Washington State can't stop "Gun Violence", so it's going to tax it!

Excellent Example of Political Power!

Seattle's New 'Gun Violence Tax' on Guns & Ammo - AllOutdoor.com
(August 12, 2015)

Seattle, WA – In yet another bonehead move by government officials, the city council of Seattle voted unanimously Monday in favor of a tax on all sales of guns and ammunition within city limits. At the same time, they passed a law making it a crime if you should fail to report a lost or stolen firearm within 24 hours.

 Land of the free, you say? Not so much. Both measures are reportedly supported by Seattle mayor Ed Murray. The gun tax law is modeled after a 2013 gun &ammo tax in Cook County, IL (think Chicago), which has already been the subject of litigation.
 Seattle’s new law is clearly aimed at punishing citizens and retailers for buying and selling firearms and ammunition. City council president Tim Burgess called the recent changes “innovative gun safety measures,” but as all thinking people know, criminals don’t buy their guns in gun shops anyhow.
This new tax will serve only to put gun shops out of business and force law-abiding citizens to travel farther to buy their guns outside of city limits.
 The tax plans to steal $25 per firearm and 2 to 5 cents per cartridge. While city officials predict monetary gains in the $300,000 to $500,000 range, it’s far more likely that most gun shops will simply close their doors, and most gun buyers will go elsewhere. Any “profit” reaped by this tax will very likely be spent trying to defend it in court.

(Emphasis added)

Okay, I'm not convinced that .. " (T)his new tax will serve only to put gun shops out of business and force law-abiding citizens to travel farther to buy their guns outside of city limits" ...  but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't encourage Seattleites (?) to  drive to one of the orbital cities to shop for guns and ammunition.

The whole "Gun Safety Measures"  thingie is pure bullshit.  What it is, is not necessarily an attempt to dissuade private citizens from buying "The Evil Gun" as it is targeting a market for taxation.  Guns have a bad reputation due to constant nationwide political chicanery, so there's no political down-side to taxing them.

And bullets.

On one hand, it's kind of flattering:  Politicians have been taxing gasoline for years, because they know that the hoi polloi are going to buy it whatever the cost.   So .. geez, it's a no-brainer:

TAX THE PEOPLE FOR WHAT THEY WANT, AND MAKE THEM THINK IT'S DEFIANCE TO KEEP BUYING IT!

So, no matter what the media tells you, it's not going to suffer The Little People a lot.  It's just going to add to the tax base of Washington State.

 (Well ... it's Seattle. Like they can't tax coffee, for goodness sake?)

(Okay .. Democrats would object to a tax on Coffee.)

When you look at it from the point of view of the vile politicians, it makes perfect sense.  After all, if the State isn't making a profit, they don't get paid.

And SCREW THE PUBLIC!

That's what they do best: they're politicians, after all!

"Take THAT, Brain-Dead Scholars!"

Democratic Senators at the State level are very good at enacting new laws which limit citizen rights .. but they aren't worth spit when it comes to funding the enforcement of those laws!

No money for gun background check enforcement, Burdick admits | KATU Investigators | KATU.com - Portland, Oregon:
\
August 07, 2015

PORTLAND, Ore. -- A new law requiring background checks for all firearm sales and transfers, including private transactions, goes into effect in Oregon Sunday. But will anyone enforce it? One of the main sponsors of the bill, State Sen. Ginny Burdick (D-Portland), admitted Friday the law doesn't include money for enforcement. Still, Burdick said, “This will make it harder for the criminals and the dangerously mentally ill to get guns.” If you sell a gun privately, in person or online, the law says you have to meet the buyer at a licensed gun shop and have them go through a background check, which Burdick says costs $10.

 Law enforcement authorities in the Portland area and throughout the state say they won't go out and find people who are breaking the law, though they will investigate any reports they get. "It’s just a simple practicality - until we have the resources here to fully fund law enforcement and prosecution, new crimes probably aren’t going to get much attention," Lane County Sheriff Byron Trapp said when asked about the bill in June.

Ha Ha Ha!  Hee Hee Hee!
We always knew this wouldn't fit with the Economy!
(Hat Top to Say Uncle)

The Egretious Ginny Burdick admits that the law which she and other Oregon Democrats (most of the Senate and House are Democrats) worked so hard for is .. unenforceable.

