Opinion | The Rich White Civil War - The New York Times

I don't think that the NYT intended this as humor.

There will not be a quiz at the end of the class.

I just thought you ought to know that people in New York think that you are all Neanderthals with no sense of civic virtue nor acceptance of people who may be "different from you".

It's a waterfall of bullshit.  I thought of making paragraphs to separate the issues, but i decided it's better that you enjoy the stream of consciousness. You can go to the link to appreciate the original.

All emphases are added:

Opinion | The Rich White Civil War - The New York Times: (T)he report is that ideas really do drive history. Progressive Activists and Devoted Conservatives organize around coherent philosophical narratives. These narratives aren’t visions of a just society. They are narratives of menace — about who needs to be exorcised from society. Devoted Conservatives subscribe to a Hobbesian narrative. It’s a dangerous world. Life is nasty, brutish and short. We need strict values and strong authority to keep us safe. 

 Ninety percent of Devoted Conservatives think immigration is bad, while 99 percent of Progressive Activists think it is good. Seventy-six percent of Devoted Conservatives think Islam is more violent than other religions; only 3 percent of Progressive Activists agree. Eighty-six percent of Devoted Conservatives think it’s more important for children to be well behaved than creative. Only 13 percent of Progressive Activists agree. Progressive Activists, on the other hand, subscribe to a darkened Rousseauian worldview. People may be inherently good, but the hierarchical structures of society are awful. The structures of inequality and oppression have to be dismantled. Ninety-one percent of Progressive Activists say sexual harassment is common, while only 12 percent of Devoted Conservatives agree. Ninety-two percent of Progressive Activists say people don’t take racism seriously enough, compared with 6 percent of Devoted Conservatives. Eighty-six percent of Progressive Activists say life’s outcomes are outside people’s control; only 2 percent of Devoted Conservatives agree.

Okay ... if you really want to read more, it's available "below the fold".

Bumpstock Ban

David Codrea's article on "Trump's Bumpstock Ban":

Trump's Pending Bumpstock Ban - Firearms News: "In order to eliminate -- terminate -- bump stocks, we have to go through procedure. We are now at the final stages of that procedure," President Donald Trump declared in an Oct. 1 Rose Garden press conference marking the anniversary of the Las Vegas shootings. "We are knocking out bump stocks. I’ve told the NRA -- bump stocks are gone.

Read the whole thing, of course.  Nobody is more erudite nor so well reasoned as Codrea.

My opinion counts for very little, and that's because I'm a "FUDD" when it comes to Bumpstocks.

Oh, what's a Fudd?   That's a pejorative term aimed at shooters who only care about hunting.  Deer, Elk, Quail, Lions ... or Skeet, Trap, etc.  it doesn't matter; as long as the Feds don't mess with their gun sport, they could care less about any other 2nd Amendment issues.   (It's actually defined in the Urban Dictionary.)

It surprised me to learn that I was a FUDD, but actually I have no use for a Bump Stock (spelling varies).  While I've written about the issue before, I find I can't get all that worked up about it.  I mean, who needs a Bump Stock?

On the other hand, who needs an M15?   (semi-automatic version of the M16 Assault Rifle ... which unlike the M16 is NOT capable of "Selective fire").   I don't own an M15, because I have no use for it.

The point is, most people think there is no difference between the M15 (semi-auto only) and the M15 (capable of full auto fire), and so the CIVILIAN M15 is denigrated almost as vigorously as the M15.

The difference is, the people who are pushing to ban the M15 don't know the difference.
And they don't care.  They just want it banned, because it looks dangerous.

All guns are dangerous; that's the whole point.

But the "Bumpstock" does not meet the criteria of the ATF, so it's still legal.  And when the feds get around to it, they will ban the ATTACHMENT because they don't like it, even though it's currently legal.

There are various bloggers describing the future consequences of banning "attachments" and "modifications".  One of the most popular is:

Suppose you lighten the trigger pull on your firearm.  Is that to become an illegal alteration?

Would the addition of a trigger shoe (to improve the ability to touch of an accurate shot, as I did when I was 16 and competing in .22 caliber "Gallery Rifle" matches) become a banned attachment?

When the ATF becomes involved in nuances of equipment to otherwise legal firearms, it may be that they are over-reaching their mandate.

Or I may be wrong; perhaps that is precisely their "mandate".

The trouble is, we don't know what that mandate is, except that we can expect it to be "floating" ... it means whatever they say it means, and will probably be enforced by Rule Of Law.

And there's very damn little we can do about it.

I'm just in ignorant old man, but there's a difference between LAW and REGULATION ... or is there?

Can a "Regulatory Agency" put you in jail because your gear doesn't violate either law or regulation, but they just don't like it?   Can you become a criminal even though you haven't committed a criminal act?

There is only ONE RULE to Gun Safety

Omaha Outdoors has a GREAT article about firearms range safety (see *overlink*), which I recommend highly for everyone no matter how long you have been shooting.

A few years ago I volunteered at my local club to instruct in an "Introduction to USPSA".   I taught the Rules of Competition, and coached new shooters on techniques which they would find useful.

And although almost every student in the class was familiar with the Three Rules of Safe Shooting, I boiled it down to One Sacred Rule:

DO NOT SCARE THE RANGE OFFICER! 

If a student, at the end of a stage, reached down to pick up his dropped magazine before holstering his pistol, I yelled STOP! 

I was scared that he would trigger a round into his hand. (Sure, he had already cleared his pistol because I was standing there to ensure that he had done so.  But what if he was practicing alone on the range and there was nobody there to tell him to "unload and show clear" and "holster"?)   The training was as much in safety as in competition; and if they didn't learn range safety ... they failed.

One of the stages I set up for them was to start facing up-range with a loaded gun; at the buzzer, turn and engage the targets.

I would stand one foot in front of them while they were facing uprange.  I would look right in his eyes, and say:  "okay, at the buzzer, turn and draw and engage the targets.  If you draw before you turn, your gun will be pointed at my feet.  Don't do that. "

Because Rule One was always: "Don't Scare The Range Officer!!!"

New shooters are usually apprehensive; the scary ones are those who are not apprehensive.

One weekend (the weekend immediately following the class) I attended a match where three of my new students were on their "maiden match".   After one of the students (the cocky one) finished his stage and returned to the spectator area to reload magazines, I stood on the other side of the counter and confronted him, saying: 

"Nice run.  Now what did you do wrong?"I don't know.
What did the RO say when you finished shooting?   Exactly?Uh ... "if you are finished unload and show clear.  If clear, hammer down and holster."
And what did you do next?Uh ... I cleared, then picked up my magazine.
And did you sweep yourself because you hadn't holstered?No, I did not.
No, but The RO didn't say "The Range Is Clear" so you could be DQ'd even though you had finished the stage and the gun was unloaded.    

That earned me a dirty look, because I was treating him like a newby.   Which he was.

His range experience had been unsupervised for the years he had been shooting ... and he was a military veteran with lots of range time.   He thought he knew all the important stuff.

But he had not learned to shoot competitively under the direction of Range Safety Officer who was using the required commands to ensure the safety of everyone ... not least the shooter himself.

Both USPSA and IPSC (and other organized competitive shooting sports) consider SAFETY to be the most important consideration; which is a difficult concept for very competitive people to assimilate because all they think about is to get good hits as quickly as humanly possible.  They want to be winners.

Range officers accept that, but their most important consideration is the safety of everyone on the range.   They want everybody to be survivors. (Okay, then there's obeying the stage rules, the range rules, and not using the "F-bomb" every time a reload fails ....)


ORIGINAL ARTICLE FROM OMAHA OUTDOORS: *overlink*

Yeah, what HE said!

Great Rant posted on Never Yet Melted.

