I've got to post this quickly, before it disappears!

Federal judge blocks California gun magazine confiscation scheme | Fox News:
Federal judge blocks California gun magazine confiscation scheme
By Stephen Gutowski Published July 03, 2017 Washington Free Beacon

A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction on Thursday that blocks California from enforcing their gun magazine confiscation law. U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez said in his ruling that the law, which would make it illegal to possess any gun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, likely violates the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs in the case. He ordered that California immediately stop enforcing the law pending further legal action.
 "The Court does not lightly enjoin a state statute, even on a preliminary basis," Judge Benitez said in the ruling. "However, just as the Court is mindful that a majority of California voters approved Proposition 63 and that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from gun violence, it is equally mindful that the Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. Plaintiffs' entitlements to enjoy Second Amendment rights and just compensation are not eliminated simply because they possess ‘unpopular' magazines holding more than 10 rounds."

[I tried to post this without comment, but BLOGGER dot com locked up.  It took me a while to recover the original text, so I'm posting it without much comment just to get it online before some other ...  bizarre circumstances  .. locked me up again, and this time loses my content.]

LATER:

Glad the post was published.

This is a significant judicial decision, not only because it challenges the "10 round magazine" limitation (which is common in most gun-unfriendly states}, but also because it established an "At Least" standard for magazine capacity which most states are bound to follow.

There are other significant ramifications of this judicial ruling:

First, it acknowledges the protection from the tyranny of the majority  ... which is always an issue when discussing Second Amendment Freedoms.  That the opinion was issued by a sitting judge is significant; it's not the errant rambling of a gun-guy, but the judicial opinion of a respected member of the court.

Second, there is a controversy between pro-gun and anti-gun forces which are generally considered to be nothing more than a matter of opinion; the judicial ruling cited here resolves the controversy, at least in terms of whether a 10-round magazine ought to be established as a minimum "load limit" (for want of a better expression).

One of the more obnoxious issues in gun-control controversy has been "what is a legitimate legal limit for magazine capacity".  I've always opined that there is no legitimate limit, if only because pro-gun and anti-gun forces have been unable disinclined to reach an agreement.  By this, we have established a minimum legitimate magazine capacity.  It's not much, but it's a start!

Third, (and I'm admittedly expanding on an issue raised in the preceding paragraph), there is another issue: when the "Other Side" of the issue enters into a discussion as to how many rounds in a magazine should be accepted as "optimal", they have already tacitly accepted that individual firearms ownership is a legitimate situation, and not subject to further discussion.  But some of those kind folk are adamant about the number of rounds should be permitted in a magazine, to all acceptable performance in the limited applications of firearms force they are willing to accept.

There is an old joke about prostitution, which ends with the punchline:

"We have already established 'what kind of girl you are';  Now we are only bickering about the price".

Not to belie the (perhaps inappropriate) discussion: nobody knows, or can make a definitive argument for, exactly "how many rounds" are appropriate for a magazine to define the difference between "not enough for defense" and "too many for sport".

My personal opinion is "you can never have too much ammunition, nor too many magazines!". 

But I'm guilty of using competitive criteria (USPSA competition allows an unlimited number of rounds and magazines in a variety of competitive classes) and some critics of the sport complain that the usage of 25+ round capacity magazines is, at best, "unrealistic".

My invariable response is: "It's a GAME, Sport!  If you can't pay, you shouldn't play."

Who says that gun ownership is only about self defense?  Shooting is fun because ... it's fun!

UBC ... the slippery slope to gun owners who can't prove their innocence

Don't be fooled about UBC (Universal Background Checks).

The problem isn't about knowing who has what guns;  the problem is about who has a gun which the state may unilaterally decide to confiscate.

"Oh, they wouldn't do THAT!"

Bullshit.  California did exactly that in 2015/2016:

REDDING, Calif. - A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.
It's called AB-1014 and it comes after the mass shooting in May 2014 that claimed six lives in Isla Vista, California.

(And by the way, Oregon is toying with the same legislation ... it's so NICE to live in a Liberal State!)

Why would your 'family or friends' turn you into the Confiscation Cops?  Because they love you!

And you're going to jail, Buddy.  Isn't love wonderful?

The Problem with Universal Background Checks *(UBC)* is that it is tantamount to Universal Registration ... which is the first step to Universal Confiscation.

Lawsuit Filed Over Unimplemented Universal Background Check - Bearing Arms - Anti-Gun Laws, Gun Control, Nevada, universal background checks:

The problem with universal background checks is that nothing about them is particularly enforceable. The transfer of a firearm to a family member is just one example. Unless the state maintains a full database of who has which guns, it’s impossible to determine just when a gun was transferred and to whom. 

That's not a 'problem'; that's a FEATURE!

Why do you think The State needs a "full database of who has which guns"?

Because they want to know just which doors to knock on, and which guns they can confiscate there.  And if they don't find the guns their registration database tells them they should expect, you're in a heap of trouble, Bubba!

Oh, someone stole your gun(s)?

Guess what ... there's a companion law requiring you to report gun  thefts within x-number of days.   You didn't notice they were gone?  Sorry ... put your hands behind your back, and tell your wife and children goodbye.   You're going to jail, Bubba.  You'll have to prove your innocence.

Personally, I couldn't tell you how many guns I own, let alone how many of which type.  Serial numbers?  Some  most ALL of them don't have serial numbers. 

"I don't need no stinking serial numbers!"

This isn't America.  It's California, and now Nevada, and (coming soon) it's Oregon.

I didn't vote for this, in Oregon, my Native state.  It's to be a 'regulation', not a state constitutional issue.   Second Amendment be damned.   "We don't need no stinkin' Second Amendment."

"Liberal Politics" isn't politics;  it's "Hi!  I'm From The Government and I'm Here to make sure that you understand that we own your a**!"

Some folks don't appreciate their efforts.

A two-guns-per-person limit would protect Americans’ lives and liberty.

I love SLATE!    They use the most bizarre arguments to bolster political opinions which are indefensible, which makes them vulnerable to a simple statement of fact to discredit their opinions.

A case in point:

SLATE: A two-guns-per-person limit would protect Americans’ lives and liberty.:

The 27 words of the Second Amendment don’t say anything about how many guns someone can own in America. Neither do the other 7,564 words in the Constitution. Yes, this is a facile point to make. A lot of things—including rights, responsibilities, and government powers we take for granted—aren’t itemized in the Constitution. While saying you can’t find something doesn’t necessarily mean anything, conservatives use this trick all the time.

The conclusion which SLATE derives from this 'logic' is undermined by their own acknowledgement that 'this is a facile point to make"  Slate has committed a Prima Fascia argument which is easily refuted.   Liberals use this trick all the time. 

 What the 2nd Amendment says (in so many words) is "... shall not be infringed ...".   The Second Amendment has been clearly defined as NOT endowing American citizens with a right; that right antecedes the Constitution.  The 2nd Amendment exists solely to enumerate rights which pre-exist the Constitution.   When SLATE decides to re-interpret the Constitution, it demonstrates either an immature comprehension of the document, or a willing mis-interpretation to support it's own political position.