Which we could have told them (and we did!) while the bill was under discussion.

But would they listen?   NOOOooooooo!

So all of we Oregonions who have been saying WILL NOT COMPLY! are reduced to empty-words status.

Which, of course, comes as no surprise to those of us with living brain cells.  (NOTE: DOES NOT INCLUDE ELECTED POLITICIAN!)

How Aggressive, Incompetent Legislators Can Make Felons out of Free Men

Oregon Ex Post Facto Gun Registration Law (ex SB941)
(Which law makes it a felony to transfer a firearm between individuals without involving a third party and registering your gun.)

I'm not sure exactly when Oregon's "Register Your Gun To Transfer Your Gun" law is scheduled to actually become law, but I suspect that I've already violated the terms of that unconstitutional act.

I mentioned the other day last month that I had broken my gun.  (Well, the trigger.)  A friend offered to fix it for me, knowing full well that I and mechanical things don't get along.

Anyway, I gave it to a friend who is more mechanically inclined than I am to fix it.  I ordered the needful parts and had them sent directly to his home.  Then at the next match we were able to meet, he gave my now-fixed gun back to me.

Pretty simple, huh?

But I think .. depending on the day of the week when either transfer took place ... one or both of us may now be felons.

Here's a suggested scenario, which may or may not be true.

I broke my gun on Monday, and gave it to my friend to fix on Tuesday.  Wednesday the law came into effect.  On Thursday my friend returned my repaired gun to me.  On Friday my friend and I were arrested because we didn't go through a third party (someone with a Dealer's license) to register the transfer.

My friend is not a dealer, nor a 'registered' armorer .. which means nothing in this state but surely it's the next step in refining the terms of the bad bill which has been passed but possibly not yet enacted.

 (I don't know if this law applies to us this week.)

So .. when I transferred my gun to my friend to repair, I didn't process the 'transaction' through the (as yet non-existent?) legal process.

But when he gave it back to me, we still didn't ask The State for permission to perform this entirely innocent act ...

So are we both felons now?  Or if not, is ONE of us a felon and the other innocent ... for performing essentially the same act of transferring a firearm between us??

We may both, or one of us, have run afoul of the law.  Which of us should be sent to jail, and is the other innocent merely because of fortuitous timing?

Dangerous Dan: The Man Who Would Not Quit

Everybody liked Dan.

But things happened to him.

I met Dan during my first year of shooting IPSC matches ... back when they had only three Divisions; Stock, Open, and Revolver.   And nobody was really sure what constituted an "OPEN" gun, because we rarely saw any that year.


Dan was an 'older' gentleman (probably 55 or so .. which age range I would now consider 'not older'), and he was an experienced competitor.  And he knew more about the rules of competition than I did.

Not that he had ever been trained as a Range Officer, but he had been around long enough to call me on it when I put "NEW SHOOTER" on my scorecards on my third match.  I admire a man who was willing to call me on my bullshit, although I was disappointed that I could no longer count on forgiveness from the range officer.

So I always tried to squad with Dan, because I knew that I could learn things from him.

REVOLVERS:
The first thing I learned from Dan was that Revolvers were not (in and of themselves) the perfectly functional piece of machinery which we had been trained to believe them to be.

Ever see what happens when you load a revolver with a round that has a high primer?

I remember with a certain amount of schadenfreude watching Dan trying to recover from a revolver which cylinder would not revolve because he had a high primer.  It was a simple stage of about a dozen rounds, but it required a reload.  Dan had not carefully inspected his ammunition (he loaded his own, obviously) before the match, so when the cylinder locked up after he reloaded the gun during the stage, ... well, did you ever see the Television advertisement for Samsonite luggage?  The one where the gorilla bounced all over the cage trying to open the suitcase?

That's what Dan looked like.

He couldn't unload the revolver .. it was in the middle of the cycle, so even though it was a double-action revolver .. he couldn't get the cylinder to swing out.  He couldn't advance the cylinder to the next register position, and he couldn't fire the revolver.

He ended up pounding the gun against some kind of standing prop (I think it was a vision barrier mounted on vertical two-by-fours), and then beating it with a rock which he picked up from the ground, and finally dragging out his pocket knife to use as a tool.

I think it took him about five minutes to resolve the problem.