It's one of those moments when you fall back in awe, saying to yourself:

"Gee ... I wish I had said that!"

I won't provide the link or the URL to the original youtube video.
The full credit (and hits-count) goes to the source:

https://neveryetmelted.com/2018/10/14/rejoinder-to-the-remoaners/

England doesn't allow guns, so they have "Acid Attacks"

England is so proud of their lack of "firearms violence".

So instead, their citizens are throwing acid in the face of their victims.

Hmmm ... getting shot or getting your eyes and face burned out.
It's difficult to choose which is worse, isn't it?

Weekly Rate Of Acid Attacks In U.K. Hits Staggering Number, Khan's London Hit Hardest | Daily Wire: 

New police figures reveal that the U.K. is averaging at least 15 barbaric acid attacks a week. The figures, first reported by The Mirror, show a total of 2,602 reported attacks from January 2015 to May of this year, averaging out to 15 per week. In comparison, there were only 100 total attacks reported from 2007 to 2011. Stunningly, nearly 75% of such attacks have been carried out in London, a city often praised by the Left for its multiculturalism and tolerance.

Somehow, I don't think that "GUNS" are the problem.   But your mayor thinks CARS are!

The problem is that Some People are vicious, aggressive, and they just want to do the most harm possible to their fellow citizens.

I'm unconvinced that GUNS are the problem; ever look at your mix of immigrants?
(You English are quite proud of that, aren't you?  Funny how nobody has identified their attackers .. oh, but the victims are blind, aren't they?  Darn, how inconvenient!)

I think it's society .. the people who walk past you every day on your way to work ... who are the problem!   England, I'm talking to you.  (And I hope and pray that this never comes to America!)

What's worse?

Is it worse to be permanently disfigured (blinded?) by having acid thrown in your face, and live with that?   Or is it worse to be shot, and possibly die?

Tough to choose, isn't it?

Me?  I'd rather be dead (and having had the choice whether to be armed to defend myself).

Portland has become the Canker Sore of Oregon

I use to live in Portland (the largest city in the state), back about 40 years ago.

I sold my house for "$2000, and you take over the payments" on my GI Bill loan. 

Ten years earlier, $30,000 for a cottage on the East Side of Portland was (in the words of our real estate agent when my wife and I bought it) a "steal".

But I got divorced, and gave my ex-wife the proceeds from selling the house.   At the time, I regretted having give up a 2-story house with a front and (fenced) back yard, detached garage, and a basement with an extra bedroom.

Now ... I realize that I could not have foreseen what a Liberal Hell-hole Portland would become.   And I'm glad I got out while "the getting was good".

What happened to Portland is what's happening to America.  Our elected officials are allowing violence by people who call themselves "anti-fascists", but who are in fact becoming the most violent fascists in America.

What happened in Portland is fanatics who wear masks and hoodies and assault total strangers on the mean streets of our most "Progressive" city.   

It's difficult to understand what these Rebels Without A Cause want, but they are more than willing to engage in anonymous violence to achieve their bizarre purpose.

It's just a guess, but I think what they want is anarchy.   So I'll call them Anarchists; people who have no clearly defined goal but mob rule .... and they do it because they can.

The state of Oregon, the city of Portland, have made no effort to curb these Anarchists even while they commit crimes of assault against innocent passers-by.

...

I remember, back in the day, driving 'home' to Portland and being greeted by a huge neon sign of a prancing White Stag (the emblem of a well-known outdoor clothing company)

That sign was ... well, it felt like coming home to me.   It was a comfortable welcome to the Portland of my era, and I loved it.

I don't know if that sign is still up; I have passed through Portland a few times on my way up the I5 Interstate highway, but I no longer look for the White Stag sign.  In fact, I try not to look at anything but the road; it's all too gruesome and disgusting to drive through this "Major City".

Portland, Oregon: The canary in a coal mine for the violent Left:

The last time I passed through Portland, Oregon, I was treated to the sight of a bum squatting with his trousers around his ankles, dumping a huge load of poop on the pedestrian walkway of the Morrison Street bridge. 

This was not the Portland of my memories. It was a Third World hell-hole, which I had become accustomed to in Viet Nam ... but not in My America!

This was a consequence of the progressive permissiveness which seems, to me, endemic to extend "Liberality" to the point where laws are not enforced,  anarchy is tacitly permitted, and basic rules of respectable human behavior are ignored.

Forget the riots, forget the protests, and forget the concept of human dignity.

If anyone wonders why I am a convicted Conservative, it's because I think that in an America which is becoming increasingly populated by people who have no concept of "Correct Behavior" ...

I don't want to be known as a part of that America.

This is not the America which drafted me, which sent me to war, or which expected me to act like a responsible human being in a country that I didn't care whether it went communist or was free.

Because I was, and I remain, an American.   I have my standards ... and I insist that those standards are respected and accepted by every American.

Don't shit on the bridge.
Don't shit on the Constitution.

Is that too much to ask?

Ask The Man Who Owns One

) What Happens When Democrats Run Your State? - YouTube:

Here's What Happens When Democrats Run Your State Government.

Shit Happens.
The good news? Actually, there is no good news.

California Sucks.  Wonderful climate, Horrible politics.
Welcome to California ... you're screwed!

Hotel California is so  "out of date"..

The Great Martian War

I found this this  ... a version of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds ...while looking for something else on the internet.
Pretty good lead-up to halloween, I think.

Getting Shot: "It Hurts!"

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2018
Quora Question: What does it feel like to be shot with a .22 caliber firearm?

Strange as it may seem, there are still people out there who deliberately coax people to shoot them ... just to see what it feels like.

Have you ever had your curiosity overwhelm your good sense?

Well, of course you have.  So have I.  But chances are, neither of us have taken it to this degree of inanity.   I've seen people get shot, and I have no doubt that it hurts.  More-over, it typically results in a degree of leakage of "Precious Bodily Fluids". 

Usually the leakage is blood, but I've seen grown men piss themselves after being shot too ...  I'm not sure which is the most embarrassing, but apparently when you're bleeding a lot you don't care much about being "embarrassed".

Here's my advice about being shot:   Avoid it.

Kavanaugh

Well, this finally convinced me that Judge Kavanaugh is a moral and temperate man:

Feinstein hid an allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh - Vox:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein didn’t tell fellow Democrats on the Judiciary Committee that she’d received a letter accusing Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to force himself on a woman while both were in high school because, as the New Yorker reports, she didn’t want his confirmation hearings to be about his private life.

Anything that DiFi says about a Republican must always be a step to her goal of eliminating Conservatives from having any influence on American politics.

That she had this poison pen letter, and didn't use it immediately, is indicative that even she doesn't believe it.   (Speaking of believing; I don't for a minute believe that DiFi has any qualms about using personal character attacks against her foes ... and a Conservative Supreme Court Judge certainly qualifies.)

Kavanaugh's apparent anger at the accusations thrown at him  confirm  (for me) his sterling qualifications for the post.  Any man who won't react to unjust and unsubstantiated slurs on his character ... has no character.   The Washington Examiner says:

... if half the political machinery of the federal government, the leaders of one party, and about half of the media came after you with a campaign of lies — which is what this is, if Kavanaugh isn't guilty of rape and sexual assault — you would be angry.

... and while I'm no great fan of Washington newshawks, I'm inclined to agree with this statement.

I'm determined to be "not political", and I've tried to resist the urge to comment on this confirmation process.   But this whole fol-de-rol sounds too much like a political hatchet job to be ignored.

Nobody knows, really, what his relationship was with the teen-age chippie at a beer party umpteen years ago.   Still, it's perhaps telling that the WORST thing his political opponents (*cough* liberals *cough* ) can find to say about him is that he might have got fresh with a girl when he was 19 years old ... I think they may be so desperate to torpedo the political career of a Conservative that they're willing to go to any extreme to paint him black.








x

c

Is it Ignorance .. or apathy?