To deliberately misconstrue the Constitution in this manner is an egregious effort to sway ill-informed readers toward the SLATE's author's own personal bias.

Limiting the number of an object which 'may' legally be owned is awkward and unlikely in the instance of any object; in the specific instance of firearms ownership, it is explicitly forbidden by the Constitutional admonition: "... shall not be infringed ..." and this limitation is obviously an infringement. 

The argument "you don't need more than one gun to hunt deer" is facile and quite beside the point.   Even if it were not: I own firearms for several purposes:  Competition *(RIFLE, SHOTGUN, PISTOL)*, self-defense, Deer hunting, Antelope hunting, Elk hunting, Rabbit hunting, Bird hunting (several varieties), plinking, TEOTWAWKI ....there are the reasons for my ownership of at least a dozen firearms! 

And I own heritage firearms, passed down from father to sons for at least three generations.  I've passed some of them down to my son ...and would pass them down to my daughter, except she's not interested.  I love her anyway.

Not that I need to explain my "need to own firearms: but a lot of people don't understand that their life style is not comparable with my own.   For example, I don't live in a Major Metropolitan Area.  And I don't have children or 'untrained individuals' sharing my residence.

Note that the Second Amendment was originally objected to by many of our Founding Fathers, because they believed  that to provide specifications was to invite contest of a basic 'inalienable' right.  They couldn't imagine why anyone would want to refute the simple RIGHT to defend nation, family, home, self, possessions.

In retrospect, they seem to have been correct in predicting that Liberals (a term which definition has been reversed since the 18th Century) may use that single amendment to justify their opposition,

I don't know why they *(anti-gun folks, which term I admit I use interchangeably with "Liberals")* continue to rant and rail against the Second Amendment; it simply affirms that firearm ownership is a right for Americans, regardless of any another restriction except those which are "proven factors" that an individual is not legally, mentally or emotionally competent to exercise their Constitutional rights in this area.

According to Liberals, there are no citizens who are competent to exercise this right.  I suspect that this may be a "projection", because they don't think that they are personally capable of rational thought or civil exercise of their rights.

The single exceptions , according to Liberals, are Law Enforcement Personnel, and active duty member of the Armed Forces. Personally, I have known both LEOs and Soldiers that I wouldn't trust with a gun. (I've served with a couple of soldiers who were mentally, emotionally and physically incompetent.)   As a consequence, I'm somewhat dubious about the whitewash for "police and military" as being universally competent.

SLATE apparently thinks that the "clear intentions" of the authors of the Constitution is passe', and no longer applicable to current American thought.

There are millions of responsible firearms owners who will take personal exception to SLATE's pompous assumption of moral and civic authority.

"High Capacity Magazines"

 I can reload my pistol from magazine carriers on my belt  in two seconds.  That's almost the time it takes me to draw my pistol from my belt holster and engage a target ... and hit it ... at point-blank range.

Which makes this Democratically (of course!) proposed law " even more laughable:

Democrats propose ban on high-capacity magazines in wake of Las Vegas attack | US news | The Guardian:

 Democrats are planning to introduce legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines in the wake of the Las Vegas attack that left at least 59 people dead and nearly 500 more injured. The proposed ban on the transfer, importation, or possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition follows separate legislation to ban “bump stocks”, the novelty device that Stephen Paddock appears to have used to make semi-automatic rifles mimic the rapid fire of a fully automatic weapon.

I currently own magazines of over 10 rounds ... had them for decades.  They're legal today.
Am I going to be subjected to ex post facto laws?  That's simple possession, right?

The Guardian Article:

Gun rights advocates say the pause to reload when changing magazines is very brief and unlikely to have a significant impact on casualties, and that arbitrarily restricting magazine size to 10 rounds would be costly and inconvenient.
These advocates say it is not hard to make larger capacity magazines by hand, even if they’re not available for legal purchase. Chris Koper, the researcher who evaluated the 1994 assault weapon ban, estimated that renewed limits on the size of ammunition magazines might contribute, in the long-term, to a 1% reduction in shootings each year. This was only a “reasonable ballpark estimate”, he cautioned.

Every thing old is new again, and that's especially true of the "latest" (and 'oldest") proposed Democratic ban on "high capacity magazines".  Various states have imposed bans on sale or transfer of magazines capable of retaining more than six, eight or ten rounds.  This is the first time I'e heard that simple possession might be illegal

If they can't even agree on magazine limits, why should we presume that the various states understand the consequences of their arbitrary laws?

What's the "right" number of rounds which should be permissible in a magazine?  For decades, Anti-Second Amendment activists have grappled with this quandary, and they can't quite seem to get the "right number" of rounds which will stop mass shootings.

The funny thing is:
,,, this is not the first time this "law" has been suggested.  It didn't meet any arbitrarily determined criteria the last time (because it was difficult to define, and impossible to enforce) and it won't accomplish any imaginary goal of "preventing gun crime" this time.

These people, who know nothing about guns and gun-users, have brought back a question that they don't know how to define and that nobody knows how to  accomplish.

In the example of the Las Vegas shooting, the "sniper" was not operating under a time constraint: nobody knew where he was, and he could reload under absolutely no pressure.  He had magazines which are (unreliably) reported to be of "100 round capacity" (which I doubt), but that was never an issue.

Using that specific instance to justify the rejuvenation of an historically fallacious argument toward a provably unproductive end is just a bunch of horse doodie.   People will do what they do, and will always  find ways to get around any arbitrary restrictions which serve no legitimate purpose.

Ex Post Facto Laws:
There are too many (literally .. MILLIONS!) "High Capacity Magazines" in private hands today to make any arbitrary restriction viable; and people who own  them will not give them up, because it's a stupid law to try to impose on people who already own them. Do the states which impose these arbitrary limits intend to confiscate "illegal" (previously owned legally) magazines without compensating their owners for their investment? Doesn't the fifth amendment* of the Constitution have something to say about that?

*(|No confiscation without compensation")

What are they going to do?  Track down everyone who own a 30-round magazine?  They can't do it: magazines are not identified by serial numbers ... it's not a matter of record who owns what  magazines!  And trying to enforce such a law is a waste of time for people (Law Enforcement Offers) who have better things to do with their time.   It's not enforceable, and cops know that!

Politicians who think they have to pass laws to show their constituents that they are "doing something" are idiots and/or fools; politicians who even suggest such an unenforceable law are the object of ridicule from the Law Enforcement Officers who would be required to enforce it.

Are the politicians going to require the cops to go from door to door to search for "illegal magazines"?  Good luck with that!

It makes you wonder how idiots are elected to office.   But I suppose it's in the 'usual' way:  Graft.

Conservative Speech on Liberal Campus

One of the other more difficult transitions to College (besides  not living at home with Mom and Dad, who are leveling influences and are readily available to offer you advice which you probably won't consider for another decade or so) is to assimilate dramatically different social and moral values from what you learned in Podunk, USA.

