The Hatred from the Ignorant Left

Markley’s Law, ignorance, hate, and violence | The View From North Central Idaho:

  Somehow I don’t think this is the most effective way to convince people of their righteous. It just makes people laugh.

Idaho Joe gets a lot of trash mail.  I know he doesn't encourage it .. it just happens.  But he's right; the clueless have a way of shooting themselves in the foot, and somehow it never seems to occur to them that other people will read their vitriol and judge them by it.

Either that, or they just don't care.

The very INTERESTING thing is the assumptions they make about firearms owners.

"Show Me Your Papers!"

The Sunshine State is getting tough on crime ... by requiring those scary Concealed Weapons carriers to have their permits and ID ready for inspection.

A new proposal requiring concealed carry permit holders to carry their concealed weapons permits and state they're carrying a concealed weapon if approached by a first responder is being introduced in time for the 2016 legislative session.

Why?   Well, because they are liable for a $1000 find if they don't.

But wait, there's more:

The legislation would revoke permit holders’ licenses if they violated the law a second time and failed to show proper identification for their permits. 

This is much akin to the ill-fated "don't drive over 55" thingie we suffered through back when my kids were tots.

As we said way back then:  "It's Not A Good Idea; It's Just The Law!"

Well, it's not a law yet; it's just a bill.  A proposal.   A Clay Pigeon at a Trap Range, just waiting for someone to shoot it down:

 HB 935, sponsored by Rep. Gwyndolen Clarke-Reed, D-Deerfield Beach, would make it mandatory for licensed concealed carry permit holders to keep their licenses on hand along with valid identification when possessing a firearm.

Show of hands: is anybody surprised that this "Feel-Good" bill has been sponsored by a Democrat?

Anybody?

There's really no justification for this bill.  You go out jogging and you don't have your wallet with you but you DO have your pistol, that just shows you have your priorities right.

 Word is there's not a lot of support for this one, but the thing that Politicians and Mangy Mutts have in common is that they have to lick a crotch now and then just to remind folks that they love you so much they'll do anything to please you.

Even if it's something you really wish they would stop doing.  Yech!

Secondary Sexual Characteristics of the AR15.

The Washington Post offers a tidy little exposition on why it's impossible to implement "Common Sense Gun Laws" in the presence of a Gun Culture which gives Gun Grabbers what they want .....  and then laughs in their face!


Ex-ATF Agent: America is only pretending to regulate lethal firearms. - The Washington Post:
December 08, 2015

In 1994, the federal assault weapons ban outlawed a host of firearms by make and model, including the popular Colt AR-15 and several “AK” style rifles. More broadly, the law also prohibited the manufacture and sale of any semi-automatic rifle that could accept a detachable ammunition magazine (for quicker reloading), and had two or more external features such as a folding stock (to make a gun more compact), pistol grips and barrel shrouds (to help steady one’s aim) and a flash suppressor (to hide a shooter’s position).\

Let me see:
Banned features of "EEVIL ASSAULT WEAPONS INCLUDE:

1. Detachable magazine
2. Folding Stock
3. Pistol Grips
4. Barrel Shrouds
5. Flash Suppressor
6. The NAME of the popular rifle

Remember this list; there will be a test at the end of the class!

The 1994 gun ban "outlawed" firearms which were never identified as a major player in gun violence, and defined those firearms by cosmetic features.   None of which features made the firearms any more "deadly" than a Winchester Model 70 .. which was available in much more "deadly" calibers than .223.

So, okay ... anything that was on an AR15 and was not on a Model 70 was 'removed' from the AR15 by the manufacturers (except the ability to accept an external magazine).

But the gun-grabbers were shocked ... SHOCKED! ... that the deadly AR15 could be reconfigured to meet the standards which they had arbitrarily opposed ... and could be made "legal"!

 How did the gun industry respond? With cosmetic fixes. Colt renamed the AR-15 the “Sporter,” stripped off its flash suppressor and bayonet lug and modified the magazine. Other manufacturers and importers took similar measures, renaming guns and making minor tweaks. Everyone was pleased. For liberals, the law’s passage was a victory. 

What got lost in the orgy of self-congratulation, though, was the purpose of the ban.

