSC was safer that High School Football.

I guess I can't say that any more.

Vancouver man dies after shooting himself in Kamloops pistol contest | Vancouver Sun:
 June 12, 2017 

 In an extremely unusual tragedy, a man fatally shot himself by accident during a pistol competition in Kamloops on Sunday. The 50-year-old Vancouver man died shortly after arriving at the hospital in Kamloops. “It’s rarer than getting hit by lightning, you got ‘er,” said Jim Sloper, president of the 132-year-old Kamloops Target Sports Association. “I’ve competed around the world and I’ve never come across it. Injuries are unheard of, let alone fatal shootings.” 

Damn!   I can't imagine how his friends and family are dealing with this tragic loss.

Now IPSC is only slightly safer than high-school football.

*(H/T: Say Uncle)

[NOTE: Apparently, he dropped his loaded pistol ... and tried to catch it.  You try to tell people not to do that, but it's instinct.]

Dog vs Cop ... Dog Loses. (Nothing Good Can Come Of This)

(5) Cop kills dog: Police body cam shows officer shoot man’s pit bull after false alarm - TomoNews - YouTube: Published on Jun 12, 2017 PAHRUMP, NEVADA —

Two months ago, a man in Nevada opened his front door to find his 6-year-old pit bull twitching in a bloody heap. The dog had been shot by a cop who immediately claimed the dog was charging at him.

 On April 10, Gary Miller was at his home when he accidentally triggered his house alarm by sitting on his keys. The home security company called him to confirm a breach, and he responded saying there was no problem. Deputy John Tolle, who was responding to the call, claims he did not get that message, and showed up at Miller’s residence. In the backyard, Gary Miller’s pit bull, Blu, heard Deputy Tolle entering through the front gate, and sprinted out to investigate. When Deputy Tolle heard the dog barking and saw the dog running toward him, he immediately grabbed his gun. What happened next was captured on the officer’s body camera. The footage was released to the public on June 10.

I'm not a "Dog Person", but I admit that when I'm confronted by a dog, I tend to shout and growl back at it.  That usually gives the dog a moment to re-evaluate the situation.
(Maybe he isn't the biggest dog in the pack!)

I understand that police tend to categorize "aggressive behavior" as a Threat.   I get that.

Still, I can't help but wonder if this Law Enforcement Office might have over reacted.

As for the "false alarm" (see the video) ... there's enough blame to spread around.  The homeowner felt he was threatened, called for the cops, and later called back to identify his initial call as a false alarm.

The deputy didn't get that information, and he was keyed up for "whatever happens:"; meaning that he wasn't privy to the details of the call.  

Not making excuses, but for all he knew, the dog may have been the problem.

 (see: CUJO)

Welcome to "The System"; you are a prospective felon

(I have a hard time responding directly to posts on this "... The Porch ..." blog, but it's a serious gunblogger site and deserves serious discussion: this is the best way I could find to initiate a dialogue.)

View From The Porch: Cooldown Period.:

As far as Universal Background Checks, here's the correct and constitutional way to implement those: Since the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, the default setting is that everyone has it. If someone becomes a felon or is otherwise debarred from arms, then make a NO GUNS ALLOWED black mark on their DL/ID/passport/whatever. Show me an ID without that disclaimer, and you'd be good to go, no background check necessary. And you'd be good to go in all 50 states, at that. I'd trade that for moving suppressors to Title I, repealing the Hughes Amendment, and interstate handgun sales. Hell, I might throw in a 3-day wait on sales from FFL dealers for that package deal.But that's not what the other side means by "compromise".

I may not go quite so far in an attempt to establish a quid pro quo ... but most of the issues you cited are already haunting us, so it's not as if you're being so obdurate that Brady will be able to say:
"The Right Is Not Willing To Negotiate!"

But this negotiation needs to include one single, and essential, change:

Background Checks are supposedly established to determine that the purchaser of a firearm is not a "forbidden person".  (Felon, convicted felon, drug user, madman, alien, etc.)  The intent is all about the purchaser, right?   The manner in which this "PERMISSION" is established, is important, but not critical.

But I do have one question:

 ... why does the form to vet the purchaser require the details of the firearm in question?  Including the make, model, caliber and SERIAL NUMBER?  

The ATF does not NEED this information to confirm the validity of the exchange.    The firearm is blameless; it has no past, no future, and it has never (intentionally) brought harm to any living creature.

The only reason for requiring the (unique) serial number, and the rest of the details about the firearm, is to establish a tracking mechanism as that firearm is exchanged, from one owner to the next.

 And that AFT has a record of every single transaction; firearm, seller, buyer and date.

In a word: REGISTRATION!

I've often said: "Love your Country; Fear your Government".

This is exactly the reason I say that.

Using the thin cover of vetting the buyer of a "used" gun, the Feds have established a method by which every honest firearms owner (past and present) has self-established a trail of ownership.

The only people who aren't in "The System" are criminals, who acquire their firearms by theft or 'black market' transactions (often supplied by theft).

The thing is, eventually every firearm which has been legally sold will be in "The System", and if a couple of steps are missing ... that only serves to provide evidence to a prosecutor that the 'last seller' is probably  may perhaps be a thief.

Not ... necessarily; he may be a person who has held onto the firearm since before this egregious new set of laws were enacted.  Even so, he's still in Deep Doo-Doo because he may not be able to provide a 'chain of ownership to prove that he is the legal owner,.

(Do NOT make the mistake of assuming that just because he's innocent of any wrong-doing, he doesn't need to find a lawyer who asks more for one day of litigation than an entire month of house payments ... and probably car payments, too!)

Love your Country; fear your government.

NC Cops Oppose Constitutional Carry ( they might have seen it coming)

Fraternal Order of Police opposes NC gun permit bill | WCNC.com: CHARLOTTE, N.C.
(June 08, 2017)

New North Carolina gun bill will allow concealed carry without a permit.

But perhaps .. not just now.

(FOP Spokesman): "I just feel like it's going to put a lot more guns on the street readily available that is really not necessary ..." 

The officer may be correct in any or all of his objections; but here's the root of the problem:

 Permits are currently granted to legal gun owners 21 and up, but the vetting process can take months.   (emphasis added)

MONTHS?   What's so hard about a simple NICS check?

So ... these guns will be on the street eventually, right?  So why bitch about the legal process?

Question: What's so special about North Carolina, that they are so slow to respond to a simple background check?

Answer: Any Honest Citizen will revolt against this administrative delay, and refuse to abide by it.

Translation:  they will ignore your silly-ass regulations and do what they think is necessary..
...