Ben Shapiro New York Times Op-Ed Response | National Review:

In an op-ed published in the New York Times, Jane Coaston accuses conservative commentator Ben Shapiro of exhibiting “hollow bravery” during his much-publicized speeches on campus. Coaston outlines what she considers to be Shapiro’s trick: Set up a speech in a progressive bastion, ideally a college campus full of coastal elites who have never left their bubble. Spar with snowflakes who are offended by something he says about race or gender and perhaps even believe he never should have been invited in the first place. Post the exchange on the internet and use it as proof that the cultural consensus is stacked dramatically against conservatives.

"if you're going to shoot, shoot! Don't talk!"

Law abiding firearms owners are demeaned, castigated, and insulted on a daily basis by liberal "pundits" who suggest (and too often specifically state) that we are shills for "The Gun Lobby", "Firearms Manufacturers", and the NRA.

It's demeaning to read Internet articles which suggest that we are irresponsible, infantile, and are unduly influenced by money-grubbing industry sharpies with the immoral purpose of taking advantage of our lack of civil and moral values.

It's convenient when a Gun Grabber  Gun Control shill Gun Safety Advocate comes out in the open about their agenda:

What to Bring to the Gun Fight | Crooked Media:

Last week, Republicans rejoiced, and some Democrats winced privately, when Nancy Pelosi said she hoped regulation of bump stocks—the device the Las Vegas shooter used to make his weapon more deadly—would be a “slippery slope” to further regulation. Democrats were concerned that Pelosi had handed the NRA a political cudgel the group would brandish against every one of them. But Pelosi was right, and I would like to see more Democrats find her courage, because the alternative is to surrender our ideals, and the moral high ground, for no discernible upside.

I fail to understand where the "moral high ground" lies in undermining the Constitution and abrogating the civil rights of Americans.

We could lay the death of progress at the feet of the Republican Party, which has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association, but that would ultimately be a cop out. 

[emphasis added]

Or the Republican party might be defined as that political group which protect the Constitution;   all of it.    And it could be than many firearms owners are Republicans because the alternative ... to elect Democratic representatives to high office ... would compromise our own civil priorities and moral values.   And since too many Democratic Officials are ignorant of the term "Democratic" (representing ALL, equally) ...

The speaker for the Democratic Opposition to Civil Rights continues:

But when it comes to firearms we routinely fail. We are now in the midst of another gun debate that we will almost certainly lose.  The majority of Americans support stricter gun laws; less than 40 percent of Americans live in a house with a gun; consensus Democratic gun control proposals like requiring universal background checks and banning assault weapons poll above 80 percent; and yet the idea that even trivial legislation will reach the president’s desk remains a fantasy.

"40 percent of Americans" vs Democratic Polls

(See Below The Fold for a short discussion of "DEMOCRATIC")
It's a strange thing about the Constitution.  Each  generation of Liberals fails to understand that the point is to avoid the "tyranny of the majority".   In this case, the author conveniently fails to cite the source of his statistics.   Which I wouldn't believe even if he did.

If you were asked to respond to a telephone "poll" asking if you had firearms in your house, how would you answer?   My own unofficial poll is that 100% of Americans who own guns would decline to answer in the affirmative.   But I'm more honest than the author; I only asked myself.

It's nobody's business whether I own firearms.  I freely acknowledge here that I do, because it's obvious; not because some nosy reporter asked me to become a statistic.

"... another gun debate that we will almost certainly lose ..."
... and rightly so.   People who want to undermine my Constitution have no moral stance here.   It is immoral for one person to demand that a law-abiding American citizen be denied his right to defense of family, self, home and property.

The author suggests asserts that the Republican Party ... has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association, which is misleading at best, disingenuous at worst.

The National Rifle Association  (NRA) is a representative organization which is supported by its (approximately 5 million) members, who are firearms owners.   Contributions and support are generously sourced by business interests (which in turn are supported by the purchases made by firearms owners); but the corporate interests would go out of business if NOT for the support of firearms owners and other sportsmen.   The NRA would not exist without its (relatively small) membership.

Note: Political Party Membership varies in the United States, with about 45% in each major party (changes annually).  Membership in the NRA seems relatively miniscule compared to major political party membership, which is somewhere in the area of 100 million members; give or take 5 million.

It's as disingenuous to suggest that the members of the NRA are controlled by the NRA, as to suggest that the NRA is controlled by the firearms industry.   It's a tripartite relationship, each wing as dependent on the others.

And firearms laws would not be enacted by our elected representatives if they were not voted into office.   Note here that the power of the NRA does not come from financial contributions, but by the VOTES OF LEGAL FIREARMS OWNERS.   Politics is funded by money, but it is decided by votes.   Firearms owners are often single-issue voters, and both parties are aware of this.

BELOW THE FOLD: DEMOCRATIC

When you're right, you're right.

The first time I saw a Vegas video, I said it out loud:

"Holy Shit!   That's Full Auto!"

Well, yes and no.  It was a conversion (bump fire; never heard of it).   But it was still full auto.

Later, I grew angry with the NRA because it wouldn't make a statement about bump fire.   I was torn for two reasons:

• I never fully agreed with the severe restrictions on private ownership of Full-Auto weapons because I think that any weapon available to the average infantryman should be available the the law-abiding citizen.  Because Second Amendment.
• I also realize that is unrealistic, because this world is full of crazy people ... and yes, the rest of us ARE penalized unfairly.   Because crazy people are all over and we know we can't predict who is going to do a crazy thing. *(apologies to Minority Report; it just ain't happening)*

Then I got mad at the NRA because they were silent.   But I decided to give the NRA time to decide what they were going to say.   That was a good choice, because ...

Today the NRA's Past President Marion Hammer made a statement:

An open letter to NRA board of directors from past-president Marion Hammer - The Gun Writer:

If you listened to an audio recording of the shooting during that horrific massacre, you must have concluded that it was full-auto fire. You were not alone, many firearms experts and law enforcement professionals came to the same conclusion. It was not until later that information was released disclosing that bump-stocks had been used to convert semi-automatic firearms to perform like full-auto firearms.

and:

Do you have any idea how many people were shocked out of their minds when ATF decided bump-stocks were not subject to regulation and APPROVED them for sale and use? That was under the Obama administration for crying out loud. Your mind is forced to run wild wondering why.
Once the ruling was made, what would you expect NRA to do? Do you think NRA should have said, Oh! No, ATF is wrong, ATF made a mistake?
It doesn’t matter what laws the NRA doesn’t agree with or doesn’t like, the NRA must abide by the law. For decades, over and over again when the enemies of the Second Amendment have tried to capitalize on tragedies by calling for more gun control, NRA has called for enforcing existing law. That is exactly what we are doing now.

On the other hand, there's this:

NRA Opposes New Bump Fire Stock Ban Bill

Bill's language may reach far beyond bump fire stocks

A woman's work is never done.

Why Would Scalise Change His Mind About Gun Control?

Charles C. W. Cooke offers an interesting slant on the Gun Control question:

Why Would Scalise Change His Mind About Gun Control?:

It seems that there is widespread amazement on the Left that, having been targeted by an assassin with a rifle, and almost killed, Rep. Steve Scalise has not changed his mind on gun control. “After being shot,” read a headline at NBC, Scalise still opposes more gun control.” “Even after . . .” added ThinkProgress, indignantly.