No, what got lost was:

1. The NAME of the popular rifle
2. Flash Suppressor
3. Bayonet lug
4. Folding Stock (an option)
5. Barrel Shrouds (not there in the first place)

Okay, so five out of the six "Bad Rifle" thingies had been changed.

Hard to change the 'magazine', since it was not a part of the original rifle; and any rifle which can accept a 5-round detachable magazine can probably accept a 30-round magazine (which is a "secondary market" item anyway).

Honestly, if these people are going to condemn a legal product based on cosmetic issues, how can they complain when manufacturers voluntarily comply by responding with cosmetic fixes?

[face palm]

I'm so embarrassed that the firearms industry couldn't read the minds of the gun grabbers.  

The manufacturers couldn't intuit that it wasn't the 'secondary sexual characteristics' (akin to mammary glands, shapely legs and curvaceous hips on a female human) which outraged the priggish Gun Grabbers. 

Could it be that the Gun Grabbers didn't truly object to the 'secondary sexual characteristics'

Don't tell me they objected to the entire concept of a semi-automatic, rifle-caliber firearm being available on the Free Market!

Because that would be ... just wrong.

Yes, we do want to take your guns. All of them.

Effective Gun Control - A National Semi-Auto Ban:

Daily KOS offers a ... Draconian ... solution to The Gun Problem.   Example given:

Act IV: Disarm the local cops. Either return them to revolvers and possibly shotguns, or transition to disarmed local policing. That precludes raiding the police station for weapons. Serious incident? The State Police can render tactical aid if needed. State police can be armed with appropriate levels of modern weaponry to end any threat to law and order. That's how it's done in Europe, a closely supervised select few have serious weaponry at-hand.

There's a technical term for a nation state where only the 'elite police' are "allowed" to have firearms.

It's called "A Police State".

Daily Kos, calling for The Nazi-fication of America

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!!!

I’m a Responsible Gun Owner? Seriously? - The New York Times:

 Austin, Tex. — “WHAT are you doing?” 

 I had just shot a gun for the first time. The instructor was yelling at me because he couldn’t understand how a 22-year-old missed a target some four feet tall and two feet wide, standing only nine feet away. But he was completely at ease when, 10 minutes later, he certified me for a concealed handgun license application.

I'M WITH THE AUTHOR on this point;
Anyone who is firing a handgun for the first time has no business being 'certified' for a CHL.
Especially after only 10 minutes of familiarization.
Most especially when he can't hit a near-target at ALL, let alone "reliably".

For the debate, I wanted to be able to ask questions about the licensing system. To prepare, I decided to go through the licensing process, even though, technically speaking, I should have had weapons training before I applied. Knowing nothing about guns, I was supposed to fail. But I passed on the first try.

I cannot believe that any responsible firearms instructor, especially one who was responsible for CHL certification, would 'pass' a total incompetent.

Which leads me to believe that this entire story was a made-up effort by the egregiously liberal NYT to posit a "Worst Case Scenario" in support of their own political (Liberal, Anti-Gun) goals.

I'm not sure that this 'story' falls under the motto: "All The News That's Fit To Print".
 First The Old Grey Lady puts an opinion article on the front page, now it prints an obvious lie on the opinion page?  Why don't they just move the comics section (all of it, not just "Shoe") to the Opinion Page.

Oh, wait.  They wouldn't print SHOE ... too conservative.


So the NYT Editorial Staff is now publishing fairy tales on their opinion page?
I must ask the editors ...

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!!!

California Dreaming

California’s tough gun laws scrutinized after San Bernardino shootings | McClatchy DC:

Officials have said that one of the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifles was altered to essentially function like an automatic weapon, while the other was changed to accommodate a high-capacity, 30-round magazine prohibited in California. Newsom said that briefings he has received suggest it is too early to pass judgment about the cache of weapons and ammunition and whether a particular law, or the various laws being contemplated, would apply. He is proposing a gun-control measure for next year’s ballot and said now is not the time to hold back in passing more “common sense” measures. “To the extent it would address the issues of San Bernardino, perhaps not,” Newsom said. “But would it have impacted (other) mass shootings in California? That’s an open-ended question for consideration.