And then, instead of taking a zero on the stage, Dan had the nerve to reload with more ammunition from the same batch and finish the stage.  I think his points score was in the low forties, and his time in the high 300's (seconds) in a 60 point stage.

Although I didn't understand the reason for his perseverance at the time, I now think it was that Dan would NOT be beaten.  He might not win .. but he would not LOSE!


Glock KaBOOM!

The second time I saw Dan really get into trouble was later that same year.   He wasn't shooting Revolver any more, but he had borrowed a Glock in .40 S&W from another shooter and using borrowed (from the pistol owner) ammunition.

You have probably already guessed where I'm going here.

Here's proof that the government DOES want to take away your guns.

Idaho residents line up outside veteran's house, protest fears of possible gun confiscation | Fox News: BOISE, Idaho –  (August 06, 2015)

A group of residents in northern Idaho lined up outside a U.S. Navy veteran's house on Thursday to protest claims that federal officials are planning on confiscating the man's weapons. Idaho Republican state Rep. Heather Scott of Blanchard said the Veteran Affairs office has sent a letter to John Arnold of Priest River warning him that he cannot possess or purchase firearms.

This is one of those situations where a veteran has been declared "incompetent".   This is a word which has several possible interpretations, which range from "he needs a lawyer to help him understand the legal complications which may influence his fiscal decisions" to "he can't remember to put his pants on before he leaves his house to pick up the morning paper on his front yard".

Currently, the incompetency declaration doesn't have a single guaranteed avenue of appeal.  Which is to say, there are a lot of guvmint wonks who can make the declaration, and it's unclear what the appeal process would be like ... or even if there is an established process where a veteran can appeal this declaration.

Which is a really shitty way for the guvmint to treat our vets ... especially in that it underlines the confidence that veterans can got to Veteran Affairs to help them when they are overwhelmed by either medical or financial issues.

Japan marks 70th anniversary of Hiroshima atomic bombing | Fox News

Japan marks 70th anniversary of Hiroshima atomic bombing | Fox News: HIROSHIMA, Japan – �
August 06, 2015

Japan marked the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on Thursday, with Mayor Kazumi Matsui renewing calls for U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders to step up efforts toward making a nuclear weapons free world. Tens of thousands of attendants stood for a minute of silence at 8:30 a.m. at the ceremony in Hiroshima's peace park near the epicenter of the 1945 attack, marking the moment of the atomic blast. Then dozens of doves were released as a symbol of peace.

In other news, Americans who still remember the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 .... wonder whether America has grown too soft to defend itself against foreign aggression.

Especially considering that the Secretary of State has signed a sweetheart nuclear deal with Iran:

Outraged families of American victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism moved Wednesday to block the deal to lift economic sanctions on Tehran in exchange for nuclear inspections, filing a federal lawsuit to stop frozen assets to which they stake a claim from being released to the Islamic Republic.

I'm sure that President Barack "Has No Green Card" Obama and Secretary of State John "Unsafe At Any Speed" Kerry have the best interests of their country at heart.

Navy: May be okay for Military Servicemen to defend themselves

Navy unlikely to charge officer who fired at gunman:
(August 05, 2015)

 Lt. Cmdr. Tim White, the CO of Navy Operational Support Center Chattanooga, has not been charged with "illegally discharging a firearm on federal property," said Cmdr. William Marks, despite the claim of a conservative commentator. "Stories of Navy personnel being charged with an offense are not true," Marks said in a statement. "There is still a long way to go in reviewing the facts of this tragic incident, but at this time we can confirm no service member has been charged with an offense."

This statement by a U.S. Navy spokesman may be a result of pressure from the public at large, or it may be that the military is beginning to wake up to the FACT that Negligent Discharges by armed servicemen is a lesser consequence than having unarmed members assassinated because they are unable to defend themselves.

I chatted with my son "The Squid Kid" about this last week.  He is a Navy Master at Arms Petty officer, and one of his duties is to provide arms training to other Navy personnel.

He was quite vocal about the low quality of the people who he had to train, in terms of their initial training.  Essentially, they had NO familiarity with firearms, and often seemed to be afraid of holding a gun.  As a consequence, they were a danger to themselves and to others.

The Navy and the Air Force are basically formed in support of "Weapons Platforms": Ships and Airplanes.