This new bill will allow NC citizens to carry without the delay of applying for a Concealed Carry License.  Which benefits the citizens, but the NC Police are reluctant to resist opposing the movement.   Which may, in part, explain the months long delay in granting Concealed Carry licenses in the past.

NC is not serving the interests of their citizens. 
 They get money for processing applications!

Any state must accept that if a citizen is not dis-allowed from purchasing a firearm, they are also not dis-allowed from a Concealed Carry License.  If you can buy a gun, you should be free to carry it.

 It's in the Second Amendment ... you can look it up.

 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Notice that "KEEP" (own) and "BEAR ARMS" (carry) are equivalent.

But it takes NC "Months" to process applications.

North Carolinians,  already frustrated by their attempts to legitimately purchase a firearm, are once again frustrated by the states refusal to promptly vet their right to bear those arms.

It may be that the citizens of the state of North Carolina have lost faith with their 'protectors', and decided to take matters into their own hands.   It's "The American Way", and perhaps part of why the Democrats among us distrust gun owners.

We don't fit their ... whatchamaycallit?  
(Someone please fill in the word; I can't keep up with current liberal hatespeach)

If The State does not trust its citizens, then why should the citizens trust the state?

I don't have and answer to that question.  

Do you?

Anyone?

Fake News of Tom Cruise; Despicable!

Tom Cruise snapped in Queenstown while in New Zealand for Mission: Impossible 6 - NZ Herald:

Tom Cruise has been photographed at Queenstown Airport while in New Zealand filming part of Mission: Impossible 6. The movie star was snapped earlier today when the helicopter he was travelling in landed at the airport to refuel, said the photographer, who didn't want to be named.

Fake News!

The headline says "Tom Cruise Snapped", but it didn't mean the movie star "Freaked Out".
It just means someone photographed him.  "Snapped", as in photo, rather than "Snapped", made irrationally angry.

Thus was 'non-news' ... a boring means-nothing publicity article ... elevated to the Fake News implication that there was an angry altercation involved.

Just one more example of why, when you read news articles, you need to bore down to read the details before you make a value judgement.

I wouldn't have mentioned it, but lately we have experienced far too many instances where Flaks (political publicists) have used misdirection to draw attention to their paymasters, for no better reason than to get their name in front of the public attention.

Despicable.

(By the way, I've added a new category of posts: "Fake News".  It categorizes news reports which distort the "news" for selfish purposes which are NOT intended to further your understanding of otherwise-not-newsworthy events.)

Fisking California Bill AB785 ... Possession of firearms by persons convicted of misdemeanors

I didn't understand the new California law, so I finally went directly to the bill to see what is really "NEW" about this.

Essentially, there is already a list of misdemeanors in California law which would make it illegal for a "convicted person" to possess a firearm for a period of 10 years.

This bill merely adds to that list (of penalized misdemeanors) the misdemeanor of  "hate crimes", which are predefined as follows:

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to, by force or threat of force, interfere with another person’s free exercise of any constitutional right or privilege because of the other person’s actual or perceived race, religion, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. Existing law also makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the property of another person, for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the exercise of any of those constitutional rights because of those specified characteristics.  

In order to save you the effort of searching the web (as I have just done) to find the referenced laws, I'm included a copy under the break.

You can see the entire section of law here.

(BREAK FOLLOWS)

JIM ROGERS: The worst crash in our lifetime is coming - Business Insider

The worst crash in our lifetime is coming - Business Insider:

You’re going to see parties disappear. You’re going to see institutions that have been around for a long time -- Lehman Brothers had been around over 150 years. Gone. Not even a memory for most people. You’re going to see a lot more of that next around, whether it’s museums or hospitals or universities or financial firms.

I don't know a damn thing about the market. I don't know about finance, or the economy.

All I know is that I have some food in cans, some heat tablets, some camping gear.  So if this current round of "TEOTWAWKI" actually occurs, the good news is that I'm old and cranky, and I'm pessimistic, too, so anything bad that happens is just another day in The Nam for me.  I should have died by New Years Eve in 1969.   But I dodged that bullet, as I've dodged many others.

Everything since then has been the Gravy in my life.

I've learned to be pessimistic, but also dubious about nay-sayers.  I'll believe it when it comes, and I'll handle it or not.    Hell, I've seen Bill Clinton as President, and Al Gore AND Hillary as 'legitimate' Presidential Candidates.

If we dodged Gore and The Hillary-beast, there must be Somebody Up There looking out for us.

On the other hand .. HE has a bizarre sense of humor.

So do I.

'Love me, Love my gun'

Lawmakers move to close national 'hate crime loophole':

Democrats on Capitol Hill introduced legislation Thursday backed by gun control groups to strip Second Amendment rights from those who commit misdemeanor hate crimes.

Another non-starter bill introduced solely to make some Democratic Stooge appear to be "Doing Something".    Too many laws are imposed on the American people for no better reason, but this one doesn't take away a "privilege", but an Enumerated Right.

Hell, if you really want to "Do Something", why not take away the Drivers License of people who are convicted of the non-crime of uttering the undefinable "Hate Speech"  ... which is a "Hate Crime".

If the explanation is that 'people who commit hate crimes are those who kill people with guns', remember that Cars are the new Guns; if you take away their drivers license, surely they won't be able to drive a truck onto a crowded NYC sidewalk any more!  (See how easy to extend the 'thought process of a Democrat' to its logical absurdity!)

The Supreme Court can't even define "Obscenity".   How are they going to handle the first case that reaches their docket and they have to apply a standard to "Hate Speech"?

"BUT ..."

Fisking Kim Kardashian

Quote of the day—Kim Kardashian | The View From North Central Idaho:

(Hat Tip: Joe Huffman)

I’M NOT AGAINST GUNS AND I’M NOT AGAINST PEOPLE OWNING GUNS. AFTER WHAT HAPPENED TO ME IN PARIS, I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO BE SAFE AND TO HAVE ARMED SECURITY. ALL OF MY SECURITY TEAM IS ARMED, BUT THEY ALSO SUPPORT STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS AND BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD RESTRICT ACCESS TO FIREARMS FOR PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS, ANYONE PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND THOSE AT A HIGHER RISK OF COMMITTING GUN VIOLENCE.

Everyone knows and values Kim's  respect for and her honor of the Second Amendment.

Not.

Kim, there are laws already on the book which disallow "people with mental illness" from owning firearms,.

And we already know that you can *(and have)* hired armed security professionals ... a precaution which is probably wise, since your position disallows you from arming yourself..   Your precautions seem reasonable to most of us, because nobody expects YOU to take personal responsibility for your safety.