How do you modify an AR15 action, which will accommodate a 10-round magazine, so that it will NOT accommodate a 30 round magazine? And what alterations are necessary so that a 30-round magazine can feed it?

(BTW, 30-round mags were notoriously prone to feeding problems, in my personal experience with the AR16.  We used 20-round magazines, and downloaded them so there were only 18 rounds actually loaded.   And even then we had to perform daily maintenance to ensure they fed reliably.   But I suppose there is a great difference between then and now.)

I lived in California for a while back in the 1970's, but I left when it was clear that the state was descending into a Hell On Earth and was no longer a fit residence for Americans.  (The crime rate was rising rapidly .... and that just among the elected politicians!)

Americans "Saddle Up"; White House Clueless

White House: No idea why Americans are buying so many guns - Washington Times:

“The more that we see this kind of violence on our streets, the more people go out and buy guns,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest. “That is both ironic and tragic.”
 The FBI conducted 185,345 firearms background checks on Black Friday, the most ever during a single day. The record number of gun sales came two weeks after the Islamic State’s terrorist attacks in Paris, but before the terrorist massacre in San Bernardino, California.
 Asked why he thinks so many Americans are buying guns, Mr. Earnest replied, “I don’t know, I really don’t.”

[emphasis added]

From here in this luxurious mansion on the shores of the Peaceful Ocean, it's difficult to decide whether the Presidents Press Secretary is just being disingenuous, or is he really that clueless.

I don't honestly think that even he is that out of touch with the American Temper.

This entire administration is so deeply into denial, when they look down they can't see past their own belt-line.  Which is just as well, for there is obviously nothing to see below the belt.

Speaking just for myself, I'm just a little bit tired of these elitist thugs telling us what we should and should not do.   I think if Americans are going out and buying a lot of guns, then even this Administration ought to figure out exactly what is wrong with Americans today.





... or something like that.

Talking Points.

WHEN DID WE GET TO THE POINT that we care what a bunch of East-Coast Media-whores think about the Second Amendment?

I do understand the relative importance of public figures like Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin making statements in support of the Second Amendment.

Truly, I do.

Hannity Exposes Obama's Secret Plan to Confiscate Guns - YouTube:

But it's all just "talking points" to them.

To me, it's a way of life.

It's MY way of life .. and they hold it in their un-calloused lily white hands.
These people who know that whatever happens, they will always be protected.  What do they know?

Talking Points.
That's all it is to me.  Talking points.  And I'm not listening.  I know what I know.

Media coverage, face time, they get in front of the most convenient camera and just let it flow.  Good for you ... absolutely meaningless to me.

I'm SO tired of all this business.  They said, we said, she/he said ... it comes to a point where we who are only members of "fly-over country" realize we are nothing more than pawns to the 'greater' political controversy.

I don't want to HEAR what Hannity thinks. I don't care any more what he thinks than what that crazy-eyed wench from California who "Mister and Missus America, turn them all in" thinks.

All of those public figures are just figure-heads.  They are not real people, to me.

I don't know these New York Cosmopolitans REALLY think.   Their opinions aren't worth a bucket of spit to me.

I want to know what the people I spend my weekends with ... what they think.  Because I have watched them fire HUNDREDS of Thousands of rounds "down-range" over the past 50 years, and none of them have ever pointed a gun at me.

Sure, they could threaten me with their guns and all their ammunition ... and zillions of East Coast folks are aghast (if they were paying attention) at the amazing concept that people who have live guns in their hands are not automatically transformed into homicidal maniacs.

What a concept!

So I have only one thing to say to all those frightened people who are unable to understand that folks who have guns are not a threat to them, or to anyone who isn't trying to impose their wills on them:

Just go away and don't bother me, 

I promise I won't shoot you, one way or the other.

(Even if you are all a bunch of Idiots!)

Why we can't trust the CDC with gun research

"Back In The Day", the Center for Disease Control had free reign to propagate the anti-gun political agenda of its employees.  And they did so, with a vengeance.

They decided that "Gun Violence" was a 'disease', rather than a Societal Ill, and the researchers at CDC were under no congressional constraints to limit their "findings" to the neutral scientific research techniques which we, the American Public who paid for their efforts, would have legitimately expected.