And the chorus cried “no fair!” This, alas, was to be expected. When I write on this topic, I am often told that I would feel differently if my family had been killed by a deranged shooter, or if I had more personal experience as a victim of violence. Leaving aside that, even if this were true, it wouldn’t tell us much — I’ll let Mitchell and Webb make the point against relying on victims for instant policy expertise — it always strikes me that this is ultimately an admission of ignorance. 

This commentary deserves some feedback.

First: having been shot (assumedly because of his political convictions), Representative Scalise determined that his personal 'situation' shouldn't vary because someone shot him.   Instead, he seems to have accepted an affirmation that he has taken a stand based on his moral values, and those same values require him to stand firm.

I admire the man for his courage and for his determination.  I don't agree with his opinion, but he is one of the most honorable men in Washington. (And given my opinion on Congress Critters, that should be considered the highest compliment available!)
Second: the general opinion of The Left (as described by Cooke) disagrees with my evaluation.  Which, in turn, confirms my general opinion vis a vis "The Left" as being generally a pack of poltroons with no moral character and no priorities other than their re-election. ( In other words; not much different from the "other side" of the aisle.)

Come to think of it, their response was a  left-handed  compliment to Representative Scalise, even though they may not have intended it so.

Any man who is castigated by The Left is worthy of mention for having firmly established himself on the Moral High Ground.

He's too good for them.

Ignoring the 500 pound gorilla in the room ... and expecting a solution

Somebody is pointing their finger in the wrong direction!

How gun control advocates could break the NRA's blockade - CNNPolitics:

Since early in Bill Clinton's first term as president, the National Rifle Association and its legislative allies have effectively stymied meaningful federal gun control legislation. That blockade has held for two decades despite a succession of mass shootings over so horrific they have become known simply by their location: Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, San Bernardino, Orlando and now Las Vegas.

Nobody is forgetting the massacres which make the headlines, but everyone is forgetting the true cost of firearms violence.  It's not the crazy-man-with-a-gun that we need to deal with; they're crazy, you can't do anything about them but lock them up after the fact.

The REAL problem is the everyday low-key violence which occurs in urban ghettos.   And while you remain too shy *(or too politically correct)* to identify the real problem, all of your solutions will fail to stop the greatest number of firearms deaths in America.

What is the Real Problem?

Most of the 'firearms violence' incidents, those which continue to rack up high body counts on a daily basis, don't occur in the white-bread high schools in our nation.

Why is it that young black men are being murdered by the dozens on a weekly basis with nobody paying much attention to it; but when one young white man goes crazy in a 'fly-over' state, the pontificating political left acts as if the world is coming to an end?

After the Columbine high school shooting, Clinton pushed in 1999 for legislation centered on closing the so-called "gun show loophole."

Where was Bill Clinton before that seminal moment?  Was he stretching his legs under his desk in the Oval Office, perhaps experiencing his own seminal moment?

There has never been any sign of a National Leadership willing to pay attention to the problems with the urban poor, and ... yes, the young black men who weekly slaughter each other more regularly than all of the Las Vegas and Columbine tragedies, which occur on a relatively rare frequency?

Where is the call from the Federal government for a solution to the SOCIETAL problem which is the true progenitor of Urban Firearms Violence?

Does America choose to ignore the slaughter in Chicago, Baltimore, even D.C. merely because both the victims and the murderers are usually BLACK?

 The more consequential change since the 1990s has been the willingness of more Congressional Republicans with large white-collar and suburban constituencies to vote with the NRA.

Why is there an emphasis on "... large white-collar and suburban constituencies ..." when the violence is not usually perpetrated on, nor by, white-collar and suburban constituencies?


Most urban firearms violence involves a strong racial bias.    It isn't because both killer and victim are black; its because they live in a neighborhood where economic opportunities are lacking for young black men with no marketable skills.   .

They're not shooting each other because there are too many guns, Dammit.  They're shooting each other because they have nothing better to do!

The mothers of these young men are often unmarried, trying to support their family, and there is no father-figure to teach their sons how to be a man.  The daughters have only their mother as a role model ...  sometimes the children have no father in common.  These children often have no incentive to get a good education.  New business opportunities won't establish themselves where the violence is too fearful to attract workers who are NOT young local untrained men and women.

It's because poverty and neglect are so common in these communities that there IS no sense of community, except that "Whitey is going to keep us down!"   (And they are right!)

It's because our  National Leadership is ignoring that particular gorilla, because the headlines are full of Las Vegas and Washington and which Republican Senator is dissing which Republican Party Hack this week.

When we read articles such as the one in the headline, we should cringe.

REPUBLICANS AREN'T TURNING ON TRUMP, THEY'RE TURNING ON EACH OTHER

(They have nothing better to do.)

CBS Statics: misleading, incomplete, amateurish and biased

CBS sponsored a meme which identified the top 20 states which registerd instances of death by firearms.

They were somewhat disingenuous in the criteria they chose.

They chose ALASKA as the most suffering from "death by gun".

They mentioned that suicide was the "leading cause of gun deaths.  They emphasized that ",,, states with the highest rates of suicide also usually had the strongest culture of gun ownership.".

They didn't mention that states with the highest rate of suicide were also the states with very low population.

Some people might consider that "loneliness" might be a huge factor in suicide rates, but this study doesn't address it at all.

1. Alaska - Death by gun: Top 20 states with highest rates - Pictures - CBS News: 

Death by firearm per 100,000 population: 19.8 No permit required for purchase of a firearm. In Alaska, suicide was the leading cause of gun deaths, with it being the main factor in more than 80% of all firearm deaths. John Roman, senior fellow at the Urban Institute, an economic and social policy think tank told USA Today that states with the highest rates of suicide also usually had the strongest culture of gun ownership. "There are many more suicides in places where it's easy to get a gun," he said.

In fact, this poorly edited website only mentions states which do NOT require a "permit for purchase of a firearm" ... and no other background information was made available.   Efforts to follow up on subsequent 'ratings' were unrewarding.

For example:

5. Arkansas

Death by firearm per 100,000 population: 16.8

No permit required for purchase of a firearm.

As far as I was willing to follow the trail, these were the limited statistics available,  and there absolutely NO details available to differentiate between the states.

No permit required for purchase of a firearm

The insinuation is clear, that the authors consider a 'permit process' to be a valid method to reduce firearm deaths, although no details described the variety of ways which firearm deaths might occur (death by Law Enforcement Officers, Self Defense, Manslaughter, Murder, etc.)

The only significant statistics (according to this website) are whether firearms owners who were (even tangentially) involved in a "firearms death" were required to apply for, and receive, a 'permit' from their state of residence before they were 'allowed' to purchase a firearm.

The problem with the Internet is that anyone can make any statement, and as long as they are able to cite another internet post as "authority", they may be accepted as "fact" by someone who has an axe to grind, and cannot find another source to justify their assertionsl.

How low can WHO go? Schumer

It's difficult to put words in Chuck Schumer's mouth ... there's already a foot in there.

Schumer rips NRA for pushing federal concealed carry bill - NY Daily News: ]\

“Just days after the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history, the NRA is engaging their allies in Congress to push through a dangerous national concealed carry law, which begs the question: How low can you go?” said Schumer (D-N.Y.).