Why should you, when you can hire trained, experienced protection personnel whose  proficiency at arms is far superior to your own?

BUT the rest of us cannot afford hired guns to protect ourselves; we are like those who breed and raise swine; we have to do the dirty work ourselves.

Which includes "Taking Out The Trash".

You say:
 I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO BE SAFE AND TO HAVE ARMED SECURITY

Yes.  And if I could afford it, I would hire 24/7 professional security to protect my life, even though I'm not quite so "High Profile" as you are.

But I do not think the words of the Second Amendment mean what you think it means.

It doesn't mean that we can hire armed men to protect ourselves ,.. if we can afford it.

It means that we common men can legally acquire whatever means neccessarty to protect ourselves and our families, home and property ... if we are willing to accept the responsibility, and if we can afford it.

 (Many of us think, as you do, that we can NOT afford to NOT take steps to provide for our personal security.)

When you say that you support "Stricter Gun Control Laws", what you are saying is that you support stricter gun control laws on LAWFUL and LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS~

We already have laws against felons and madmen owning firearms.  So when you use the word STRICTER ... we automatically understand that you want to restrict the rights of law-abiding private citizens to own firearms.

STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS are exactly that; if we have already eliminated criminals and madmen from owning firearms (which we have), then your statement leaves only one segment of the population which you would ".. restrict access to firearms ...";  honest, law-abiding citizens.

As a veteran (Viet Nam infantry platoon sergeant, 1969/1970) I personally resent your implication that a simple MISDEMEANER or a "Temporary Restraining Order" (which can be registered by any domestic partner without any evidence of foul play .. and cannot be challenged in many states) should be grounds for undermining my Constitutional Rights.

In case you are not aware, a misdemeanor charge is generally considered somewhat less imposing than a Constitutional Right.   While we are all well aware that the confusion of an interpersonal relationship is difficult to resolve in the courts, the denial of one's Constitutional Right is somewhat akin to dropping an Atomic Bomb; it enturbulates all parties, and affords no benefit to anyone.

SO ,. when you suggest that it may be appropriate to  RESTRICT ACCESS TO FIREARMS FOR ...   ANYONE PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR we can only assume that either:

*(1) you don't know what the heck you're talking about ..

or
*(2) you don't care what damage you may cause as long as your political goals are satisfied.

It's difficult to decide which agenda could cause more damage, but it's perfectly clear that you do not much care.
All you want to do is to make a political statement; one which you have not carefully thought through.

Idiot.

Oh .. and go watch Joe's response.

H/T:

I recognize the difficulty the anti-gun people have in getting knowledgeable people to support their side, but they really should keep highly visible dimwits on a shorter leash. This dimwit is advocating for the denying someone convicted of shoplifting a jar of baby food 30 years ago their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arm. On top of that she believes she has a right to feel safe and to be protected.
However, the topper is that one paragraph after advocating for the explicit infringement upon the rights of people she claims, “we can find ways to do that, while still protecting the rights of the American people”. You can’t find ways to infringe upon the rights of people while protecting their rights.

Competitive Shooting Too Expensive?

Julie Golob: Barriers to Shooting Competition Too High - The Truth About Guns:

Speaking at the NSSF Industry Summit in Austin today, Smith & Wesson pro shooter Julie Golob reckons competition shooting isn’t inclusive enough. There are too many rules, the equipment costs are too high, the travel distances are too far, OFWGs aren’t welcoming, many safety officers are insensitive Neanderthals, some pro shooters are *ssholes and ranges lack WiFi.

I'd like to say that I don't know what OFWGs are, but I assume it means Old Farts With Guns.
(And if that's not what it means ... it's still an interesting tag name.)

I'm welcoming, honest, to new shooters!

Generally speaking, a lot of the "practical" shooting sports are becoming a lot more complicated than they use to be.  In 1983, we had STOCK division, and that was because folks were moving past 1911 .45acps with 7 round magazines and looking at 9mm, or 11 round (really!) mags for their 1911.

And a few brave fools were experimenting with what later became Major 9mm.   It was expensive for THEM because KaBOOM!  (Lots of guys grew beards to hide the scars, no joke.)

Still, this IPSC thing (and associated competitive shooting) is doubtless very expensive, especially if you get hooked on it for 30 years or so.

And it's worth every minute, every cent because .. well, see below.

march against gun violence - SFGate

Walkers cross Golden Gate Bridge in march against gun violence - SFGate:
June 3, 2017

Leelee Daschbach Cusenza walked across the fog-hazed Golden Gate Bridge Saturday, tears streaming down her face. The 62-year-old Pleasanton resident was joined by scores of gun violence survivors and demonstrators, clad in orange shirts, for the second annual march across the Golden Gate Bridge to honor National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Cusenza’s sister, Michele, went to Salon Meritage in Seal Beach in Orange County for a haircut on Oct. 12, 2011, and never returned. Scott Evans Dekraai was involved in a child custody battle with his former wife. He went into the salon that day in October and killed his ex and seven others, including Cusenza’s younger sister.

I wept when Lee Moshier was killed by a cheap hand grenade, planted in the ground of Vietnam in 1969.

Lee didn't trip the booby trap; The point man thought his combat boots had snagged on just another of the "Wait-A-Minute Vines" which dominated the ground foliage 40 miles north of Saigon.   So he just kept walking.  He didn't realize that he had just initiated a buried Hand Grenade set not to kill the Point Man of the platoon which had been working this area near Vietnamese peanut fields for two days, but to kill both the Point Man and the "Pace Man" (the one man whose duty was merely to keep track of the distance we had traveled from one salient point to another).

Three seconds later, the buried grenade exploded, pounding tiny bits of shrapnel into the point man's backpack and back, buttock thighs and legs.

One of those metal bits were among the other particles, to the rear, and it drove directly into Lee's heart.

"Doc" RAN from the back of the platoon column (we always tried to protect our medic) in the most profound display of bravery I've ever seen ... but even before he got up to Moshier, it was already too late.  We all knew that we had just entered the "Twilight Zone" of a minefield, but Doc's only priority was to save the life of a fellow soldier.

Lee was terrified; Doc tried to insert an Esophegeal Airway down his throat, but Lee was unable to un-clench his teeth.  It probably didn't make any difference; when you get a quarter-inch plug of steel wire in your heart, it's just like a bullet; you're a deader, Dude, and there's nothing that ANYBODY can do before your heart stops.

We just stood there, most of a full platoon of GI's, and watched Lee die.  And watched Doc cry, because he wanted SO bad to bring his platoon buddy back from the brink of death.