The Marines and the Army are the services who leave to the concept that "Every Soldier/Marine is a Rifleman".  The other services ... not so much.  So when a Naval officer accepts the duty of defending his fellows by force of personal arms, that is (in the caustic terms of the despicable Joe Biden) ".. A Big F*CKING Deal!"

It think that if one American is injured or killed accidentally by another American who is trying to provide armed support, then that's a tragedy.

If one American is killed or injured deliberately by a Terrorist who is not opposed by force of arms because of a chicken-sh*t high-level policy, then that's an outrage.

Congress will FINALLY trust our troops more than muslim extremists? (Or Will They?)

"You got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?"


July 27, 2015:

Eight days I posted this opinion article:

Congress pushes to allow troops to be armed on military bases - Stripes:

 July 17, 2015 

WASHINGTON – Congressional leaders said Friday they will direct the Pentagon to allow troops to carry guns on base for personal protection following a deadly shooting rampage in Tennessee that killed four Marines and seriously wounded a sailor at a recruiting center.

From here, it sounds as if someone in Washington has finally removed their cranial box from their customary rectal depository, but ... you know Politicians.

If the cameras stop rolling, the suits start strolling.  Usually whistling a tuneless ditty, as if they're merely engaged in a casual stroll across the Capital Mall, and ...

They waffle

"Oh, excuse me?  Sorry, I was misquoted" they say .. if there is any chance that they may NOT have to actually follow through on their promises to arm U.S. military in unsecured public areas in CONUS.

Because our guys are, like, in Gun Free Zones.

(I may have mentioned my dislike of GFZ before.  As in:  February 2008 - May, 2013 ... for starters)

Unfortunately, the Army's Top Brass has less confidence in the quality of our troops than has Congress!
(From Fox News:)

The Army's top officer said Friday they would review security at military recruiting and reserve centers in the aftermath of the deadly shooting in Tennessee, but urged caution amid growing calls to arm more soldiers to protect against these kinds of attacks.
Gen. Ray Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, told reporters that arming troops in those offices could cause more problems than it might solve.
"I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I'm not talking about where you end up attacking each other," Odierno said during a morning breakfast. Instead, he said, it's more about "accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries."

[emphasis added]

A day later, I had this article to reinforce the argument AGAINST arming American Service Persons Domestically.

But wait .. there's more!

Run and shoot? Or just shoot? (It's a GAME, Folks!)

Run and shoot? Or just shoot? | The View From North Central Idaho:

Frequently at USPSA matches there are stages that can be shot many different ways. It’s a thinking game almost as much as a shooting game. What is the best way to shoot this stage? And the best way frequently depends on the shooter too

I've been enjoying Joe Huffman's continuing story of his "Introduction to USPSA Competition", because so many of the issues he describes are typical of competitors ... both new to the sport and those who have been around a while and are just thinking about how they could be more competitive.

In his latest contribution, Joe brings up one issue (1: how to be competitive using your own personal skill set) and a comment on the article brings up another issue (2: whether the techniques we learn in competition would be counter-indicated in a Defensive situation).

I'd like to use this opportunity to address both issues ... and especially point out that they are individual and not at all related:

Who is in charge here?

The American Congress is willing (if tentatively) to allow American troops to be armed in (some) Domestic venues.

But America's Top Military Command is reluctant to allow his troops to "Carry", citing concerns about safety and gun-handling competence on the part of domestic troops.

WTF?  Who is in charge here?

And if the Army can't train troops to be responsible firearms handlers, what does that say about their leadership?

"Domestic Terrorism" My Ass!

Chattanooga Shooting: Four Marines Dead in Shooting at Military Offices - ABC News:

 Four Marines were killed and three other people were injured today in a shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, according to the mayor and military officials.

THIS IS JUST WRONG in so many ways!

Le Morte de le Beloved Kimber: A Toy Story

I broke my Kimber Custom 1911 in .45acp pistol at the match today.

After 17 years (I bought it for under $300 in 1998) and untold thousands of rounds punched through the gun ... I broke it.

I was at an IPSC [USPSA] match at the Albany gun club, and not doing all that well because I haven't been attending many matches lately I'm out of practice. when I found myself on the Third Stage with a gun that wouldn't allow me to reload a new magazine.

Let me be a bit clearer:

I tried to do a reload, but the magazine would only go halfway in.  I tried everything; I even leaned over and whispered softly:  "I promise I'll still respect you in the morning" but that didn't work.