(emphasis added)

Actually, the NRA has been working toward a National Concealed Carry agreement since long before the Vegas Massacre.   But Schumer's vituperative comments are consistent with his long-standing opposition to the Second Amendment:

While serving in the House of Representatives, Schumer, along with California senator Dianne Feinstein, authored the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban which expired in 2004. The National Rifle Association and other gun groups (see gun politics) have criticized him for allegedly not knowing much about guns, alluding to various errors regarding the subject.^{[citation needed]} Supporters of gun control legislation, however, give him much of the credit for passage of both the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.^{[citation needed]} The Assault Weapons Ban, which banned semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns with certain features, expired in September 2004 despite attempts by Schumer to extend it. He was one of 16 senators to vote against the Vitter Amendment, which prohibited the confiscation of legally owned firearms during a disaster.

Schumer is also consistently re-elected by his home state, winning 70% of the vote in his most recent election.

New York loves Schumer, and has no great love for private ownership of firearms.   That's not really surprising, since the abuse of firearms is one of the major issues in any state with many high-density cities, and it's worth noting that New York is NOT among the top 20 states for firearms death.

I don't agree with Chuck Schumer's views about guns, but I have to admit that he is more entertaining than his cousin, Amy Schumer.   (yes, they are cousins ... not uncle and niece,)

(WORKPLACE VIOLENCE WARNING! Your office partners will shoot you if you run the linked video of an Amy Schumer routine with the sound on.)

Chipping Away at the Second Amendment

The anti-Second Amendment folks have a script that they all read from, and the line at the top is:

"Nobody is trying to take your guns away"

There's this thing about undermining the constitution; it's hard to do when you openly state "We Don't Think You Deserve These Rights Because We Don't Trust You", so these folks say other things, like :

"Gee, I know YOU wouldn't abuse this gun, but obviously other people will, so let's just agree that it's A Good Idea to make it illegal for anybody to own it".

Here is a prime example:

The Cancer in the Constitution - The New York Times:

All of his weapons were legal but should not be by any rational reading of the Second Amendment.

What Constitutional Scholar made that decision? The NYT writer didn't say.

UPDATE: 3 hours later ... I've been usurped ... someone else is already writing my article!

Bump-Stock?  WTF is that?

Like most people, I didn't know what a Bump Stock was until the Vegas shooting.  If I had heard of it, I would have shrugged my shoulder and thought "what a dorky idea".

Here's what it looks like:



Now we have politicians lining up to claim that they're against it ... whatever it is.   Well, maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong.  But a gun stock is not a firearm, and it is not protected by the Constitution.   So they can make a lot of noise and a lot of headlines and won't have to worry about the Constitutional Rights of their constituents.   What a great day to be a Politician in front of a microphone!   Hell, if they had scruples, they would have retired from Congress.

I think that the immediate reactions to Vegas are beginning to get a bit too strident.    And I wonder whether, in all the confusion, the anti-gun folks are going to take the ball and run with it until they make it illegal to own anything that isn't "specifically permitted" by currently existing law.

Here's a currently existing law:   "Shall Not Be Infringed"


The Celebrity Class is all over this tragedy like Stink on Shit.   I read an article today where somebody whose name isn't in the papers often enough to suit her career said "the murderous members of the NRA should face a firing squad".  If she had the integrity of her father, she wouldn't be so eager to lump ordinary, law-abiding citizens into the same class with a man who had  too much money, too much time on his hands, and no morals. (I'm referring here to the mass murderer, not the singer.)

UNDER THE FOLD: "Any Sporting Purpose"

Middle Ground'

Brokaw: Gun Conversations Become 'Emotional' Between Gun Owners and People Saying There's 'Reasonable Middle Ground' - Breitbart:

"... It it’s impossible to have a conversation on what kind of firearms can be purchased because it becomes emotionally-charged between gun owners “who are protected by the NRA, and other people who are saying, ‘There ought to be a more reasonable middle ground.'” 

There is no "middle ground" 

The gun-control folks are asking the gun owners to relinquish their Constitutional rights ... but the gun-control folks have nothing to give in return.

 Brokaw stated there should be a national conversation on the amount of mass shootings in the US. He added: “...Stan McChrystal, who led our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq said, we ought not to be selling these kinds of weapons to the American civilian population. They’re designed to do one thing, which is to kill people .... "

Brokaw fails to note here that these same weapons are used in a defensive mode, to protect people against intruders whose goal is ... not to play Parcheesi with the folks whose home they have just broken into.

Nor does he pay attention to the 'other uses' to which these firearms are used.  My experience is that a lot of people are using the same firearms in Competition (see: Three Gun) and also for other legal purposes.

Brokaw dissimulates:

Because it immediately becomes so emotional between the gun owners of America, who are protected by the NRA, and other people who are saying, ‘There ought to be a more reasonable middle ground.’ I’m a gun owner. I’ve got a closet full of them in Montana. I don’t have one of those AR-15s. I don’t need them. Because I’m not going to be shooting that kind of thing. But almost all my friends out there now have that kind of a weapon.” 

 He confuses his readers when he accuses the defense of the Second Amendment with "emotion".

Americans don't reference the Second Amendment to protect their rights to keep and bear arms.  It's already out there, and has been for two hundred years.  It's not an "emotional" appeal; it is the right of Americans to protect them selves, their family and homes, and their nation against intruders, charlatans and people who would undermine our Constitution.

And if Tom Brokaw doesn't respect and revere our Constitution, he will never understand why Americans cleave to ".. their God and their Guns".

Because this is what stands between Americans, and those would undermine our country.

 Brokaw concluded by saying, “I don’t know what we do…in keeping our citizens safe unless we begin to lock down those kinds of gatherings. Because they have become targets for opportunity for these kinds of maniacs, as we’ve seen in too many other places.”

Maniacs will prevail, unless we acknowledge our individual right protect and defend ourselves and our fellow citizens.

Repeal the Second Amendment?

Repeal the Second Amendment - The New York Times:

Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” America was supposed to be different, and better. 

I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.

Think about this.

During the Revolutionary Period, most of the "Revolutionists" were prominent politicians, most of the land owners (a rarity ... an Elite!)

It is obvious that the "Founding Fathers" and their progeny endured a long period of warfare, and even more intense conflict.

Again, Americans went to war, to establish and affirm their independence, and to distant themselves from their European progenitors.  See John Paul Jones.

So when you ask: I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War, I would guess that they would say: "Oh, a mere civil disturbance, which should be stamped down most expeditiously!"

But as most Americans have access to firearms, they are able (if only intermittently competent) to enforce the laws of a civil society without recourse to paid assassins.

Fortunately, we have moved past our "Founding Father" method of dealing with civil unrest, and the call to arms .. and stamping out Constitutional Rights ... are not our first response.

The police, and the Militia (National Guard?) are a last resort.  Ultimately, one American's duty to his neighbors is to prevent the outrageous exigencies of a rogue member of the community by positive action.