A team of surgeons in a sterile operating room couldn't stop that death.   It was inevitable.

Mosier was almost entirely un-hurt.  There were a few drops of blood on his webgear an on his weapon, but he didn't bleed much.

It doesn't take much to stop a heart, even a Very Good Heart like Mosiers, who liked to carry candy so when we stopped at a Ville he was the most popular guy to the VietNamese kids we met.  They didn't often get candy, except from GI's like Lee, who loved kids but never had any of his own.

And ... now ... never will.

We called in a dust-off, to pick up his body and carry it back to Division Headquarters.  We didn't alert the surgeons there, because Lee was past all help.

We divied up his gear, because you never leave gear in the field for Charley, even if you lose a man.

Doc carried his M16; he thought it was his duty.  Chief carried his helmet.  Stehman carried his ammunition.

I was the platoon Sergeant, so I carried his web belt; the Platoon Leader, Lieutenant Nobody, carried his pack.

I'll never forget the smell of Mosier's blood on his canvas web belt; the weight of the belt with the magazines in the carrier.  The sight of spots of blood .. there was never a "Gush" ... on the green canvas gear.

We walked for the entire afternoon back to the Battalion Base Camp, packing little bits of Mosier back home.

Two days later, we held a memorial ceremony;  his rifle was pounded into the ground, muzzle first, using the attached bayonet (which we never used except in these ceremonies).  There was a Padre to lead us in prayers which we didn't believe in.  I think we were suppose to sing along with the tenor who arrived with the Padre, but nobody sang.  Most of us wept.  An un-manly thing to be sure, but even people who didn't like Mosier didn't want to see him die.

And we all, all, stood there and watched him die.  Helpless, as Doc cried as he tried to insert that God Damned Esophegeal Airway into Moshier's throat ... and it probably wouldn't have made a bit of difference if Doc HAD managed to insert the damn thing past Mosier's Clenched Teeth because he was a gonner as soon as the grenades went BOOM!

Every body knew it.  We just tried, because that's all we could do.  Doc tried hardest, but it's hard to tell which of us cried hardest.

The next time we hit the Slop Chute and got a few beers in us and were able to alibi our tears on account of the beers.  Enlisted Men's bar, NCO bar, or Officers' bar ... it was probably the same.  I think it's a mistake to separate the three rank levels in mourning, but that's just the way it is in the Army in 1969.

I wrote to his parents, on behalf of the platoon;  I was head NCO, it was my job; and the OIC who had directed us through THAT particular strand of trees was not capable of rational discourse.

(He felt so guilty, he requested a change of unit; he was granted the transfer on what I have always though were "humanitarian basis" or whatever kind of bullshit the army used then to get an officer out of a unit where one of his men had die..  Personally, I don't blame him; I blame me.  I had been through the area the day before and suspected the woods were mined, but I didn't work very hard to convince the El-T .. Lieutenant ... to posit another egress route from our ambush site.)

The death of that young man .. a guy I never particularly liked, but he was MY RESPONSIBILITY ... has been hoovering over me like a ghost for more than 50 years.  I'm sure a few folks are like my family members who say things like "That's all past you now, let it go".

And "There's nothing you could have done."

And "How could you have known?"

I should have known.

I fucked up.  A fine young man (one that I never particularly liked) is dead because I was so glad to get out of the Heart-Shaped Woods .. a known Booby Trap area ... that I didn't demand that my Platoon Leader take us out on a route that we hadn't used before.  A route that the local villagers hadn't seen us use before.

So .. San Francisco Gate!

You fine young folks who have never had a shot fired in anger at you, who have never seen a man killed in anger, who have never had to carry his body home or answer to his family; you who never fired back at your aggressors, who never held the burdon of the life of your friends in your hands.

You're perfectly okay because you don't DO that shit!

What would you do if you were drafted into the military, and were forced into that situation?


Would you, on your return to The Real World, be quite as vociferous about guns (which allow you to return fire when fired upon, and probably break up the aggressive intents of your attackers)?

Would you believe that guns have no valid purpose in the world, after you have been fired upon and used a gun to stop the really really bad guys from shooting at you and your friends?

You do realize that bad guys will shoot at you for no reason that you would understand, right?

And maybe you even have spent some time thinking about what you would do to defend yourself when bad guys are attacking you.

I'm 72 years old;  I can't defend myself in a fist fight any more.

But I go to the range every week, and I can pull a trigger MUCH more consistently than I could when I was in a foreign war zone.

Now the war zone is HERE.  And anybody who doesn't understand the violence which is being directed toward our nation and our citizens ... is living in a dream world which has no connection with reality.

I do realize that many of you cannot accept my narrative of my friend Mosier (who I didn't like all that much anyway, but he was in my platoon).  And I don't much care what you think.  I'm doing you a favor ... I'm educating you about The Real World.

Nobody likes you very much, either.

Especially the guys from ashcanistan who have different beliefs and who believe you are a target, not a person.
So go away and ignore everything I have said, and the world is probably better after you have been blown up by terrorists anyway.   If you don't care enough to protect yourself and your family, I don't much care about your own personal genotype.

The world is better off without people who haven't inherited a survival gene.

And even if you ARE paranoid ... that doesn't mean they won't kill you first.

SWMBO and The General

POTD: Get A Free Clipazine With a Marlin Rifle? Come On Marlin, You Know Better - The Firearm Blog

We all know it's a magazine or a "mag". We know what "clips" are. When it comes down to slang usage, "clip" is interchangeable with magazine even though it is not technically correct. Just like when someone says bullets, we know he means cartridges or rounds.
If you try to argue with this statement, you are a pedantic prat and it makes you sound like the annoying kid in class who sits up in the front row who starts out every sentence with the phrase, "Well actually".

This reminds me of when my lady friend, "She ... Who Must Be Obeyed" (SWMBO) first started attending local USPSA matches with me.

One of the senior members (he was 70 years old) always wore one of the old-fashioned Marine Fatigue Caps (flat top, billed) and we called him "The General" because he seemed so .. military.

One day, The General  heard SWMBO referring to ammunition as "Bullets", and he could not resist the temptation to correct her speech.

He began his correction with "Young Lady...." (she was over 50 years old at the time) and ended with "Do you understand what I'm saying?"

Yes, she know the difference between "Round" and "Bullet", and she deliberately used the term "BULLET" incorrectly ... it was something of a running gag between us, but our (new to her) mutual friend was determined to make her understand that incorrect usage was ... incorrect.

She was very patient and kind during the dialogue, and even though she eventually became a competitor she continued to use the "wrong term" for a 'round of ammunition'.