So I quit the stage with one magazine fired in what I had expected to be a three-magazine problem (8-round magazines), and took a zero on the stage.

[NOTE:  I had a GREAT time:  about 11 seconds on a 30-second stage, but I got a zero score of course because I ONLY SHOT EIGHT ROUNDS.]

After I signed the score sheet, I took my broke-dick gun to the safety table to get a good look at it.  After I field-stripped it and found some strong sunlight, I could look down at the magazine well through the top of the frame, and the right-hand side of the trigger yoke was protruding into the magazine well a good eighth of an inch.  It didn't look as if it had broken (at least in that part I could see), but it was at least bent.  Into the magazine well.  

And here I always thought I had a delicate finger on the trigger!

Which explained why I couldn't even drop the hammer to clear the stage: by IPSC rules, the gun didn't leave the stage "loaded" but I wasn't "clear" in the strictest sense.

I gave The Beloved Kimber to my friend, The Hobo Brasser (THB), to do the mechanical stuff involved in removing the old trigger.  I'll be ordering a replacement trigger from Brownell's (I guess), and have it delivered to THB.

 I have as much mechanical ingenuity as a hog in a sty, except perhaps not as much manual dexterity.

(I once tried to replace the floater bulb in an old-style toilet:  I broke the porcelain tank in the process.  I ended up having to buy a new toilet and hiring a plumber to install it.  THAT is how much of a mechanic I am!)

TO CONTINUE:
My friend THB said "I've got a back-up 1911 in the car, you can finish the match with that", which generous offer I gratefully accepted.  I finished the match with a gun that felt a LOT different (it was a Taurus, and the grip safety ... unlike The Beloved Kimber ... had not been pinned).

But wait: there's more!

"...Conflicting Rights...." Yes, but .... No More Snarling Dogs!

I read that there's a lot of outrage about the recent Supreme Court decision accepting the concept of Gay Marriage.

I don't understand that.

What's the difference between a Gay Person and a Black Person?

Borepatch: Conflicting Rights and Our Ongoing Discussion:

In a free state, there can be no special rights. We take our rights equally. If the cake bakers had said they wouldn't bake a cake because one of the women was wearing a Confederate flag on her t-shirt, how would the press have handled it? It used to be I got to decide who I would buy things from and what I would buy. The businessman got to decide who he would sell to. It is no longer that way and it will not come back. Now I can be forced by law to buy things (healthcare, as a start) and businesses can be forced by law to sell.

Equal Rights .. it's a wonderful thing!

But some people have lately been saying that some people shouldn't marry some other people.


One thing President Obama has done for this country (or perhaps what he has done TO this country) is that he has forced us to look at societal issues from a new perspective.

President Eisenhower forced us to look at our society from the perspective of a Black Person when he integrated schools and lunch counters in the 1950's.

The 1950s were a good time to be alive. ... It must have seemed to most Americans that God had truly blessed America. ... But an important change had been occurring in the nation. In the post-war period a massive demographic change began to occur. Blacks in large numbers started to move out of the South to other parts of the country.

So ... if you don't like the way a vendor sells his wares,  you don't buy from him.  Okay, I get that.  It's a Free Country.

We thought we had finally got our minds around the whole Black Thing when Ike took on the racial bigotry of Alabama.  No more apartheid, no more 'separate but equal' bull-crap.  No more water hoses, no more snarling dogs

Okay, we're still trying to get that "Black Thing" figured out.  We'll do it, though.  This is America.  Land of the Free, Home of the brave.

Except we're not yet brave enough to see ALL minorities in the same light as we are now (sort-of / kinda) seeing Racial differences.

Gay Marriage

There use to be this really awful term :"miscegenation".

It referred to marriage between people of different races.   Horrible word, I'm embarrassed that there's even a dictionary word for this ... this expression of acceptance between two people regardless of their race.

But we got past that, and we're a better people for our acceptance that people will find love where it happens, and the rest of the world be damned.

Now we're getting equally all worked up because persons of ...not a DIFFERENCE but a SAMENESS ... have grown to hope that their country will learn to accept them as readily as they did Black/White relationships.

Gays.

Queers.

Lesbians.

Dykes.

I read so many rants about how Gay Marriage is going to undermine the Sanctity of Marriage.  But I'm not quite sure how that works.