Instead, the researchers at CDC acted more like shills for gun-control groups, and skewed their 'research' results to meet their pre-determined bias.

After a while, Gun-rights people grew tired of paying for a governmental agency to undermine their constitutional rights, and so they began to complain to their congress-critters.

Said congress-critters understood where their campaign funding was coming from, and it wasn't a governmental agency which took money OUT of the never-ending public funds.  And so, they passed a law that said:

"Hey!  You guys are a one-note samba, and our tax-base isn't happy with That Thing That You Do!
We're not going to tell you to cut it out.   We're just going to tell you to do it on your own time.  We're not going to PAY you to undermine the constitution any more, 'cause the voters are pissed."

The CDC said:
"Oh, damn, we never had any idea that you would notice.  But .. okay, we'll be good boys and maybe sometime later the voters will fall back to sleep and we can go back to Business As usual.  Okay?"

Congress replied:
"Well, okay.  But next time, don't make damned fools of yourselves, okay?  It makes all of us in Congress look like .... well, never mind.  Just quit it!"

So the CDC quit publishing "Guns Are Bad" papers, because they weren't being paid to make up stories, and eventually they got back to Scarlet Fever and Rubella and (lately) even more horrendous diseases .. you know, things which have something obviously to do with DISEASE!

And all was well with the world.  The Center for Disease Control went back to researching actual .. you now .. DISEASE!  And the world was a kinder, gentler place.

Until Sandy Hook.

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult staff members.^[5][6] Prior to driving to the school, Lanza shot and killed his mother at their Newtown home.^[8][11][12] As first responders arrived at the scene, Lanza committed suicideby shooting himself in the head. 

And suddenly, all retrains were lifted and the United States Government (in the person of Our Dear Leader, Osama Obama) gave the CDC free rein to report anything they wanted, as long as it made private ownership of firearms look like the deranged meanderings of a homicidal maniac.

Year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it,” Obama said on Jan. 16.

For Our "Dear Leader" said: "Cry Havoc!  And Let Loose The Dogs Of War!

And that is why, Dear Children, the faithful researchers of the Center for Disease Control are once again allowed to interpret the Second Amendment as a "Disease".   That is why we may expect to receive increasingly strident warnings about the dangers of private firearms ownership in an "unprincipled"  field of controversy.   (Yes, that IS a link to a 2013 essay at REASON magazine entitled:

The Problem With the 'Public Health Research on Gun Violence' That Obama Wants You to Pay For

So.

The REASON why we can't trust the CDC with Gun Research is that they are not neutral, and just searching for the facts;   they Have An Agenda, and they're not afraid to use it!

Or, in other words, do they DO "... have a dog in this fight.....".

And why is the NRA being vilified for their opposition to CDC research on "The Gun Control Issue"?

Why we can't trust the CDC with gun research:

Let’s be clear, the National Rifle Association is not opposed to research that would encourage the safe and responsible use of firearms and reduce the numbers of firearm-related deaths. Safety has been at the core of the NRA’s mission since its inception. But that is not the goal of the gun control advocates who are behind the calls for CDC funding.

Mexico: "You call us dangerous?" America: "YES!"

Mexico to US after Oregon shootings: You call us dangerous? | Public Radio International:
October 02, 2015

Mexico. Many in that country think we in the US are just a little hypocritical. "They accuse us of being a violent little country, but look at them," says Alfredo Corchado, Mexican bureau chief for the Dallas Morning News. "This is just one more mass shooting by a lone gunmen." Corchado says the frequency of school shootings in the US does not happen in Mexico. "Here, you hear about the mass shootings of immigrants targeted by organized crime, or kids at a party in Ciudad Juarez who had the wrong information and targeted the wrong house. But nothing like a Sandy Hook or in this case, Oregon." Guns are extremely difficult to get legally in Mexico. Corchado says they require strict background checks that include mental health checks. "Mexico has one of the tightest gun control laws anywhere," he says. "But like a lot of laws in Mexico, it's meant to be broken or it's meant to be ignored."

Here are the raw statistics:

(Rough copy of table ... specifics compared directly over the fold.)