As in: "Honey, I'm running low on  .38 super bullets; do you have enough bullets for both of us to finish the match?"

And I would invariably respond something to the effect of: "Oh, sure I have lots of bullets left!"

Our friend would gnash his teeth and hold his tongue; he would not correct ME (I had already been competing for decades, and I was 'a guy'.).  We never resorted to this dialogue if he was not present in our squad, because what's the fun in that?)

Five years later, we attended his funeral and mourned him.  We shared this story with his widow, and she enjoyed it:  "Yes, he did tend to be a bit of a stickler; but I loved him."

We did, too.

Sadly, SWMBO is gone now, as is Our Friend.  And I never refer to ammunition as "Bullets" because ... oh, no good reason at all!

Now that I'm reminded, I believe I'll revert to using the therm "Bullets" inappropriately again, just because it's so fun to bait people.

And it reminds me of SWMBO and The General.

It's a smaller world without them.

"Does This Mean War?" Part 1a

London Absorbs Another Hit: London Mayor Talks Tough. Does This Mean WAR?

London mayor to Islamic Terrorists: 'You do not commit these disgusting acts in my name'

Gee, it's funny how time slips away.

Back in WWII ("The War to End Wars to End Wars"), Winston Churchill said very much the same thing, only he said it better in his "Never Surrender" speech:

On War

Wars are fought for many reasons: the purported reason is often "land".

The true reason is more often "Culture".



The American Civil War was supposedly fought because one group of people wanted to secede from a larger body .... the South from the North.   But it was because one group wanted to keep its culture (agrarian, economically effected by slavery) while the rest of the nation had decided that slavery was an abomination.   The South considered their people ... land-rich but resource-poor and people-poor ... to be culturally superior to the industrial North.  Pride and Money and Slavery ... let's call it a Culture War.

WWI ... was previously lost by Germany, and it was more likely a "LAND" war; but the reparations demanded by the winning Allied nations were so cruel that it led directly to WWII in a single decade, because the German people felt much put upon by the peace terms which were imposed upon them.
But for a while, Germany conquered its neighbors and added their resources to its own coffers.

WWII was supposedly fought for land ("Lebensraum"), but in a large sense it was fought to impose the culture of one group of people upon another ... Germany oppressed the Jews, for "religious" reasons.  Well, that was as good a reason as they could think of, although the real reason might have been economic.   Greed, more likely.   The Jews in Germany held an inordinate percentage of the national wealth, and every Jew who was killed or driven out of the country left behind the majority of their property, which was promptly seized by the German government (specifically, Hitler's henchmen.)   GREED, in one form or another, may not have started the war; but it certainly defined it, in the end.   The Jews were targeted because they better businessmen than other Germans ... who have since learned to be every bit as greedy, avaricious, and in all ways also very good businessmen

 But the Germans began their war by seizing land (Norway, Austria, France, etc.)   And they while the stole the riches of the conquered nations, they imposed their totalitarianism on those countries.  In a  sense, this was also a Culture War.

AS for why Japan decided to drag America into that war ... I doubt even the Japanese remember the exact reasons, but they did have a difficult TRADE IMBALANCE which certainly led to their infamous "sneak attack" on American soil on December 7, 1941.   Greed?   Agreed.

Japan ran rampant through the East, conquering parts of China and many of the Island Nations of the Pacific region.  They were fierce and ran cruelly amok among their neighbors, because their leadership had been usurped by an ambitious and greedy Military Junta which could not conceive of any major nation standing up for the small countries which they gobbled up and terrorized (See: Rape of Nanking)

The turning point of the war against japan had two parts:   (1) The Battle of Midway, where the American Navy laid waste to the Japanese navy; and (2) Iwo Jima, where the Japanese Army was unable to deny to the Americans a final "stepping stone"; an island where an airfield could be built in support of the Bombers which pounded Japan into near-oblivion.

[The American Flag was raised by U.S. Marines on Mount Suribachi ,

the highest point on Iwo Jima, on February 23, 1945.  My birth date.)

  Much to their dismay ... when the Japanese surrendered in August of 1945, it was probably not because of the two Atomic Bombs which America dropped on two of its major cities as much as that they had bankrupted themselves. ALL of their major ships had been sunk, they had lost every major naval battle since 1942, their (by then poorly supplied and equipped) armies were being slaughtered almost at will, and their people were committed to fight an invading American army with sticks and stones, committing a National Hari Kari.

While the geography of Japan was known, the US military planners had to estimate the defending forces that they would face. Based on intelligence available early in 1945, their assumptions included the following:^[26]

• "That operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population."

• "That approximately three (3) hostile divisions will be disposed in Southern KYUSHU and an additional three (3) in Northern KYUSHU at initiation of the OLYMPIC operation."

 The American offer to accept a surrender was accepted by the emperor because almost any alternative would inevitably lead to the end of the Japanese people.

The Americans were subsequently instrumental in bringing their culture into the 20th Century, under the stern leadership of General Douglas MacArthur, and the Japanese are now one of the most fierce economic competitors of America ... to American dismay!

The European War:
Winston Churchill was probably the single most important reason why America came into the European phase of WWII, especially his 1941 "Never Surrender" speech at Harrow:

Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
We stood all alone a year ago, and to many countries it seemed that our account was closed, we were finished. All this tradition of ours, our songs, our School history, this part of the history of this country, were gone and finished and liquidated.
Very different is the mood today. Britain, other nations thought, had drawn a sponge across her slate. But instead our country stood in the gap. There was no flinching and no thought of giving in; and by what seemed almost a miracle to those outside these Islands, though we ourselves never doubted it, we now find ourselves in a position where I say that we can be sure that we have only to persevere to conquer.

No German soldier ever set foot on the English coast.

(Well, except for Donald Sutherland in the movie "The Eye Of The Needle".)

Copyright 2012 by Jerry The Geek

WAR? (PART II) -World War Z!-

London mayor to Islamic Terrorists: 'You do not commit these disgusting acts in my name'

Gee, it's funny how time slips away.

NOW we are challenged to another "Culture War".

"War as we know it"
War is declared, defended and played with the three national priorities of land, greed, and culture... and I suspect  that in the final analysis this war will end up being played (if it's to be played at all) on all these basic premises:

Greed, Culture, Land.

This promises to be an undeclared war, a "Guerrilla War": not an honorable war in defense of one's nation but one which is designed by the aggressor to impose cultural imperatives upon people whose heritage is not gladly subjected to an archaic code of subjugation to an alien concept of a harsh god.