As near as I can tell, the purpose of marriage (according to what I read) is to bless the conjugation of a man and a woman to produce children.

I married twice.   My first wife and I were blessed with two beautiful children who have grown up to be wonderful people.

My second wife and I produced no children.  She and I both had children by previous marriages, and she was no longer able to have children.  It did not matter to me; I love both my children and hers, and I felt no drive to be fecund.

So if the people who say that the purpose of marriage is to produce children, then my second marriage was an aberration?

Funny, it didn't seem that way to me.

Can someone please explain to me why it's okay that I married a woman who could no longer bear children, but if I had married a man who (obviously) could not bear children, then that would have undermined the sanctity of marriage?

The entire outbreak of outrage over gay marriage seems so queer .... I just don't understand it.

But the Good Thing is ... nobody is going to introduce aggressive canines and fire hoses at the marriage ceremony of Adam and Steve.

It's a Free Country.  This is America!

You may not like it.  I may not like it.  But it's none of our business, so ...

STFU

The Importance of Being Earnest

Sometimes you receive email from someone who sounds so real and the content is so earnest, you cannot resist replying ... even if the content is so bogus that you just KNOW it's a sham.  But you must resist the temptation anyway.

I recently received the following email:

Dear *****  

I just sent you an email note and apparently this got confused with sp*a*m. You may recall my earlier correspondence regarding our defending gun rights, including the work by our Research Fellow Stephen Halbrook, the renowned Second Amendment legal scholar, author and attorney:

xxxxx DELETED LINK TO STEPHEN HOLBROOK PROFILE AT INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE xxxxx

Hence, would you be so kind as to advise your email provider to remove your spam complaint?
Thank you again!
Best regards,
David

[obfuscatory text and highlighting added]

He didn't send me a previous email, nothing was 'confused' (my software works differently), and if an earlier email had been quarantined by my security software, then this email would have suffered the same fate.

I have not, of course, been corresponding directly with any member of the Independence Institute.  The premise is bogus, as is the entire email.

NCIS performs criminal backgroiund checks on firearms purchasers?

Private Gun Ownership on the Rise in US (Infographic) | Worldwide Gun Ownership & Firearms: Private Gun Ownership on the Rise (Infographic) by Ross Toro, Infographics Artist January 04, 2012 03:01pm ET

I ran across a firearms-related link *  to LIVESCIENCE today, and I was appalled by the political bias demonstrated in their articles.

There I found this infographic:

No, it wasn't a typo.  This 'scientific' website was so certain of itself that it took the acronym NICS, scrambled it to NCIS, and then looked up that acronym.

Note the source of the information.  I'm pretty sure that the FBI knows that background checks are really conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background System, not the Naval Criminal Investigation Service.

Or by a television series.

Perfect is the enemy of Good

In response to an article about point shooting, I have some opinions about this:

When I was going through Advanced Infantry Training (AIT) in 1969, one day our instructors took my class to the range to show us what Point Shooting really means.

They gave us BB-guns ... spring loaded, so very low powered (and also very inexpensive to teach the lesson) ... and told us that they were going to teach us to shootcoins out of the sky without using the sights.

Actually, the guns had sights, albeit crude ones.  But we soon learned that the instructors were correct.  In one afternoon we learned to point-shoot moving objects without really using the sights, and with an impressive degree of accuracy.

We started out shooting quarters out of the air.  We had to supply our own quarters.

As the exercise progressed (they actually gave us two or three hours to practice), we found that quarters were too easy to hit.

I found that I could get one-shot hits on dimes tossed into the air with a surprising consistency.

Which is to say ... after a while, I couldn't miss!

Independence Day and Flashback

There are two days of the year when Americans act like crazed Savages.

New Years Day, and Independence Day.

This is the second of those days, and my neighborhood sounds like a war zone.

It's the fireworks.

Usually, I don't mind loud noises.  Hell, I spend as much time as I can on a firing range, contributing to the general miasma of Gunsmoke.  Sometimes I look around for James Arness, but he's not there, so .. I expect the noise and the light and the smell.

But when all of my neighbors are shooting off fireworks, sometimes I get that "Flashback" thingie.

I can handle the strings of firecrackers, although too often it sounds like a squad initiating an ambush with their M16s.

The big aerial bombs, though, they sound like the CRUMP! of a B52 strike from a distance.  Sometimes like claymore mines, or even hand grenades.  It depends on how far away they are when they go off.