Judge Kavanaugh no longer teaching at Harvard Law School

John Lott's Website: Seriously, only a little over 700 signatures by Monday with students and alumni who graduated from as far back as 1959. Harvard has about 500 entering students each year. Over say the last 30 years that would be 15,000 graduates. There are currently 1,990 enrolled law students. So the number of signers equals only about one-third of those currently enrolled, let alone all the alumni who have graduated over the decades.

As far as I know, this is "Breaking News".

I never wanted to get into this purely political free-for-all, but at this point the controversy over Judge Kavanaugh's Supreme Court selection has become the number one political issue ... and it should not be.

The Liberal issue seems to be over "Abortion Rights", or the rights of a woman to terminate a pregnancy.   I'm not aware of any other "political" issue which would suggest that Judge Kavanaugh might not be a viable Supreme Court Judge.

WTF do they care?  Most of the Liberal congresspersons are too old to beget congress-children.

And those who are not "Too old", have political issues in mind; issues which do not affect them personally.

While the "abortion" issue is a legitimate controversy, this seems to be an issue which is better handled in the courts; it's not a presidential issue until he makes it so, and Judge Kavanaugh does not strike me as an judiciary who is determined to rule by fiat.

So, what's left?  The Left just doesn't want another Conservative on the Supreme Court .. and that's a legitimate concern ("dead babies" not having a vote.)

 With an odd number of judges among the Supremes, it's no wonder that the Left is worried that The Court might demonstrate a powerful shift to the Right upon confirmation of Kavanaugh's addition to The Court.

Bump Stocks Commentary

"What we've here ... is FAILURE ... to COMMUNICATE."

SayUncle: A year after Vegas shooting, ATF emails reveal blame, alarm over bump stocks. ATF stated they were suddenly thrown into the political by NRA, who pointed out they were ATF approved. 

What began as a "National Tragedy" has evolved into finger-pointing and a search for someone to blame for the insanity of one man.

Did I say "someone"?

Anyone! 

(Anyone except for the demented mass murderer who used a loophole in the law to arm himself for what is for all intents and purposes a "loophole" in the law.)

The hammer is going to fall on the ATF, and maybe that's legitimate; but maybe it's not.

Speaking of hammers, I'm pretty sure I'll get hammered for what I'm about to say:

Because of the Las Vegas Massacre, the ATF will eventually be mandated to severely regulate every accessory and replacement part to your firearms   (starting with firing pins, which will be required to "stamp" a serial number on the primer or base of your ammunition)  ... new rules, regulations and laws. 

Your access to replacement parts will be subject to federal oversight; including a firing pin (needs a serial number!), a trigger shoe, or adjustment to effect a lighter trigger pull. 

A "Normal Capacity Magazine" will be legally restricted by the Federal Government.

Your 12-gauge shotgun could be registered as a "hand cannon" because it is capable of shooting slugs (which are the only gun currently legal for deer hunting in some states) and may be designated a "Hand Cannon".   (Okay, I'm making that up. )

I'm not even going to try to address the possibility that you can't replace or modify the stock on your rifle with a "custom made" stock; that, too, will be serialized.

Why? Because the national hysteria about guns makes your deer gun a sniper rifle; your 12 gauge Quail Gun is an instrument of Mass Murder, and your WWI 1911 pistol will be illegal because it can accept a magazine of more then (5, 6, 8, or ten round) capacity.

This will result in arcane rules which make no sense to the Common Man, make it more expensive to own a firearm, and the government will become even more intrusive in your day-to-day life as a firearms owner.

Count on it.   Today, Government is not here to help you, but to turn you into a nameless plebe with even more limited rights.

And people say MY "game" is dangerous!

After competing in shooting sports for 60 years, I can only attest to one minor injury to a shooter.

Football?   Not so safe.

I've railed before about the dangers of head injuries to high school students. 
Same thing for college students.

Tennessee State LB Christion Abercrombie in critical condition was injured on normal 'football play' - AOL News:

It was just a normal “football play” that resulted in a serious injury for Tennessee State linebacker Christion Abercrombie. According to The Tennessean, TSU head coach Rod Reed said in a radio interview Sunday morning that Abercrombie “was taking on a block” in the second quarter against Vanderbilt when he suffered what has been deemed a serious head injury. “It wasn’t anything malicious or dirty or anything like that. Just an unfortunate situation,” Reed said.

(emphasis added)

Maybe he'll quit football and take up competitive shooting .. if he recovers.

Slippery Slope

The issue of bump-fire stocks has created an entirely new aspect of the Second Amendment.

Whether a bump-fire stock (see below) obscures the fine line between  "semi-automatic fire" and "Full automatic fire" is either an excuse for the Federales to impose new restrictions on the (supposedly) impermeable Second Amendment,  or it's a "loophole" which law-abiding American Citizens are using to grandfather a new generation of (more or less) "AUTOMATIC WEAPONS" which had not been anticipated by previous law-makers; that is the question.

I personally have no use for a "Bump-Fire stock".  I'm not "flock-shooting" so I have no dog in this hunt.

But (if and) when the Federal Government arbitrarily decrees that a technological innovation "cleverly" eludes their published laws, they either need to change their laws (imposing the possibility of a "grandfather" effect on previously owned weapons) or they need to think whether their Federal mandate covers their ass.   

Which it does not.

If I read this clearly, Uncle Sam has three options; any of which will probably not meet their goal of keeping fully-automatic weapons out of the hands of law-abiding AMERICANS:

(1) Write a bunch of rules specific to "Bump Stocks" which will be obviated as soon as the firearms manufacturers change one tiny feature of their product:
(2) write some other rules which SPECIFICALLY deny the "Bump Stocks" by name;
(3) give it up, and let the manufacturers build whatever they want;  and ... by the way ... delete the "full automatic" rules currently in place.

My best guess is that none of these arbitrary measures well be adopted, or enacted as LAW, because people will always find a way.     It's better to just delete all the fully-automatic weapons laws and let Americans seek their own best protection. 

What ... gangsters don't already have machine guns?
Why shouldn't we?

Want to start a rebellion?

Impose the  most strict laws possible, then wait and see how many people disobey the law; you will have lawsuits up the ass trying to resist the natural instinct of otherwise law-abiding citizens who recognize a bad law when they see it.   Many people, otherwise law-abiding, will deliberately violate laws  which they believe stomp on the Constitutional Rights which we have all been assured will be protected by our elected representatives.

Gun Owners Foundation Submits Comments to ATF Over Proposed Bump Stock Ban: If this administration outlaws bump stocks, without regard for the limitations on ATF authority under federal law, it will put into place a slippery slope for future, anti-gun presidents. If ATF chooses to ignore the statutory definition of a machinegun [sic], and instead creates a new definition based on anything that “increases the rate of fire” of a semi-automatic firearm, then far more is at risk than mere bump stocks.

Would-be lawmakers want to pay close attention to the Maverick personalities of the American Citizen.   Many people would deliberately disobey such ... a law if only to register their disgust at the distrust of their government to assume that owning a "questionable" firearm is equivalent to violent intentions.

I've been to war, and I didn't like it; but when it comes to American Constitutional Freedoms, any administrative official who tramples on our (narrowly defined) Rights must be prepared to discuss just WHY he doesn't trust the honor of the people who voted him into office.

That, which is specifically prohibited, is prohibited.
That which is not prohibited, is allowed.

vs:

That which is specifically allowed, is  allowed;
that which is not specifically allowed, is prohibited.

Which world-state would YOU prefer?