It will not be fought by both sides according to the "Geneva Conventions" (whichever version you prefer)  ... those wars require all combatants to be uniformed, answerable to a readily identifiable higher authority, and bound by BOTH sides to abide by the common conventions of 'no torture', sanctuary to non-combatants,

Western Civilization is based on principles of community,

Whiner

Comedian Kathy Griffin says her career is over after gory Trump photo | Reuters:

Comedian Kathy Griffin tearfully apologized in a Friday press conference for posing with a fake bloodied and severed head depicting U.S. President Donald Trump, saying that she felt her career was now over and that Trump "broke" her.

Isn't that just like a Liberal?

First you attack the President of the United States, Kathy, with a disgusting staged photo;
     Then public opinion is that you're a disgusting person;
          Finally you blame all your troubles on the President of the United States!

Don't give it another thought, Kathy; You are a "Self-Made Woman".

Falling Down

London Bridge: 1 killed after van plows into pedestrians; Theresa May calls incident ‘potential act of terrorism’ - The Washington Post:

In packed pubs — normally scenes of Saturday night revelry and merriment — patrons threw chairs, bottles and glasses at the attackers as the assailants used long knives to slash their way through crowds. Tourists gaped at the carnage from the roofs of double-decker buses. London’s Metropolitan Police said the attacks were being treated as “terrorist incidents.”

Oh, that's TOO WRONG attacking brits in their pubs!

In packed pubs — normally scenes of Saturday night revelry and merriment — patrons threw chairs, bottles and glasses at the attackers as the assailants used long knives to slash their way through crowds. Tourists gaped at the carnage from the roofs of double-decker buses....

(Get a gun.  Much more effective than chairs, bottles and glasses.)
(Oh, wait ... you can't do that, can you.  Dear dear, guess you should call a bobbie?)

British Prime Minister Theresa May, who returned from the campaign trail to 10 Downing Street for emergency meetings with security officials, had earlier described the “terrible incidents” as “a potential act of terrorism.”

"Potential"?

These are POTENTIAL ACTS OF TERRORISM?
As long as you idiots keep talking through your small mouth, you're going to be attacked.

You invited these a-holes into your country.  I would be more condemnatory, except that my country is no more prepared to protect itself by strictly regulating the people who are allowed to enter the country than are you.

(Working on it!)

. Other parties were expected to follow suit. London Mayor Sadiq Khan issued a statement condemning “a deliberate and cowardly attack on innocent Londoners and visitors to our city enjoying their Saturday night.” People in London should expect more police on the streets in the coming days, Khan said in a television interview on Sunday morning. But Londoners should not be alarmed and should not let terrorists disrupt daily life or the upcoming election, he said. “We can’t allow them to do that,” Khan told Sky News. “We are not going to be cowered by terrorism.”

Yeah.  Right.  You are not going to be cowered by terrorists:  
Stiff upper lip ..and all that.

It's all the fault of the MORMONS ho want to convert every one to Mormonism, and ... what's that?

Phone call.>  It's not the  Mormons?   You say it's another group of religious fanatics who will not rest until we all convert to their religion?  Sorry, Mormons  I got that  wrong.

Guess what? England, you are Terrorism's Butt Boy; any time they want you, you're wide open and not complaining until it's all over and the hurt begins.

We're beginning to believe you really LIKE it: you're so not-doing-more-than-whining!


Bye!

PS: Just learned that Amera can't protect ITS borners, either.
Well, What do you know.  Isn't that a Coincidence/

It's such a pleasure to coach a competent student! *The Best Gig I've Ever Had! *

Yes, it's that time of the month again; I held another "Introduction to USPSA" class, and only had one attendee.

He was a treasure.

He was safe, accurate and fast.  I had NOTHING to teach him, except the basic concept that IPSC competition juggles ACCURACY vs SPEED.  It took little time to convince him that he needed to know his own competence, and the decide for himself whether he needed to learn to give up a few points on ACCURACY to benefit his natural talent to shoot quickly with little loss of ACCURACY.

After the minimal "shoot two shots at one target" exercises, to determine his level of competence, I decided to present more challenging exercises.

(When you have only one student, you get to flex his wings and on-the-spot invent stages which are more difficult: it's even more fun when your student is very competent in basic shooting skills, and you get to introduce him to

 You can first move the targets farther away from the firing point, make them more complicated with mandatory reloads, and mix cardboard targets with steel targets.
Then add movement between different firing points, and eventually make the exercises "Free Form" so the student learns to evaluate the course of fire and determine his OWN "best" solution to the shooting problem!)

Eventually, I began to play "dirty tricks" on him.

"I Have A Right To Feel Safe!"

Where do people get the idea that they have a right to "Feel Safe"?

It's not in the Constitution, but in discussions of the Second Amendment in America, I see no referenced to the right to "Feel Safe".

I've been writing about Second Amendment rights here for ... I'm not sure.  Certainly going on ten years, perhaps a bit longer.

One thing I've learned from all this bloviating is that nothing I say has any influence on the dialogue of "Second Amendment Rights" versus "Hey! I Have A Right To Feel Safe!"

Usually, this statement comes from commenters who object to the Second Amendment, as a rebuttal to the right to keep and bear arms.  Which is part of the Constitution.   They (the commenters) bloat their arguments with imaginary rights, as if that will keep "Bad Guys" from accosting them in a short-cut back alley to steal their 'stuff' '(or in their own homes, or when travelling on "public transportation"), and then they complain that they have the right to "Feel Safe".

I don't know where that  RIGHT to "Feel Safe" idea came from, but it crops up from time to time, and I think it's about time that someone actually talks about it.

I want to feel safe.  YOU want to feel safe ... everybody thinks they have a right to feel safe.

Maybe we do have such a "right", but that isn't codified in American Law.

It's just wishful thinking.  I get that .. I feel the same way.

I want to feel safe, too.  I want World Peace,   I want everyone to have .. a lot of things, some of which we can afford to the people of the world by enacting some kind of law.

Unfortunately, nothing in the world community has ever offered a mechanism which provides ANY of us the possibility that we can "BE Safe".

Except in the Second Amendment.

Folks want a lot of things that they're not willing to work for .. to change their way of life for ... to fight for.

Feeling "Safe" isn't something that you can demand just because you want it.

Feeling "Safe" is something that you have to work toward, and there are absolutely NO guarantees that you can "make yourself safe", and still "Feel Safe".

If you want to feel safe against muggers .. pick up a gun, or learn some really complicated techniques of unarmed self-defense.  Nobody will make you do it;  but if you want to "Feel Safe", learn to defend yourself.

If you want to feel safe against home intruders ... unarmed self-defense techniques will only take you so far; if you have more intruders than you can personally kick ass to defeat, you're good to go.