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year

Country	Total	Method of Calculation	Homicides	Suicides	Unintentional	Undetermined	Sources and notes

Mexico

11.17

(mixed years)

10.00 (2010)

0.69 (2001)

0.47 (2001)

0.01 (2001)

Guns in Mexico[42]

United States

10.5

(2013)

3.55 (2013)

6.70 (2013)

0.16 (2013)

0.09 (2013)

ACLU: Because We Can!

[Updated]* ACLU Opposes the No-Fly List, But Is Okay with Using It to Take People's Guns - Hit & Run : Reason.com:

The American Civil Liberties Union apparently hates guns more than it hates arbitrary government-enforced discrimination. Even though the ACLU opposes the no-fly list—and is suing the federal government for violating the due process rights of several people on it—the civil liberties advocacy group is theoretically okay with depriving people on the list of their gun rights.

Now, shoot yourself in the other foot.

Well, that's ... refreshing. Finally, someone speaks their truth about Gun Control

Finally, someone speaks the truth about Gun Control Advocacy.

It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them. | New Republic: BY PHOEBE MALTZ BOVY December 10, 2015

 Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.

(H/T: The Gun Feed)

Oh my!

I would suggest that Liberal Media has just discovered its new Darling .. except for the disclaimer at the end of the article:

Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a writer living in Toronto. She is writing a book with St. Martin’s Press about the idea of privilege (2017).
@tweetertation

Isn't that special.

University of Delaware Agrees to Pay for Ammunition for Student Gun Group | NBC 10 Philadelphia

University of Delaware Agrees to Pay for Ammunition for Student Gun Group | NBC 10 Philadelphia:

The University of Delaware is giving money to a Second Amendment student group for shooting practice ammunition. NBC10's Tim Furlong speaks to one of the founding members of the group as well as UDel students about the school's decision.

UD funds many student groups, and they were understandably nonplussed when a student gun group applied for university funding to support the chosen student activity .... shooting.

Although the U eventually determined that they had no legal justification for rejecting the application, they specified that they ammunition purchased with these University funds NOT be stored on campus!

The student who initiated the request has agreed to store the ammunition on his own non-campus housing location.

Film at 11.


(NOTE: okay, it's not "Campus Carry", but I didn't have a better label except for GOOD THINGS!)

It depends on what your definition of "works" is

Dem Sen. Cites Success of Gun Laws in California a Day After San Bernardino | Mediaite:

“Sensible gun laws work, we’ve proven it in California, and we’re not gonna give up.”

(H/T: Irons In The Fire)

I'm never sure where Barbara Boxer gets the statistics to back up her absurd announcements, but it's certainly not from the San Bernadino Sun:

At least 36 people have been killed in mass shootings in Southern California in the past four years.

California Legislators have been working overtime in recent years to impose ever more egregious Gun Control restrictions on honest citizens, and the net result is that the murders keep on coming with little or no reduction on the availability of firearms to nuts, kooks, madmen and just plain evil people. 

The funny thing (if the word "funny" can be used in the sense of "incomprehensible", rather than "humorous") is that many of the recent slaughters have been perpetrated by people who have jumped through the hoops of the most restrictive gun-control laws in the nation, and the killing continues without any obvious relief.

POLITICIANS like to think that their efforts at imposing ever-increasing infringements on the Second Amendment are "making a difference".   But laws won't stop mayhem.

They will stop honest people from being able to defend themselves, but they won't stop Bad guys.

Legislators pass laws .. it's what they do, it's what they were elected to do, and it's all they can do.

Laws have ZERO effect on murderers.

(NeverYetMelted makes the case that the weapons used in the San Bernardino shootings were not legally purchased by the killers.)

Oh yeah, Dave Workman has an article in The Examiner (Washington State) which suggests that a year-old gun control law (I-594) isn't doing what it was suppose to do ... stop guns from falling into the "wrong hands.

What effect these "gun control laws" DO have, is a negative impact on the ability of honest citizens to protect themselves.

So, if Barbara Boxer is determined to say that "gun laws work", the needs to go back to her original quote which says that "SENSIBLE gun laws work".

There's nothing very "sensible" about these laws, if you measure it by the actual effect on reducing crime.  Which is .... uh ...  the opposite of positive.