2nd Amendment Felonious?

Going for a Sunday drive?

Got a gun in your car?'

Under "certain circumstances" and in "some areas", you may be treated as if you were a felon if you're pulled over, and if a subsequent search of your car reveals that you are in possession of a gun.

Apparently, it doesn't matter that you don't have a criminal record, or that you are not a "fugitive", or that you have a Concealed Carry Permit..  All that matters is that you are someone who they don't know personally, and you are in possession of a firearm (see: Second Amendment).

I don't know more about the issue than you can learn from the link (below); but I know that it infringes on MY Constitutional Rights.  If I can be disarmed ... or arrested ... by police simply because I have a gun in my car, then my Second Amendment rights have just been abridged.  And the Constitution says that is "NOT OKAY!"

Curious ... I wonder if I can confiscate the firearms worn by the police who would search my automobile; certainly, if they can take my guns, why can't I take theirs?  They have no more rights than I do,  (Well, they have the force which they may impose upon me ... but is that American?)




Robinson v. US:

On July 24, Gun Owners and Gun Owners Foundation filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Robinson v. United States. Click -the link above - to read the brief. This brief urges the High Court to review a court of appeals decision that authorizes the police to search and disarm a gun owner at a traffic stop — even if the firearm is being lawfully carried under state law.    (emphasis added) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had ruled that the police are justified in treating anyone who may have a gun as if he were an armed and dangerous criminal — including drawing their guns, ordering him out of the car, and disarming him.

Our brief argued that lawful gun carriers actually are among the most trustworthy people in our society, and pose virtually no danger to the police. Not only did the Second Amendment’s framers trust gun owners, most state governments do as well, along with the overwhelming majority of police officers. It appears that it is only unelected, liberal federal judges distrust lawful gun owners. We explain that a citizen’s exercise of his Second Amendment rights to bear arms should not cause him to waive his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from searches and seizures of his property. Lastly, our brief dispelled the notion that firearms themselves are “inherently dangerous,” and that the lower court’s opinion will only serve to create problems between the police and gun owners during traffic stops.

I suggest that I have had more rounds aimed at me .. by weight and count ... from "Friendly Fire" than nine out of ten police have cringed under. I have had mornings in Viet Nam when I had to shake out my bed-tarp to rid it of shrapnel,  myself having spent my night in a tree.

It's not that policemen are wimps; it's just that they take incoming fire more personally.
But when the Democrats come after me because I have a gun in my car , even though I have a concealed carry permit (and even though I am protected by the Second Amendment), I begin to wonder just whose side they are on.

Certainly, they're not on MY side; they don't want me to have a gun because ... I don't know; they don't trust me to be armed and not a felon?  (Considering the recent legislation, which seems to provide more rights to convicted felons, I wonder if the Democrats like them more than Registered Republicans~!)

femiistas more more Maacho?

Criminals and the Guns They Carry

This 2015 article about crime guns contains some information which  you may find interesting.

It speaks to the caliber and conformation (eg: revolver vs pistol) of firearms commonly carried by criminals, and more interestingly describes the maintenance level which felons use in their weapons.

Most importantly, it speaks to the various actions which you might take (or not take) when confronted by an assailant .. whose gun may or may not be functinable.

Criminals and the Guns They Carry | Active Response Training:

“If you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.” Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu said this over 2000 years ago in his book The Art of War It’s hardly new advice. Yet it is just as useful now as it was so many centuries ago.

Curiously, the article suggests that criminals are often not familiar with their weapons, to the point where they are not aware of basic maintenance procedures.   Some guns taken from felons have been found to be non-functional; that means, they don't work.

Don't assume, ever, that their weapons are not functional!

Concealed carry Driver

Police are just people; if you treat them with respect (and don't take it personally when they pull over for speeding) they will return your respect. 

So that's why I have never disrespected police for giving me speeding tickets .. which I quit doing!

I've talked before about carrying a weapon and being stopped by police for a traffic offense.   I'm going to repeat it because of the following published story from a policeman:

Purse Carry, CCW, and Police Interactions | Active Response Training: I do what I can to avoid treating CCW carriers with paranoia.  I work hard to ensure that should I stop a CCW licensee, the encounter goes positively for both of us.  After all, if the person I’m stopping has gone to the trouble of getting a CCW license, I know he doesn’t have a serious criminal record.   If the CCW carrier informs me that he or she is carrying, I know that the person is trying to obey our state’s LE notification law and probably isn’t trying to kill me.

After I was stopped (this wasn't the incident reported above), the police car sat behind me with red-lights flashing for two or three minutes while I fished out my drivers license Concealed Handgun License, and other identification cards ... plus my insurance form.   I did this because I knew the cop had called in the license plate, identified me as the owner, and ran a check on my name.   He knew I was (probably) carrying a gun and exercised proper diligence when he left the car and approached me.

When the cop finally got out ot the car, he had one hand on his pistol and the other hand held a flashlight.  I had already killed the engine and turned on the interior lights (it was a night-time stop) so he could see clearly that I had both hands on the steering wheel, I was holding my papers in my left hand, the window was rolled all the way down ... and I had not opened my door.

When he asked for license and insurance, I simply gave them to him while my right hand remained on the steering wheel.  I kept my face toward him, and wore a chagrined grin.   (Well, I WAS speeding .. I was going to the drug store to get a refill of pain medication for my Significant Other.)

I explained why I was hurrying, admitted that I exercised poor judgement, and asked him to please just write the ticket and let me go before the pharmacy closed.

Perhaps I wasn't as calm as I should have been, but he recognized the situation as I explained it to him and returned my papers with a simple caution to obey the speed limit; it's better to be slow returning home than to not return due to an accident.   Or something like that.

Abuse of Authority:

I know that there are "Bad Cops"; my distant cousin was married to one.  I never liked him, and after a few years he lost his job.  Not because of anything I said or did ... I was only 12 at the time.

My cousin divorced him, too, which was A Good Thing; I liked my cousin, but she wasn't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.

 One nice thing about shooting matches, folks just naturally assume that if you're carrying a gun at a shooting match, you're probably not a convicted felon.  Or a druggie. 

Road Trip from HELL!

:at September back in '69


I got drafted on a Wednesday, proposed to my College Sweetheart that night.  By telephone.

Three days later, we got married.

A couple of weeks later, I reported for duty, and saw my wife on Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Then it got interesting:

After Basic Training and Infantry School, and NCO School, (graduated "top 5", as an E6 Staff Sergeant), and then it was time for my first posting: I went to Anniston, Alabama (Fort McClellan, home of WAC school and National Guard Basic Training) where I was a training officer.  I was allowed off-base housing, so I rented a private home from a local NCO who was on leave and I enjoyed connubial bliss with my wife (after paying her airplane ticket)

I would get off work at 1800, go jump in the community swimming pool; the neighbors complained that I usually jumped into the pool wearing my sweaty fatigues, but I ignored them.

Then I got a 3-week leave, plus travel time, so we decided to drive from Alabama to Oregon so we could save money.  Also, we had purchased a 1969 Ford Maverick ("The last car you can buy for less than $2000!") and we drove from Alabama to Oregon in three days ... taking turns driving, nonstop.

The car didn't have a radio, but I had bought an 8-track player and hot-wired it into the ignition system (lucky I didn't burn the car up!) so we listened to the only 3 8-track tapes I could find.  To this day, I cannot listen to Creedence Clearwater music without cringing.

We drove straight through from Alabama to Oregon in three days .. non-stop.  We took turns driving.

We stopped somewhere in Texas, when we just didn't have the energy to continue.  Just ... pulled off the road, turned off the car, and went to sleep.   We were awakened by a state trooper (whatever they call them in Texas), who was concerned that we had both died.  He had a helluva time waking us up!