But if you have more intruders than you have bullets in your gun ... you may die with the sense of satisfaction that you made them pay a high price.  It's not much, but it's better than dying with a knife in your gut while you watch the bad guys rape your wife and your daughter.   Yes, this has happened, and just maybe you can convince the bad guys that you're too tough a target to allow them to act out their depraved scenario.

It might happen.  Maybe not, but more likely than if you just roll over and allow them to work their will without effecting a defense at least as violent as their offense.

You say this never happens?

Indianapolis, October, 2013

District of Columbia, 2016

San Diego, 2017

These are only a few, randomly chosen instances where intruders broke into a home and abused and/or murdered occupants.  It happens ALL THE TIME and the residents of the home were unable to defend themselves.

They felt safe.

They were unable to MAKE themselves safe, because they had not established adequate home defenses because ... "this never happens".

You do have a reasonable expectation to 'feel safe" in every place you go, even in your home.
That doesn't necessarily mean that you ARE safe.  If you are accosted in your home by violent intruders, please feel free to discuss with them your right to "feel safe".

Or buy a gun, practice with it, keep it close and when they attack you in your own home?

Kill Them.

That may not satisfy you, but it's better than the alternative.

And the next guy might possibly think twice about rape and murder in your home.

It's worth a try.

Pediatricians Revisited:

Your child's Doctor does NOT have the right to tell your children that Daddy can't have a gun in the home!


The problem with pediatricians is that they are inclined to ask personal questions of your children about your home life ... which is only ONE reason you are encouraged to never leave your child with your pediatrician when you are not present.

Pediatricians may tend to impose their own personal opinions about the way you raise your child, and one of the most prevalent biases which they may impose upon your child is their objections to the presence of firearms in the home.  It's not just a matter of "safe storage" ... it's that Pediatricians typically object to ANY firearm in the home when a child is present.

Today we read this message:

Pediatricians and Parents Could Curb Child-Gun Incidents With Talk, Awareness, Report Says - NBC News:

Research published this month by the Children's National Hospital shows more than 4,500 kids under 21 were killed by firearms in 2015.

Well, that's better than the way it was ten years ago.

(I wonder .. "kids under 21"?  ... are these still "Children"?  The gangsters in Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, New York and ... name your favorite Big Town ... don't seem to think so.  But I digress!)

Or is it the same old thing?


I've been blogging about the intrusive actions of pediatricians since at least 2007 ... to no avail.
Unfortunately, most of the references linked in these articles are no longer active, so it serves no purpose to reference them here.

However, one article from 2007  retains an active link.

If you are concerned that your child's pediatrician may be "turning your child against you" because you have firearms and your pediatrician speaks against your parental decisions .. there is a form which you can print and ask your pediatrician to sign before treatment,

This form, which you can require your pediatrician to read and sign before he/she treats your child, requires the doctor to certify that he/she is qualified to discuss and make recommendations about firearms in the home.  It provides spaces for the pediatrician to not only attest, but list the courses of instruction, accreditation, licenses and certifications which make him/her an authority competent to counsel your family about firearms safety.

The form also includes a section titled:

Risk Management Advice to Physicians and Malpractice Insurance Providers

... which cautions physicians not to speak on subjects which they are not qualified to address.

If you are a firearms owner, and a parent, you have the right and responsibility to determine what kind of information is imparted to your child from your medical providers.

Assuming that your pediatrician is qualified and responsible, and attendant to the parental rights to raise your children according to your own values, is not necessarily reasonable.  Even the most caring pediatrician may feel that his/her political bias trumps your parental rights.

THE LAW IS that you do NOT have to allow your pediatrician to speak to your children in private, you do NOT have to allow your pediatrician to speak against your judgement, and your pediatrician is violating his oath by undermining your parental decision-making authority.

And firearms ownership is NOT "Parental Abuse".

Dirty Words

I once got into an argument with a friend, and came very close to calling him the vilest name I could think of.

And then I thought ... "what if he decided to call ME a New York Liberal Democrat Politician?"

So I merely called him an "@$$" and we parted friends.

It's good to have friends.

Below, a thumbnail of a miserable  man who has no friends.   It makes you mean.

NY Dem Pushes Bill Labeling Traditional Guns as 'Child Operated Firearms' - Breitbart:

New York State Senator Jose' M. Serrano (D-29) is pushing legislation that will require retailers to label a traditional gun which lacks a disabling device as a “child operated firearm.” The legislation–Senate Bill S3444–then bans the sale of any “child operated firearm.”

What Part Of "Shall Not Be Infringed" needs to be rephrased using small words for you, Senator?

Heroes: Ricky John Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, and Micah Fletcher

While I'm no fan of HuffPost, I'm grateful that they identified the three brave heroes who stopped the insane murderer on the Portland, Oregon "train".

And those three fine men are all heroes.

2 Men Stabbed To Death Standing Up To Muslim Hate In Portland | HuffPost:

 Portland police identified the deceased as Ricky John Best, 53, of Happy Valley, and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche of Portland. Best died on the train, while Namkai-Meche was pronounced dead later at the hospital, police said. The third victim was identified as 21-year-old Micah Fletcher of Portland.

These men suffered grievous knife wounds .. two died in their effort to protect innocents while the third (Fletcher) was fortunate to survive the attack.

These are the heroes.

The pitiful loser who initiated the attacks  ,.. he obviously was someone who sought notoriety by hateful acts when he could not acquire fame by contributing a benefit to society .... should never be named.  I hope he burns in hell knowing that he has not achieved his goal of notoriety.

I won't attempt to profile the heroes here ... HuffPost did a fine job of identifying them.  I'm sure we will learn more about Best, Namkai-Meche and Fletcher.

If they do not receive (at least!) a medal from the hands of the President ... it will be a travesty of justice.

We would hope that any of us would have had the courage to intervene as these three fine men did, but I suspect that most of us would have been, in similar circumstances, frozen by terror and unable to act.  I cannot say that I would  have as well defended the innocent girl were I disarmed.

I doubt that most of us can aver, with certainty, that we would have had the courage and the sense of civic responsibility which was demonstrated by  Ricky John Best,  Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche  and Micah Fletcher!

In passing:   While it may seem that I'm beating the drum for my personal bias, it cannot go without commenting that if just ONE person on that urban train had been a CHL person, that entire tragedy could have been stopped with one accurate shot.

Two fine men would have lived; the third would not be grievously injured.

The evil man would have died .. as he obviously had hoped.