Which is not to suggest a "Block Party with a Noose"; it should be sufficient that everyone knows that his neighbor has his back, when the Wild Bunch comes calling.   If enough neighborhoods faced down drug dealers, that might make the local street corner a place to sing "Sweet Adeline" instead of a place where you want your children to pass on the other side of the street.

See below: "The Revolution".

Machine Gun Vegas Calls For More Gun Control? Dialogue!

Surfing through Gun Blogs, I found this interesting dialogue:

Machine Gun Vegas Calls For More Gun Control . . . Then Doesn't? - The Truth About Guns:

A says:

 After this mass murder, the NFA will never be repealed. Zero chance today or ever. 50 years from now, the politicians will use this event as an example of why it should not be repealed. At this point the NRA will be fighting to keep what few rights we still have. There will be no repeals of existing restrictions and the NRA will be in a huge battle with the next President which will be a Democrat. This was event was really bad for 2nd Amendment supporters.

B says:

 If they make a peaceful return of our rights impossible they will make a violent return inevitable. I’m waiting for this clown’s connection to the alt-left to get released. 

C says:

 Oh cut em some slack. Vegas is in shock. Let them make some mistakes, Their contributions to the gun cause is exceptional. i’ve used their services. And after a few rounds with all the major full autos, I’ve decided that what happens in Vegas….probably shouldn’t. 

D says:

 the next president will be trump, stop buying the media garbage democrats have no teeth anymore

I'm not familiar with the general tone of comments on this gun blog;  I'm not a full-auto enthusiast, so my priorities probably don't mesh comfortably with the Usual Suspects here.

But I find their comments (anonymous) to be an interesting cross-section of Second Amendment concerns as a consequence of the Vegas shooting.

My analysis:

A:  Negative expectations
B:  Reactionary, combative
C: Ameliorative, neutral
D: Positive expectations/Political

I think this defines the range of reactions which is to be expected from Second Amendment supporters in America. 

Generally speaking; some of us expect that The Feds will come down critically on our rights ... hard! 
Others of us expect that our government will consider the Vegas tragedy to be the work of an anomalous actor, and ignore the "act-which-could-not-have-been-foreseen".

And some of us have no confidence in our government, and are inclined to react quite negatively to what we  the consider an abridgement of our inalienable rights.

We have he CONSTITUTION on our side!

Blomberg Lies To Make A Political Point

A Bump in the Debate Over Gun Violence - Bloomberg:

Using both a bump stock and large ammunition magazines, Paddock fired roughly 90 shots in 10 seconds -- approaching the volume of a fully automatic machine gun. Automatic weapons have been tightly regulated since the 1930s, and manufacture of new machine guns has been illegal since 1986.

Well, I can see the point that Blomberg is trying to make, but I call them liars or else poor writers when they descent to inaccuracy to make a (political?) point.

Paddock fired roughly 90 shots in 10 seconds

I doubt that.

Even if he was using 30 round magazines ("banana clips" which he probably had but which are notoriously poor at feeding reliably in Rifle calibers) that would require him to fire 30 rounds in 3 seconds, make a magazine change, and do the reload at least one more time to empty 3 magazines.

If he was using 20 round magazines (which are a 'straight-line design', as apposed to "banana clips' which are curved and much more difficult to insert into a rifle), that would require:
 (20 + 20 = 40; reload + 20 = 60;  reload  plus  20 = 80,  reload  + 20 to acquire 90 rounds to the gun) 3 reloads in 10 seconds.  Plus the amount of time to actually empty the magazines.

If he was using 30 round magazines, that would require only 2 reloads, which would  be even more difficult to reload quickly given the curved design of the magazines.  Plus they are less reliable.  The available photos show straight (not curved) magazines as his reserve, which an experienced shooter would prefer.

I have been competing in IPSC matches for 30 years, and even with the best equipment and magazines immediately available on my belt pouches, I find it difficult (if not impossible) to reliably reload a pistol magazine in three seconds.

Pistol magazines are a straight stack design, which means it's more easy to align the magazine with the gun. 

I've use an M16 in combat and in training, and even the (shorter, easier) 20-round magazine is difficult to reload quickly.  And in fact, we consistently loaded only 18 rounds into the magazines which were designed to accommodate 20 rounds, for reliability. 

(Magazines with 20 rounds in them tended to be more difficult to feed into the gun, because of excessive spring tension; and they were less reliable when feeding because the rounds tended to 'jam' when feeding into the gun.)

If we posit that the Idiot In Question had magazines immediately at hand, the scenario posited would give him 3 seconds for each reload (unrealistic ... rifle magazines are more difficult to seat than are pistol magazines) and four seconds to empty the two magazines, calling for a reload.

I know how fast an AR-type rifle cycles, and seems unrealistic that he loaded "90 rounds in 10 seconds" and  expended all the rounds in that period of time.  OR that he ran through two 30-round magazines, and reloaded, in that period.

Plus I've seen the videos .. the rate of fire seemed approximately 100 rounds a minute, at best.
x
x

Things that make you say ... "DUH!"

Tyler Perry says he doubts that his friend, Oprah Winfrey, and former first lady Michelle Obama will "ever" run for president.

(And neither will I!)

Rep. Foster Calls for "Military-Style" Guns to be Locked Up at Gun Clubs

Rep. Foster Calls for "Military-Style" Guns to be Locked Up at Gun Clubs:

 “I would hope that when you look at what’s happened with mass shootings in the last years that we, at a minimum, establish the principle that if you are going to own a military-type weapon that should be locked away in a gun club and not carried in public – that is completely consistent with the Second Amendment and it’s a principle that we should apply nationally,”

Representative Bill Foster (D-ILL)

Nobody would know better the perfect solution to Gun Violence than a Democratic politician from Illinois.

VEGAS! (The Conspiracy!)

The imaginative Conspiracy Theory about the Vegas shootings.

This is the first theory I've found:

(Natural News) It’s all hogwash. The “official” narrative of how things went down in the Las Vegas massacre is so full of holes that it begs the question of just how deep the truth about this attack really goes.

Details and quotes:

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Official story of Las Vegas shooting unravels; physical impossibility of lone gunman senior citizen makes narrative ludicrous – NaturalNews.com:

People who aren’t familiar with firearms have no idea how difficult it is to conduct sustained fire with an automatic weapon. It requires tremendous strength, endurance and training — something that Stephen Paddock had none of. Military special forces operatives train for years to be able to manage such weapons and handle all the problems they pose (barrel overheating, ammo jams, double feeds, recoil management, etc.). The idea that some senior citizen accountant can just pick up a machine gun and lay down thousands of rounds of effective fire in a sustained, 10-minute assault even though he had no experience with such weapons is completely ludicrous.

Apparently the author of this article takes exception to the reportage.  I have no reason to suspect that there was a conspiracy among two or more murderers.   Still, the article was written within hours (not days) after the shooting, and before more detailed reports were available.   I have no idea how the author knew whether the shooter had formal weapons training.