We explained the situation to him, and he looked at us as if we were crazy people.  At that point, he was correct.  But "we were young, and sure to have our way", so we were advised to pull further off the road and kindly suggested that we "get a room".

My wife was asleep, and I was driving, when I passed a sign which said:

GRAND CANYON ... NEXT EXIT

I thought, this may be my last chance to see the Grand Canyon.  But instead of waking her up and discussing whether we should take the scenic detour, I just ... drove on.   I've always regretted that decision.

Finally we got to California, hit the I5 Freeway north, and got to Oregon where we could see our families sometime in the late afternoon after we-didn't-know-how-many-days of driving.

A few days later I reported for duty at my home town (Pendleton, Oregon) after visiting my parents.  gave the car keys to my wife, went to the Greyhound Station, and was eventually (after a year in-country as a training NCO in Georgia) assigned to my next duty station.  It was, not surprisingly, the First Infantry Division in Dian, South Vietnam.

But while I was serving in Viet Nam, I got a letter from my wife.  She and my sister were touring .. somewhere touristy ... and while backing out of the parking lot they bumped into a tree and dented the rear of that damned cheap-ass Maverick.

The mechanics had to replace the trunk lid.  It had folded up like .. well, a Campbell's Soup can would have been embarrassed.

Two years later, after I was back home, I was entering a freeway ramp (in the Maverick) when the hood suddenly just ... popped up!  Apparently, the double-lock hadn't functioned, and a gust of wind just flung it up in my face.

We got rid of the Maverick.

I got a really good trade-in deal in a well-used 1965 Chevrolet Corvair Convertible ... with custom-build dual 2-barrel carburetors!   The fabric roof leaked (especially after our neighbors cut the fabric roof to steal BUPKIS from the glove compartment) and the dual-carburetors were never tuned because no competent mechanic would touch them.

But damn!  It LOOKED FINE, especially in the summer when it wasn't raining.

Did I mention I live in Oregon .. the center of the Great Pacific Northwet?

Man, when it comes to cars, I sure can pick 'em!

Biden Confirms Suspicions; He IS A Dork

Dopey Joe Biden confirms all suspicions that he is, always has been, and remains as dumb as a stump.  (For any stumps which may be reading this, I apologize for the comparison, which denigrates the integrity and intellect of actual native-born stumps ... which are the remains of dead trees, as opposed to the remains of dead political careers.)

(See: "DORK")

"My mother believed and my father believed that if I wanted to be President of the United States, I could be, I could be Vice President!" said Vice President Joe Biden.  [source]

 Here, ex-vice president Biden blandly adopts an opinion and immediately refuses to justify his decision:

Biden Gave A Lengthy Endorsement Of Kavanaugh Accuser Until One Question Caused Him To Walk Away | The Daily Caller: Former Vice President Joe Biden emphatically supported Kavanaugh accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford Monday night, faltering only when a reporter asked him about the credibility of a claim made over 35 years ago. “What I’m going to do is I’m not going to answer any more questions,” Biden said, deflecting a reporter’s question asking whether it was significant that the assault claim refers to an incident that allegedly occurred when Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was 17 years old. “I’d be happy to talk about Ireland,” Biden added during his remarks to a group of reporters at Irish ambassador to the U.S. Dan Mulhall’s residence.

(But he's a master at changing the subject when asked questions which would require him to think.)

Perhaps Biden's most important contribution to American Society is that he provides material for late-night talk-show hosts.

Posting about the Second Amendent

Since December of 1998, I have written 4513 drafts (and actually published 4056 of them) posts on this website in an attempt to present the Shooting Sports as a wholesome, widely accepted exemplar of the freedoms which America has protected in the Constitution..

As of this date, there are still more writers who condemn the use of firearms for sport, defense and hunting than those who accept this Constitutionally acknowledged RIGHT!

I do not know how Americans seem so ready to turn their backs on a Right which seemed so important to the Founding Fathers.  I can only presume that America has become so smug about ourselves that they don't think we have anyone against whom we need to defend ourselves.

Dumbshits:
we are perhaps probably the most hated country in the world ... certainly in the Middle East!
Because we think all men are created equal, and we give them guns to prove it.

It seems trite to assume that the "911" events were dismissed:  Did nobody notice that if our country was not essentially disarmed, those terrible deaths of Americans would not have occurred if (for example) the passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 had been armed .. or even if the odds were that they might have been armed?   They couldn't defend themselves against box cutters!

Today, the 911 tragedy is nothing more than a "Trip Ticket Tour". where for $100 (more or less) you can see all the sites where Americans died. 

Is this what our country has come to?  A place where you can relive the places where innocent Americans have died?  I wait with bated breath for a tour where you can visited the incinerated bodies of Americans who died upon that day.

Not.   That's disgusting!

It seems to me that the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

(Not an original observation, I agree.)

It's about preserving our freedom .. preserving our freedom from a tyrannical government (which was the original priority of our ForeFathers), but also from those outsiders who resent our freedoms and who would seek to undermine them.

Not all of which are aliens;  many native born Americans are fearful of those Americans who own and use firearms.   (Or box cutters.)

They think we are wild men. 

They assume that we are fearful and would use our guns irresponsibly.  They do not accept that we think we are at least as sane as they are, and perhaps more responsible because we are prepared to use our meager firepower to defend those who are unwilling or unable to defend themselves.

There is a story ( which I personally disbelieve) that at the onset of WWII, someone in the Japanese  High Command was presented with the suggestion that Japan should open the festivities by invading America's.   The senor Japanese general waived the plan on the basis that: "Oh, HELL no!  Americans are all armed, and we would face armed Americans behind every rock and tree with guns!"

Aprophycal, to be sure; but not entirely unrealistic.

The might of America  is with its laymen.  
Those gun-nuts (and the Second Amendment) who are so despised by the Liberal Left are perhaps our First line of Defense.

Forget the U.S. Army, and the National Guard.   
They are all-too-organized, and everyone has access to their names and addresses.  And besides, they are not "on the scene" when violence  begins, when it is disorganized, when they have not yet established full control over their victims.

But their purported victims are there, and if prepared ... they can dismantle even a planned attack if they have the will, the conviction and the firepower


No, America's "First Freedom" (however you may despise them) are the individual; the man with a gun, who has no qualms about defending his country ... and is likely to be the man who is most effective.

He has no name.  He exists on no roster of "Military Member".  He's just Joe Schmo from Tipalo.

He is The Minute Man; the guy who our forefathers expected to defend his country 200 years ago, ... not because he should, but because he can.

You may not like him; maybe stuffing a chaw in his cheek; or he may be a Corporate CEO; but he's an American with a gun, and someone who knows how (and when) to use it.

If and when we really really, really need him, he's there.

Like it or not.

Information, or Salesmanship?

I like the concept of a website which promotes firearms as a means of self-defense.

I worry that some seem to be more concerned with promotion of their website, than they are for defense of our civil rights.

Sometimes it's a little confusing; but perhaps I've missed a few issues.

Obama ...: we gave him EVERYTHING!

It's not just you.

Two Alpha?

Tattoo!

When you really, really need to shoot somebody,  it ought to leave a mark for the NEXT G-friend to wonder  WTF???

Police: Woman shot local man in the face as he choked her: During the investigation officers discovered Hampton and woman, who are in some sort of relationship or possibly related, were fighting when the man began to choke the woman, Waco police Sgt. Patrick Swanton said. During the struggle, Hampton pulled out a gun, but the woman was able to point it toward him and shoot him, Swanton said. He was taken to a local hospital.

Why We Fought The Britsh

1984 has reached No-longer-so-Great Britain.