And the young woman ... the subject of the original assault ... might have been traumatized, but not as badly as she obviously was when she was forced to watch the gruesome death of two fine men, and the mutilation of another, for her protection,

Portland is suffering under the unfortunate appellation of "Berkeley North" because of its Liberal politics.  I cannot help but wonder if that might have contributed to this tragedy; the attacker might have assumed that he could attack without any effective resistance, if only because this might be an area where nobody would be armed with a gun (A "Gun-Free Zone" City?)

He was correct, to a point.

But he obviously never envisioned that three unarmed men would throw themselves bodily against an armed man (armed with a knife, which he had already demonstrated that HE had no hesitation to use) in defense of a young woman whom he deemed ... 'different'.

People Sometimes Ask:

"Why do you  carry a gun.  Are you so fearful?  Do you think that somebody will just walk up to you and assault you for no reason at all?   What... do you think you live in The Wild West or something?"

Well .. you never know.

Do you?

Oregon Bills May Prove Expensive: Especially SB1065

A couple of Oregon firearm bills are up for votes immediately .. including

SB1065:

SB 1065 includes language from several previous anti-gun bills that died due to a procedural error made by Floyd Prozanski, a sponsor of this bill.The bill is a 26 page monstrosity, but here are the lowlights.  Among many other things this bill does, it nearly quintuples the length of time the State Police can deny you a firearms transfer with no cause.  It also drastically complicates the process for getting a concealed handgun license.

Also:

. Online classes will be prohibited unless the class is provided by the NRA or an “Oregon law enforcement agency or association. “

I'm sure there are several professionals who provide this training locally, but I don't know if they are NRA Approved or if they need to be; the law isn't clear about that.  They are usually expensive, running into multiple hundreds of dollars.  I know of at least one Oregon provider, and I'm sure his training is worth the money.

The problem is that not everyone can afford it.

This bill may prove burdensome for some law-abiding Oregonians,

Fortunately, I acquired my first CHL fifty years ago .. which lapsed, but I re-applied some years later.

Here's a hint:  If you have a CHL in Oregon, do NOT let it expire.  Mine did, last month (they're only good for 4 or 5 years, which is enough time to forget you need to renew it) and now I have to go around collecting signatures from friends and neighbors signifying that they think I'm an honest responsible gun owner.

It's a LOT easier if you renew before your CHL expires.  In my state, at least, and probably in most states.

Campus SJW's OWNED!

Question on Campus:  How about if we take a few points off the GPA of the higher-scoring students and give them to the bottom-scoring students?  Okay by you?

Davidson College students furious after they're tricked into rejecting socialist ideal - The College Fix:

 Some students said the fake petition made them struggle with feelings that they do not belong at Davidson, while others aggressively attacked the video, calling it “oppressive,” “illegally filmed,” and “inflammatory bullsh*t,” according to a video of the April 27 teach-in on Facebook.

I'm thinking of a word .. what is it?  
Oh, I've got it;  the word is ... HYPOCRISY!

hy·poc·ri·sy
[hi- pok-r uh-see]NOUN [PLURAL HY·POC·RI·SIES.]1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Alternate Title: "The Hypocrisy of the Meritocracy"

The interesting thing is, these students who reject the thesis are the same Social Justice Warriors who think that "Wealth Distribution" is a social "Good".

(But in truth, they just may be part of the meritocracy)

So .. Daddy makes enough money that you can afford to matriculate at Davidson College ...

But it isn't YOUR money, and there's a lot of it.   So. if Daddy's money is 'shared', it doesn't hurt you.

However, when the "benefits" are finite, and it's a Zero-Sum game ... you're against it?

Let's look at the fee schedule for Davidson College:

FEES FOR 2017-18 ACADEMIC YEAR

• Required student charges (tuition, student activity fee) $49,949; student activity fee covers student publications, student government, and social and cultural activities
• Standard Double Room (other rooms available) $7,102
• Meals, 21 per week (other plans available) $6,852, includes N.C. Board Tax
• Total: $63,903

Gee, for almost 139% of average annual salary which the average America workers makes (<$44K), you could go to college at Davidson ... and be outraged that some dork wants to take a couple points off your GPA and give them to a lower-ranking student?

That's just so  not fair!

[H/T: IRONS]

Trigger Scale

I broke down and bought a Trigger Scale from Amazon last week.  I never owned one before, and I was curious about just how heavy the trigger pull was on my pistols.

I rather wish I had not.  The scale only measures to eight pounds ... most of them were way over the limit.   Which is okay for certain uses, I suppose, but not for any purpose for which I bought the pistols.    Even The Beloved Kimber, since I got the trigger replaced, now clocks in at "UGH!" pounds trigger pull.

I can understand it for DA-Only pistols, but even my SA pistols tend to over-do it.

The only exception is the STI Edge in 10mm, which still breaks at a crisp, clean 3-3/4 ounces.
Ah ... perfection!   Unfortunately, my eyes have degenerated so badly in the past few years that I'm unable to use it as well in competition as I use to.   I can't see the iron sights.

I'm sorely tempted to have it mounted with an AIMPOINT, and get back into the Pistol Game ... even if I do have to shoot in OPEN Division without a compensated barrel.

"Will Not Comply!" Eh!

The funny thing about our "kinder, gentler" Northern Friends is that when it comes to taking their guns away, they're every bit as resistant to The Gov'ment as are we rowdier "southern neighbors".

This Week:
More than a million restricted, prohibited guns in Canada - Politics - CBC News:

A year and a half after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government came to office promising to tighten Canada's gun laws, there are now more than a million restricted and prohibited firearms across the country. The number of restricted firearms in Canada rose 5.5 per cent last year, reaching its highest point in more than a decade, according to the annual report from the RCMP's commissioner of firearms. There are now 839,295 restricted firearms, many of them handguns. The number of prohibited firearms in Canada, such as fully automatic guns, edged up 0.5 per cent to 183,333

Considering that these firearms are being described as "prohibited" and "restricted", it's difficult to understand how they get an exact count of the 'restricted' guns    Let alone the 'prohibited'!

In the meantime, the article missed an interesting point when they neglected to mention whether unregistered "restricted' guns were confiscated if/when found, or were the owners merely obliged to register them.

Seeing as how a government which would restrict guns would prefer to say "Mister and Missus Canada, Turn 'em All In!" it's probably safe to say that the guns were confiscated without compensation.
Eh?

"Quite frankly, the Trudeau government really hasn't done very much in regards to attacks on firearms owners in Canada since they got elected. About the only thing they have done is let the RCMP run wild and make up laws as they go."

And that does not endear the Trudeau government (or any government) to citizens who would be legal firearms owners without these bizarre restrictions.

(H/T: "The Gun Feed")