I have a few rejoinders to offer (you may have your own):

• It's not difficult to conduct sustained fire with a fully automatic weapon.  It's just difficult to HIT anything when you go "full-auto", except when your target is massed shoulder-to-shoulder, filling a city block.
• Barrel overheating: while it is/can be an issue, one way to avoid that is to have SEVERAL rifles (he had 23?) so one rifle can cool off while he used the next one.  (Note that news reports mention an AR15 with a reddish-tinged barrel, indicating that it had overheated; perhaps had even begun to cook off.)
• Ammo jams, double feeds: see above.   That is probably why he had so many rifles.
• "Effective fire": when you are shooting at thousands of people, packed into a city block, at distances of a few hundred yards, you're not aiming.  You're "Flock Shooting".
• "Special Training": the guy had ... what, 23 rifles with him?  Lived alone on a ranch?  He didn't need Special Training, just practice.  He had solitude to practice and time to plan; all news reports indicate that he had the opportunity to acquire "experience" with every weapon, in both calibers.
• "Recoil Management":  he was shooting at a compacted mass of people, and had the advantage of height.   He didn't even have to aim.  He could have shot from the hip (and probably did, toward the end).  Besides, the .223/5.56  cartridge is low recoil.   Physical endurance was probably not an issue.  No special expertise was required.
• "Senior Citizen Accountant":   What, do men automatically become physically infirm when they hit 65 years of age?   Senile, perhaps.   "Physical impossibility"? 
• Conspiracy Theory:  There's no reason to assume that there was more than one shooter; remember the JFK Assassination, and the Texas Tower Sniper.   Both men deliberately sought the high-ground, although those murders were shooting at individuals.   
• This one obviously planned his attack, deliberately chose a venue with many "targets" in a large area which could be engaged without a special set of skills by using fully automatic rifles to murder the most people in the shortest time.   He used the lessons provided by his hideous predecessors.

OTHER ERRORS IN REPORTING: The Author's Full Report

Diane Feinstein feels a little tingle running up her leg

The Vulpine character of American Liberal Politicians has once again revealed their disdain for the freedoms acknowledged by the Constitution of America.

Most particularly, the Second Amendment.

As the Democratic U.S. Senator for California said in this 1995 interview:
"Mister and Mrs. America ... turn them in!



Now?

Diane Feinstein may have just got her wish:

In the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, Diane may be feeling as excited as the Democratic politician who learned that Barack Obama was nominated for President.

She's not the only Liberal politician who has spotted her "Window of Opportunity": House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi shares her views:

Pelosi calls on Ryan to form select committee to curb gun violence - POLITICO:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Monday urged Speaker Paul Ryan to create a Select Committee on Gun Violence that would craft "common sense legislation" in the wake of a Las Vegas shooting that has left at least 59 people dead and injured more than 500. Pelosi wrote to Ryan as Democrats began edging back toward calls for gun control measures that they had largely avoided after the June shooting of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). Following the mass fatalities in Las Vegas, however, Pelosi called for "a day for action" as well as remembrance of those lost.

The "day of action" is, presumably,  a drive to castrate the American Constitution by enacting "local laws" (at a state level?) which obviate the Second Amendment.

It may be appropriate to notice that the drive for "common sense legislation" is trotted out by Liberals every time some whack-job opts for "Suicide By Cop" and performs the obligatory happy-dance with a rifle.   Fortunately for the Liberals, who love to portray those suicidal efforts as typical of 2nd Amendment supporters, there is no limit to the number of Insane Clowns who volunteer for the job.

Still, one wonders what legislation the Dems can envision, which would provide a means of making Insanity Illegal.  God knows that universal confiscation of firearms ... which is Number One With A Bullet on the Liberal agenda ... might lead to.

It would be as reasonable, and as effective, to make Insanity illegal.

Dems on Vegas: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste"

Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock Had Recent Large Gambling Transactions - NBC News:

Hillary Clinton also expressed her grief in a tweet: "The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get." She added: "Our grief isn't enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again."

This is what Hillary says in expression of her grief: a political statement saying "we must put politics aside" ... and then using a massacre to make a political point.

Expect more quotes from Democrats, saying (in effect) "... this would never have happened on OUR watch..."   and blaming President Trump for a situation which nobody could have foreseen nor prevented.

Mass Murderers are cowards; they're not afraid to die, they're just afraid to live out their angst without making a public statement.  Everyone else has to pay for their misery.

Hillary is making her own public statement, and considering the political flack which is sure to follow this tragedy, it's difficult to find the fine line between this particular mass murderer and her own willingness to throw half a nation under the bus (by imposing draconian "gun safety" rules) which would infringe upon the Constitutional Rights of law-abiding citizens.

And she didn't even have to pay this madman to provide the crisis which she is so eager to exploit.

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. Rahm Emanuel

UPDATE:  10/02/2017 ! 1900 PST

As of this moment, this is the most comprehensive reporting I've found on the internet about the Vegas Massacre.

CDC and WHO: They're At It Again

Should Gun Violence Be Considered a Public Health Issue? 
[newsy.com]

Gun violence kills and injures tens of thousands of people every year, and some doctors and health professionals say that's enough to consider it a public health issue. There's just one small hurdle: politics.

Actually, the "problem" described here is not politics.   The problem is "The Inconvenient Second Amendment".

Uber Liberal Alan Derschowitz recently wrote about the Second Amendment, saying that if he was rewriting the Constitution, he would omit the second Amendment:

“If I could write the Bill of Rights over again, I would skip amendment number two. We’re the only country in the world that puts in our Constitution the right to bear arms. It’s an absurd thing to be in our Constitution, but it’s in our Constitution,” said Dershowitz. “We have to live with it.”
Invoking the text of the Second Amendment, Dershowitz suggested that guns should be more heavily restricted.
“Guns have to be well regulated and they are not well regulated in this country. We’re going to have these kinds of massacres over and over and over again until we change the gun culture and the National Rifle Association is part of the problem, not part of the solution,” he said.

THAT  is the real "problem" with the Second Amendment; too many Americans are willing to throw one of our Constitutional Rights "under the bus" because it's inconvenient.   Derschowitz is entirely too eager to throw out the baby with the bath-water.   His "solution" is to penalize the law abiding.

(Curiously, Derschowitz once wrote an article about "The Inconvenient Second Amendment", which is no long available on the Internet. IIRC, his point then was that the Second Amendment was in the Constitution and carried the weight of law.  Apparently, he found this opinion piece ... inconvenient.   However, his point ... that if we start trashing the Second Amendment, that opens the door to amendment or trashing of other Constitutional Rights, which he likes 'better' ... is well taken..  Well, thank you for that much, sir.   Even if you don't like it; even if you disagree with it; you recognize the danger of trying to rewrite the Constitution.)

Cully Stimson wrote about this in 2016 in reference to the shadow "no-fly list":

But so many liberals would like to write the inconvenient Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights, that they see no problem with treating it as simply a privilege that the government can take away at will.

Let us be clear about this:   the Second Amendment protects the right of any sane, law-abiding mature citizen of the United States to keep and bear arms ... including firearms.  It is not a right which is PROTECTED by the Constitution; it is a right which is RECOGNIZED in the Constitution.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization already consider violence a public health threat, whether it involves a firearm or another tool. Some physicians argue approaching gun violence as a public health issue might help curb the number of gun-related deaths and injuries in the United States each year.

Their logic if flawed.  Violence is not contagious, except that societal aberrations in our culture allow people to violate the laws which protect the innocent.