U.K. Police Urge Citizens To Report Neighbors For 'Offensive' Speech:

English police are now calling on citizens to report hate incidents. Reporting friends and neighbors to the police has terrible historical connotation, and for good reason. It is legitimate fascism. Timid citizenries are easy to control — fear that even a coworker could file a report to the police can keep people in check.

Thanks to Joe's Gulch for the heads-up and the link; he's a nice man, but he just doesn't HATE enough to give this report the attention it deserves.

The only way the world could possibly be negatively affected by this sort of societal incursions on the First Amendment is if the good folks at GOOGLE agreed with them!

Oh ... wait .....

Hello?  IS there anyone there? 

>TAP TAP TAP<   Is This Thing On?

All they know is what they read in the papers

The Trace references an independent study which purports to prove ... statistically ... that private individuals who legally carry guns do not reduce crime. (see below the fold for detail)

The thing is, crimes which do not occur because of legally carried guns are rarely reported.

Woman Waiting For Her Commute:
During the bitter winter of the year in which Oregon permitted concealed carry, a lady friend of mine was waiting in the transit station to catch her ride into Portland.  She was approached by a trio of young men who threatened her and demanded her purse.  She slipped her hand into the pocket of her overcoat ... and the thugs backed off.   

They said (words to the effect) "Oh no, you don't gotta pull a gun on us, lady.   We're out of here!"

And they left. 
A few minutes later, her bus arrived and she went to her job.

Did she report the attempted mugging?   No, she did not.   She was cold, worried more about getting to work on time, and the crime (of "Threatening", if nothing else) was never reported.

Man Leaving The Office:
Another friend was threatened in the parking lot of the Corporate Headquarters building where he and I both worked ... this was just after he got off work.    He had stayed late to finish a product, and he was the only employee in the parking lot. 

Again, multiple assailants ... but this time he had a pistol in a concealed carry holster; he pulled the gun just far enough to display it, and the gang ran.

He unlocked his car and went home to dinner.  No report was filed with the police, the incident never appeared in the newspapers. 

Just life in The City.

I worked for several years in an educational institution.  I carried every day.  Even though I had a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) it was not legal for me to bring a firearm into the buildings, although it was legal for me to (concealed) carry on campus.  (NOTE: Oregon does not recognize any other state's handgun license; we are that weird.)

Nobody knew I was armed, and I kept the pistol in a locked desk drawer during the day; I only carried it between the parking lot and my office.   And I was never assaulted during that most dangerous time of the day ... on the way to and from work.

If I HAD been approached by someone who threatened me, I would have lost my job by defending myself with a gun; it was obviously a violation of my "Terms of Employment" for me to possess a firearm in any building on campus.     I wouldn't have reported it, either.

In Oregon, CHL folks are the Red-Headed Stepchild; nobody recognizes us, nobody likes us, so we just keep a low profile ... at least, in our professional life.

I suspect many CHL folks around the country are much the same way.  We don't advertise.
And i wouldn't even be writing this, if I wasn't retired.  Now Oregon laws on CHL have been updated just a little bit, but I still can't carry inside of any building on any campus in Oregon.


BELOW THE FOLD: CHL does not reduce crime

ATTEMPT to make normal security measures appear paranoid

The press works its wondrous ways to skew present the news.

WATCH: Security Steps in as Parkland Victim's Father Walks Up Behind Kavanaugh | Breitbart: During Tuesday’s confirmation hearings, security jumped into action as a Parkland shooting victim’s father walked up behind Brett Kavanaugh. Video of the incident shows that Kavanaugh had risen from seat and turned to his left to walk out of the chamber when Fred Guttenberg approached from behind. Guttenberg, the father of Jaime Gutternberg–who was slain in the Feb. 14, 2018, Parkland school shooting–reached out his hand toward Kavanaugh’s and said something, at which point Kavanaugh began to turn toward him and security intervened.

The reportage skewed the news .. and over-reported the incident ... to insinuate that Kavanaugh's security over-reacted.   In fact, no high-profile politician (or his security detail) will willingly UNDER-react to an unidentified person approaching their charge without being thoroughly vetted (and often searched).

I look back at the American Political Figures against whom assassinations were attempted (or completed), but most especially to the assassination of John F. Kennedy,  whose assassination was successfully completed.   I did not agree with the nuances of his politics, but I admired the man for his integrity.

As we see new candidates for office, we also see those who would threaten their physical security, in an effort to dissuade them from seeking political office.

 I think this is the lowest level to which any politically aware citizen can descend.  If you don't like his/her politics, campaign against him and make your objections part of the public dialogue.

When animals sink to political assassinations, then they reveal themselves for the cultural dupes that they are.

The dichotomy between Republicans and Democrats continues to be not only NON-productive, but COUNTER-Productive!

On the other hand, if the two-party was not intrinsically divisive, how could you tell the difference between them?

Too stoopid to find a job, turns to a life of crime, f**ks that up too

I knew holdup men turned to crime because they were too stupid to hold a job, but surely if you're going to hold up a store you should hold onto your gun!

For archival purposes ... if the link dies, the video may survive; here it is:

and now, for something REALLY IMPORTANT!

This is the kind of news we like to see pop up in our inbasket:

Just in time for hunters preparing for the upcoming seasons, a new public shooting range in Grand Traverse County is now open. 

New shooting range open in Grand Traverse County | WPBN: A view downrange at the Grand Traverse shooting range in Grand Traverse County, Michigan. The range opened in August 2018 and offers accessible parking and pathways to the shooting stations and target retrievals. Photo Courtesy: DNR

Justifiable Self Defense! ( but still can't own a gun)

When self defense is a matter of seconds, the police are only minutes away.

Sometimes, defending your life is more important than obeying the law.  And even felons know this.

Fort Smith Woman Ruled Justified For Deadly Shooting In 2017, Now Facing Charges For Criminal Possession Of A Firearm | Fort Smith/Fayetteville News | 5newsonline KFSM 5NEWS: FORT SMITH (KFSM) - A Fort Smith woman has been found justified in using self-defense, on Thursday (Aug. 30), in a deadly shooting that happened in December 2017. The woman will now face charges for possession of a firearm after pleading to felony drug charges in February 2017.

It seems bizarre to acknowledge that a woman can be congratulated for saving her own life (when the police could not defend her), and then to turn around and arrest her for illegal possession of a firearm.

Sometimes, the police get all caught up in laws, and forget rights. 
Among them the right to self-defense when attacked.

Yes, felons forfeit their rights.

Yes, it's complicated.

I fully expect that the woman in question ... who defended her life with a firearm which she was not legally "permitted" to own one ... will be released with "Time Served" and no further legal entanglement.   After all, where were the police when she was attacked? 

 ("Minutes Away")

Answer: they were waiting for a "Crime Scene", where they would collect evidence, search for "perpetrators", and prepare to testify at the trial of what would here seem to be an innocent victim.

Anything more than a release without bond would be an obvious obstruction of justice ... and justice has no relationship to "Law".  After all, where were the police when she was fighting for her life?

WASPS!

Last month I found a wasp nest on the cross-bar of my patio gate.  I bought some wasp spray (it was anemic ... didn't "shoot under pressure" as advertised) but it killed them.

There were still wasps around, hanging near the trash cans by the garage entrance.  But no nests found.

Today, loading groceries in the back of the Explorer, I notice there was a very advanced, very active wasp nest between the rear hatch and the body of the car.

I bought a new can of wasp spray.

Tonight, after dark, I sprayed the HELL out of the new wasp nest .. then closed the hatch.  Tomorrow will tell the story, whether or not I've eliminated the vermin.

FUNNY THING IS .... I couldn't see any signs of a wasp nest in or near the trash cans .. which are plastic, and always closed except when I'm emptying trash into them or the garbage man picks them up.   The trash cans attract insects, and while they're always closed tight ... the aroma seems to draw wasps.