This is the one day a year when it gets me.

I've learned that it's easier to handle if I go outside and watch the displays .... at least it helps me to put the noises and the flashes of light into the perspective.  I tell myself: "It's okay, it's just fireworks.  people are having fun.  Relax and enjoy it."

A few years ago a group of folks who enjoy shooting together in USPSA matches gathered at a friend's house for a Fourth of July celebration.  After dinner, we gathered at the curb while the host set off fireworks.   I recall that, when a string of firecrackers went off, The Hobo Brasser (a certified Chief Range Officer) was counting off:

Two Alpha, Two Alpha, Two Alpha ....

In the context, it was great.  It was fun, and fine, just good friends enjoying the display.

Papal Opinion on Guns is like my opinion on God

On the pope, gun laws and hunters:

June 28, 2015
Last week, hunters took notice as the pope questioned whether gun manufacturers could call themselves Christians, and the U.S. president again suggested we start limiting firearms.
 Pope Francis said: "It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit a distrust, doesn't it?" The pope didn't make an exception for hunting weapons.
,,,, every pope for centuries has been protected by an elite military force called the Swiss Guard. Though these defenders of his holiness carry swords, they also carry submachine guns, specifically the Heckler & Koch MP5.

I may have not offended my friends sufficiently with my last article.

So whether or not I am forgiven for my criticism here might be difficult.

World Leaders may be anti-gun, but they use hired goons with guns to defend their own person from anarchists, terrorists, assassins and louts.

Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage may pave way for expanded gun rights.

Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage may pave way for expanded gun rights.:
(June 27, 2015)

With the high court’s latest ruling on same-sex marriages, some contend the decision could lead to increased gun rights, specifically national CCW reciprocity, by using the same argument. Friday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize those sanctioned by other states. “No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the landmark decision that arguably made same sex marriage a reality in the 13 remaining states that continued to ban the practice.

With all due respect for those who do not agree with this decision, I do not understand what the controversy is all about.

This is a Freedom ruling; it allows everyone to determine their own preferences, and live under the same rules for Homosexuals as are accorded to Heterosexuals.

I acknowledge that some people consider that this undermines the sanctity of marriage.  I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution, which generally acknowledges rights, rather than establishing limitations on The People (which is NOT the purpose of the Constitution!)   I've heard the expression "Sanctity of Marriage".  Is this something which must be 'protected'?  Or is it something which speaks for itself?

So, why should I care if homosexuals marry?   You don't agree with me?  First Amendment Protection .. rail away, I 'get' to say this because I CAN.  (Of course, you can be vehement in your disagreement; it's your right, too.)

 With similar logic applied, gun rights advocates argue that the nation’s patchwork of firearms laws governing the concealed carry of handguns are now circumspect under the same guidelines. In short, they reason if marriage equality is guaranteed from state to state, then so should concealed carry rights.

(emphasis added)

WAPO LamentsThat "Feelings Based" Anti-Gun Proposals Are Unsuccessful ... But They Got GAME!

Look away from the Confederate flag to what Mr. Roof held in his other hand - The Washington Post:

The Washington Post admits that Gun Control Laws would be unproductive for the pruposes they have been proposed ... prevent "mass shootings":

By Editorial Board June 26

Adding to the feelings of defeat is the sense that many of the gun-control policies that seem politically feasible wouldn’t necessarily have stopped the country’s most spectacular mass shootings. Mr. Lanza used his mother’s gun collection. Mr. Roof apparently didn’t set off alarms in a background check. None of the defeatism is warranted. Mass shootings draw attention to the nation’s relationship with guns. They should spur us to action because they demonstrate the easy, efficient horror that guns are capable of inflicting, and they make us wonder about permissive gun policies.

 .... but they think that Gun Control Laws should be enacted 'anyway', because ...

Public policy can’t prevent every gun death. But it can do a lot more than it is now: make it harder for the mentally ill, family abusers or criminals to obtain and keep firearms; crack down on gun trafficking; require proper gun storage; and reconsider laws that seem to encourage people to use guns in situations they consider threatening. 

The odd thing is,  most of the laws which they seem to espouse have been enacted here and there, with no apparent influence on those "mass shooters" who commit these heinous crimes.

But they still want to enact them universally.