Why should we accept laws which penalize the law-abiding?  We already have laws forbidding firearms possession by criminals; these laws aren't achieving the desired result.    The argument is not that we should obviate the laws because they are ineffective; we have laws against speeding, too, but people still break these laws ... and the violators pay the price when they're caught.

We cannot make a law which will prevent criminals, terrorists, madmen from acquiring weapons; the only laws we can create are whose which will restrict "The Good Guys".

Violence ... including violence with a firearm ... is not a legal problem; it's a societal problem

US aircraft carrier & bomber ‘under attack’ in doctored N. Korea footage (VIDEO)

US aircraft carrier & bomber ‘under attack’ in doctored N. Korea footage (VIDEO) — RT News:
(click link to see videos)

North Korea’s state media has released a doctored video worthy of a Hollywood blockbuster, in which a North Korean missile "destroys" US B-1B and F-35 jets, while a submarine targets America’s state-of-the-art carrier USS Carl Vinson. The video, released by DPRK Today, also features US President Donald Trump, seen speaking at the celebration of the US Air Force’s 70th Anniversary at Joint Base Andrews, portrayed as “a mad man,” South Korean news agency Yonhap reported. Also in the footage, a North Korean submarine-launched missile strikes the USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, with the caption reportedly saying: “Should F-35, B-1B and the Carl Vinson lead the US attack, they will head to the grave in that order.”

Sixty rounds in your Glock?

9mm Extreme Extension Glock – Taccom3g:

(a) TACCOM 9mm Extension for the 33 round 9mm Glock magazine.

The manufacturer claims:

We’ve come up with an extension and spring that will feed your PCC efficiently. Made from 6061 aluminum, it will take the abuse of competition and keep on running. The internals of the extension are smooth to allow for both the follower and the rounds to flow effortlessly thru for thousands of cycles. Easy to assemble too!! 

Manufacturer also offers some supplementary advice:

Note: Keep in mind that the end user must chamfer the inside of their magazine as well as their follower so that you get a smooth transition when the follower re-enters the magazine.

An idea whose time has not come?

The curmudgeon in me refers back to Viet Nam where we couldn't get the 30-round "banana" magazines for M16's (apparently those of us 'in the field' had second or third call on equipment, including magazines, boots and replacement arms ... right after the Officers and the REMFs stole the good stuff) and in fact we used the straight 20-round magazines but downloaded them to 18 rounds, because the springs lost their resiliency when kept fully loaded for days at a time.

So I'm historically dubious about claims exceeding my experiences. These magazines are obviously not intended for the kind of abuse and poor maintenance suffered during a combat tour.

My experience competing in IPSC matches / "Open Division" was that the 25-round magazines had to be treated with kid gloves.  We removed the springs (or at least the end caps) from the magazines so the springs were not under any tension between usages ... which is to say, right up to Match Day.    That kept their 'strength' up so there were more or less reliable, but we still tended to down-load the magazines by a round or two.

But that was way-back-then, and the manufacturers claim here that:

We’ve come up with an extension and spring that will feed your PCC efficiently. 

By that I presume that advances in metallurgy have resulted in springs which WILL perform reliably under the most grueling of conditions.

Actually, I doubt that.

On the other hand, I recall a couple of very smart fellows who once said: "640 kilobytes of memory should be enough for anyone", so I suppose it's possible that I've misjudged modern technology.

The Bag Trick

The Bag Trick…How to easily conceal a weapon in public | Active Response Training:

Not for everyday carry, but this  ad hoc technique allows ready access to a defensive weapon in "unusual circumstances".

Originally posted on May 27, 2014 by Greg Ellifritz in Articles, News and Tactical Advice

Trump Angst

During the Election Season last year, I admitted online that I was conflicted about my presidential vote.  Should I give my vote to "The Donald", who knows how to make money but is relatively clueless about how to be a president?

Or should I give my vote to "The Hillary Beast", who knows how to run a country but would run it in a direction I could not accept?

Ultimately, I voted for "Not Hillary".   And now I ... and the rest of America who faced the same difficult choice ... are paying the price.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump's frightening and tightening legal noose | Fox News:

The Donald Trump I know is a smart guy who often thinks a few steps ahead of those whose will he is trying to bend. But I lately wonder whether he grasps the gravity of the legal peril that is beginning to show up around him. In the past week, we learned of an unfiltered public confession of frustration and weakness among his lawyers and we learned that his former chief confidant and campaign manager is about to be indicted. This is very bad news for President Trump.

I'm disappointed in President Trump, and I'm angry when people criticize him for his (so far) poor performance as a president.   I agree, though, that this is one of the most inept presidents we've been saddled with since ... oh, I don't know ... the Peanut Farmer?
(Jimmy Carter)

Considering the alternative, though, I continue to believe that Trumps failures to live up to his promises is the less painful outcome, compared with a potential Hillary-beast presidency.

Trump fails to live up to his promise; if Hillary had lived up to HER promise, it would be an even more grim America.

There's an old mantra about the balance between competence vs intelligence, and the mantrix I found was in reference to military officers. Generally, it looks like this:

 In self-help books I have repeatedly seen a two-by-two matrix used to evaluate individuals. The four elements in the matrix were labeled: Brilliant & Lazy, Brilliant & Energetic, Dumb & Lazy, and Dumb & Energetic. Curiously, the brilliant and lazy were extolled above all others.

Politically speaking, you can substitute "Industrious" with "Ambitious", and "Stupid" with

Generally speaking:

Any officer who is clever and industrious is destined to positions of great responsibility, while an officer who is clever but lazy will do no great harm because he won't seek a position of responsibility.

An officer who is stupid but lazy will not have the desire (or energy) to do harm.  (In the political field, they will not run for high public office ... nor be elected; usually.)

But an officer who is stupid but Industrious will have the will to make changes, but lack the wit to avoid endangering his men.

Trump, I believe, falls under the "Smart and Industrious".   He chose to make money, and used his fiscal position to achieve positions of great power.

Hillary falls under "Stupid and Industrious".  

She chose to make her mark in the political scene, which gave her a similar position of great power. But as much as people tend to consider her 'smart' ... she took the easy route to power; she chose to seek popularity rather than industriousness.

She did not create wealth; it was donated to her.

Hillary did not create wealth for herself or others (except for the wealth she acquired which came from political contributions)

Politics is a Funny Game:

You can win it in one of two ways:
1: you can win it with Money, which Trump did;
2: or you can win it with the cult of your personality, which Hillary almost did.

But the difference is ... the Thinking Voters have to TRUST the candidate.

Nobody trusted Hillary.

Nobody trusted Trump, either,  but Hillary's history of lies and deceits worked against her so strongly that she could not escape her own past actions.

Ultimately, Donald Trump is President of the United States not because he was trusted, but because he was Not Hillary!

Personally, I would have voted for The Man In The Moon before I voted for Hillary, because she had no political or moral compass, and her past actions proved that she was not the right person to lead our country in the coming years.

Does Trump have the moral values to deserve this high office?  I don't know.

But I do know who does NOT have sufficient moral values to represent my birth nation; and she lost.