I'll check tomorrow to confirm the latest "Explorer" next has all died .. and remove the dead nest. 

And I'll perform a more rigorous check near the garbage cans by the entrance to the garage.

 (I don't park inside the garage... the Damned Old Ford sleeps in the driveway, rain or shine.)
\
Two weeks ago, I had observed wasps swarming around the outside rear-view mirror on the Ford; I used the hose to inundate the hidden next, and assumed that this would dissuade them from nesting around my black (warm) car.  I was wrong.

You might consider that this is the nesting season for wasps, and check for swarms on your property.  If you see more than 2 or 3 wasps ... there's a nest.  They're not terribly aggressive, but they will swarm you if you wander near their nest, so if you see them, be sure to check in nooks and crannies near where you see them.

They do become aggressive when you near their nest.  This is the second nest I've found within 15 feet of the entrance to my home.

Spray the nest, then distroy the nest with water pressure from your hose ... then crush and dispose of the next.

Let's be careful out there.

The NYT would rather see kids shot by invaders than to arm teachers.

The opinion column of the New York Times is always good for a "WTF?" moment.
(SEE: Below The Fold)

Despite the recent (?) spate of school shootings, NYT thinks that arming teachers would:

"... contribute to a climate of fear in schools and note that study after study equates more guns with more injuries and deaths."

It's significant that the wise editors of the NYT use the term "contribute to the climate of fear", which tacitly acknowledges that a "climate of fear" already exists in schools, after reports of predators attacking schoolchildren around the country.

When the only one with a gun is a predator,  it's difficult to imagine how an armed defender could make any student more fearful .... unless the NYT is willing to encourage students to "Pay No Attention To The Man Shooting Your Friends".    Apparently, students should not trust their teachers, but they should trust interlopers.

(Among interlopers, I'm including the sworn police officer who received reports of armed attacks on innocents, and heard the shots fired, but hid in his  police  car under a bridge until the shooting was over, rather than to risk his life defending the public.)

I'm sure there are statistics which report the number of educators who turn on their students with intentions of mass murder.

Oh, I looked it up.  I found ten reports of teachers killing students: worldwide!

Three used firearms    The rest used knives, or various forms of strangulation.   Apparently, when teachers run amok, they use the tools at hand ... some of which are more gruesome than others.  (Many of the reports note an "interpersonal" relationship; the teacher was banging  having an affair-gone-wrong with the student.)

I haven't found any reports of Mister Jones or Miss Smith Niner-ing their Junior High School class on Civics in Dubeque Iowa.

THE FOLD:

California Prop 65

More California Scheming?

Due to California laws, products sold in that state need to meet "product safety regulations" ... even if those laws don't logically apply to that product.

Bond Arms Firearms Cause CANCER... According to California Prop 65 - The Firearm Blog:

 After August 30th, Bond Arms products will NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE (including guns, barrels, holsters, accessories, apparel, etc.) in the state of California due to Prop 65, which makes all manufacturers label products that could have a chemical that could cause cancer or birth defects, even though it won’t.

(link added)

As a blogger, I'm beginning to LOVE California!   Their laws and regulations are quite as nonsensical and inane as are those of New Jersey!

Oh ... and "Bizarre", too!

    Comparing California and New Jersey;

California has the most lawyers of any state in the union; New Jersey has the most toxic landfills.    Why?

 New Jersey won the coin toss.

Holy Cat Suit, Batman!

Isn't watching Tennis boring enough?

‘You have to respect the game’: French Open bosses ban Serena Williams’ skin-tight catsuit — RT Sport News: French Tennis Federation President Bernard Giudicelli says next year’s French Open at Roland Garros tournament will toughen up its dress code – prohibiting form-fitting catsuits such as those Serena Williams donned this year. ‘Like a queen from Wakanda’: Serena Williams says ‘superhero’ catsuit helped her to victory In an interview with Tennis Magazine, Giudicelli emphasized that eye-catching, figure-hugging outfits will no longer be allowed at the second Grand Slam tournament of the year. “I believe we have sometimes gone too far,” he said. “Serena’s outfit this year, for example, would no longer be accepted. You have to respect the game and the place.”

No I don't.   But I DO respect Serena Williams!

Somebody needs to Get A Life

David Hogg to S&W: Donate $5 million annually to gun control or be destroyed - Guns.com 

... cites "Love and Economics" as the instruments of destruction.

Don't know why he bothers. Smith and Wesson has been mismanaging their business for years; sooner or later their corporate owners will cast them off as unprofitable.

But Hogg will milk this cow as long as he can, because he loves his spotlight.
(Although his "spotlight" is more like a "penlight".)

The gun control advocate, speaking at a protest at Smith & Wesson’s factory in Massachusetts over the weekend, had a list of demands. David Hogg, who catapulted to the national spotlight for his role in the March for Our Lives campaign following the Parkland, Florida school shooting earlier this year, was a featured speaker at a rally organized by 50 Miles More and the Boston chapter of March for Our Lives. With a crowd estimated by the Boston Herald to number about 100 on Sunday, Hogg helped voice the group’s demands for the gun maker to donate $5 million to gun violence research per year and halt the production of firearms outlawed under the state’s assault weapons ban.

Let me see, that would calculate to about $50,000 per protester.

Hog continues to ignore the fact that he was not at Parkland School when the atrocity occurred; his notoriety is based on his assertion that ... "I COULD have been there!"

I went to the range today, and didn't fire a single shot

There was a match at my local range, and my friend The Hobo Brasser competed in it.  I didn't compete, but I came out to watch the last stage, and then we went to lunch

Over burgers and beer we chatted of friends and family, and the match (where the Hobo turned in a couple of very good runs during the Speed Steel match), and the conversation turned to the point where he suggested that I should start competitive shooting again.

I informed him that my eyesight was degenerating, and I was unable see at a close distance (like ... within three feet) without corrective lenses.  He suggested that I work with red-dot sights to help, and that's a reasonable solution.  But I still need corrective lenses, and I can't see at a distance with my reading glasses.

(I tried bifocals a few years ago ... the split image makes me dizzy when I move from one shooting position to the next, and that's part of the IPSC thing.   So he might have a point; Speed Steel does not require movement.  I'll think about it.)

The Hobo is a true gentleman, and he allowed to conversation to turn to other subjects.

I enjoyed the outing, the lunch, the conversation, and the opportunity to spend time with a man I respect and whose company I enjoy.

100th London murders; Thinking Like A Brit!

It could be worse!

100th London murder investigation launched as capital set for record number of killings after pensioner found dead - Mirror Online: 100th London murder investigation launched as capital set for record number of killings after pensioner found dead Full list of those killed after epidemic of knife crime sweeps the capital this year piling pressure on Metropolitan Police.

They tell me that knife attacks are less frequently fatal than attacks by guns.   And I assume that not all of the Brits who were attacked by knives died from their injuries; the article does not address the question of how many Brits were attacked by knives and survived the attack.   For the sake of argument, we will assume that a few some survived.

So, if those who were "only injured" by knives had been armed with firearms, and were able to defend themselves against their attackers ... then the total number of "dead" would be much greater (due to the deaths, by gunshot, of the attackers).

That would be a terrible number of "death by gunshot", and would make it seem that London is a hotbed of violence!

When you think about it, it's ultimately A Good Thing that Brits are not allowed to defend themselves with firearms.

Help Stamp Out Gun Violence!

(Oh, and BTW .... The Brits have made knives illegal.   Which is okay, because they don't like to to eat steak anyway.)

PS: I wonder if there would be fewer knife attacks on Brits if they were legally permitted to carry firearms.   Logic suggests that the possibility that the victims might be able to defend themselves against more powerful and vicious attackers might make the villains more ... cautious ... about choosing their victims.
But that's just poppycock; that could never happen in a Civilized Society!

New Jersey not only bans guns, but tracks guns they don't ban!

Murphy makes yet another move to combat gun violence in N.J. | NJ.com:

New Jersey has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the country's lowest gun mortality rates. But Murphy has repeatedly cited how the majority of gun deaths in the state involved a firearm that came from out of state. 

This directive requires agencies to share information regarding the manufacturer, importer, dealer, and the first purchase for such crimes. That will allow the State Police to identify any patterns and identify those who have unlawfully sold or bought the guns, according to the attorney general's office.

Lotsa luck with that.  It only regulates honest firearms owners ... where is the law that criminals will obey when they bring illegal firearms into New Jersey?

Answer: It's just another load of Liberal feel-good legislation which will have NO effect on firears imported from out of state.

But politicians need feel-good laws, because .... somebody needs to feel that their state is protecting them ... when their state is powerless to protect them by merely passing laws that nobody will obey.

what a bunch of maroons!

"School Shooting" reports are often bogus:

Agenda, Not Accuracy | The Zelman Partisans:

Back in February, I fact-checked Everytown for Gun “Safety”‘s list of school shootings. 29% of their “school shootings” did not meet even their own definition.* Some weren’t shootings.

How would you define a "School Shooting"?

You would expect that someone at a school shot someone else at a school ... right?

Sorry ... most at least SOME of the stories about a "School Shooting" either didn't involve a "school", except only marginally.  Many don't involve a "School" at all, and some don't even occur within the boundaries of a school-ground.

I wouldn't have even mentioned that, except that the Popular Press is so eager to define gun violence as "School Shootings" that they neglect that often neither "Schools" nor "Shootings" were involved.

This is just one more example of how the "Popular Press" willingly glamorizes incidents in order to terrorize the public, in their urge to demonize firearms.

And I thought *_I_* was disenchanted with Politicians!

As much as it pains me to agree with SALON ....

Democrats Latest News & Community | Salon: Diehard Trump fans and diehard Democrats are impossible to reason with.They’ve memorized all the talking points and they will argue with you endlessly. I see no sense in engaging with either.Both live in a Manichean world where one side is pure good and the other side is pure evil. In reality Republicans and Democrats differ only on hot-button social issues. Both cater to the economic elite. Both love war. Both have contempt for ordinary working people.  [emphasis added]

(I'm not convinced that "both love war", but that's a subject for another time.)

Most first-campaign politicians campaign for office in order to advance a cause which they consider important.   When elected, they soon discover that their voice as a "junior" legislative member is ignored and without power.  They haven't the support to pass the bills which they expected to improve the cause of their electorate.

Then they begin to enter  into coalitions with other members of the legislature, because they only way you can "change America" is to make your vote count. So you give a little, to get a little.

And there's always the PACs who support (and fund) anyone who will support THEIR political niche.

Eventually, you're voting to "make happen" some things that you would not normally support;  but you tell your constituents that "... it's a good bill..." even though you consider it not so good.  Because you owe people; people that didn't elect you.  This is also referred to as the "Slippery Slope".

And no ... I don't want to talk about the Lotharios in the Legislature ;

The Senator, the Governor, the Mayor ... et al.

That Works For Me!

Hundreds of Millions of U.S. Guns are Unlicensed and Untraceable:

"Shall Not Be Infringed"

AKA: None Of Your Business.  See "Constitution"!

Why in the WORLD should NRA back a ban on "Plastic Guns"?

The very idea that the NRA should "back the ban" on ANY kind of firearms restriction ("infringement") is absolutely ridiculous!

"Shall not be infringed"

COD, August 15, 2018: NRA should back ban on plastic guns | YOUR OPINION | richmond.com:

NRA should back ban on plastic guns Editor, Times-Dispatch: The National Rifle Association has a wonderful opportunity to win the hearts and minds of those of us who are in the “center” of the gun control debate. By the center, I’m talking about the majority of people who support individual gun ownership rights but also see a need for more controls on certain types of weapons.

In the first place, the concept that the NRA should "back the plan" on ANY kind of firearms infringement is abhorrent to firearms owners ... who rely on the NRA to support the ideal of the Second Amendment. 

The Second Amendment was designed to protect the rights of Americans from those who do not agree with the concept of freedom of Americans.   You are an obnoxious herb-eather who has no respect for the basic rights which we all enjoy.   You prefer to lower us to your level.
Which is not only obnoxious and demeaning, but also (when you suggest we should yield our rights to POLITICIANS) ... disgusting.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

The problem with "Gun Control"

Well, "Gun Control" isn't working for the UK.

Why Is London Imposing ‘Knife Control’? Because Gun Control Hasn’t Worked:  April 13, 2018

The United Kingdom has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world, so the increased murder rate in the British capital is largely a result of a sharp rise in knife-related crime. The surge in violence prompted London Mayor Sadiq Khan to announce a massive “knife control” campaign eerily reminiscent of those sometimes proffered in the United States in response to firearms-related violence. The knife control measures will include the deployment of 300 additional London police officers to conduct “stop and frisk” searches of individuals suspected of knife-carrying, a policing tactic once roundly condemned by Khan.

So they decided to impose "Knife Control"  How's that working for you, after four months??

Friday 17 Aug 2018 6:31 am

https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/17/four-children-stabbed-south-london-one-boy-disembowelled-7850208/

A boy is fighting for his life after he was allegedly disembowelled when he was stabbed on a south London housing estate. He was one of four children who were taken to hospitals in south London following the incident at Landor House, Camberwell yesterday. All the boys are aged between 15 and 16 years old and six attackers of the same age have been taken into custody.

No information is immediately available about the 'six attackers of the same age".

In theory, the 1689 English Bill of Rights protects the right of individual British subjects to possess arms for purposes of self-defense. In reality, modern Britons have had this right completely stripped from them, to the point where they may be reprimanded for using kitchen knives against home intruders.

The Brits have the same myopic vision as do the politicians in America.

Their politicians continue to convince themselves of the same imaginary solutions as do politicians here in America.  They think they can control "violence" by controlling the instruments of violence.

They know they can't stop shootings and stabbings by passing laws, but that's all they have ... apart from completely disrupting the root causes of violence;which is a societal problem, not a legal one.

There are no laws which the Brits ... or the Americans ... can pass which will definitively 'solve' the problem of gun/knife violence.    They and we will have to completely reform our societies, and as long as we continue to embrace the acceptance of immigrants from 'other societies', nothing will change.

But the cat is out of the cradle, the monster is out of the closet, and no amount of legislation will ever put them back into the box.

Unless you put them all into a cell and keep them there forever; or initiate even more draconian solutions, such as public executions.   Which I would not watch, nor anyone in a "civilized" society.

To paraphrase "The Sound of Music":   How do you solve a problem like Sharia?
.

The Sound of One Hand clapping

When Celebrities speak on subjects of which they have no personal knowledge, it's difficult to ignore the dual factoid that (a) she knows nothing at all about me, and (b) I already know more than I care about her.

Jennifer Aniston Is Teaming Up With Parkland Survivors to Speak Out About Gun Control | Glamour:

Jennifer Aniston has been one of the most famous women in the world since the nineties. But while the press was focused on her personal life and Friends fame, few established where Aniston stands on important issues. When you speak to Aniston, though, it's clear she feels passionately—about gun control, about our country's future, and about finding the right moment to speak out.

It's probably asking too much to presume that GLAMOUR magazine really cares about Gun Control; but they never let a quotable statement go to waste.  (Which is sort-of the latest Motto of the Democratic Party.)