None of the gun control laws imposed on Californians have reduced the number of mass murders, or the number of victims.   The only way these laws can be said to have "worked" is that they accumulate to make it more difficult for honest people to defend themselves in public places.

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

By this measure, Barbara Boxer is certifiable.

And she's not gonna give it up.

Don't blame the Killer; blame the Freedom

Exclusive: Jumping The GunGuns Magazine.com | Guns Magazine.com:
Opinion Article by David Codrea in reference to the Colorodo Planned Parenthood Attack

If you haven't already seen it, it's worth reading

The issue that should be of interest to all readers here is that religious, speech and firearms freedoms are being blamed for the evil actions of a defective individual, one who appears incapable of living freely among his fellow human beings. And further restrictions on those who do not share those defects will solve nothing, except to make it harder for good people to defend themselves against bad ones.

Socialism + Unfettered Immigration in Sweden

Sweden: 'No Apartments, No Jobs, No Shopping Without a Gun':
October 3, 2015

Here's what happens when you live in a country where there are few, if any, controls on Immigration:

 During the last few decades, Swedes have had to get used to the government (left and right wing parties alike) prioritizing refugees and migrants above native Swedes. The high tax level (the average worker pays 42% income tax) was been accepted in the past, because people knew that if they got sick, or when they retired or otherwise needed government aid, they would get it.

Here's what happens when the society is based on Socialism:

 Now, Swedes see the welfare system failing them. More and more senior citizens fall into the "indigent" category; close to 800,000 of Sweden's 2.1 million retirees, despite having worked their whole lives, are forced to live on between 4,500 and 5,500 kronor ($545 - $665) a month. Meanwhile, seniors who immigrate to Sweden receive the so-called "elderly support subsidy" -- usually a higher amount -- even though they have never paid any taxes in Sweden.

And here's what happens when you put them together:

 Worse, in 2013 the government decided that people staying in the country illegally have a right to virtually free health and dental care. So while the destitute Swedish senior citizen must choose between paying 100,000 kronor ($12,000) to get new teeth or living toothless, a person who does not even have the right to stay in Sweden can get his teeth fixed for 50 kronor ($6).

Any questions?

Anybody?

This WILL be on the Final Test, in November.

Why are Conservatives so STUBBORN!

Liberals have an agenda which includes Gun Control, and they cannot understand why Conservatives get so pissy when presented with the mildest of legislative suggestions.


Well .. yes.  Of course.  Demonizing of Conservatives is Job One for Liberals.  They paint Conservatives as Evil.  Selfish.  Aggressive.  Out-of-Control.  Cranky, and just plain not very much concerned with being A Nice Guy.

Conservatives, on the other hand, demonize Liberals as stupid, vacuous, and blind to their own faults.

I don't think that Conservatives are EVIL, but I do think that there must eventually be some kind of reconciliation between the two groups.

I don't thank that Liberals are STUPID, but I do think that as long as each "side" wastes their intellectual energy attacking the other "side", there will be no movement toward reconciliation.

First we need to agree on what is an issue, and what is not.

Then we need to determine what actions might reasonably reconcile the two sides.

The third step?  I don't know.  I'm just thinking out loud.

I have friends who are "Progressive", and although I find their politics appalling, I think they're honest, wholesome and likable people.   I don't want to be the symbol of their enmity.

I'm not saying: "Can't We All Just Get Along".

I'm just saying "we SHOULD be a nation divided by issues which can be discussed, not undermined  by anger on either side".

Of course, I am NOT giving up a single firearm nor a single round of ammunition, so that's not on the table.

We, the fire-arms owners of America, have been chivied to 'give up' the 'minor issues' for decades, and the gun-grabbers have never backed off until their legislative attempts have been  decided at the federal level.

I'm not sure what's on the LIBERAL side, except that the 800-pound Gorilla in the room is that " .. they want to take your guns away, because it makes them all scary when they're in the room with guns"

Funny ... criminals have guns, and they don't have the comfort of their neighbors as a priority.

Honest people have guns, and the Liberals are more afraid of them than they are of the criminals.

Note to Liberals:  Has it ever occurred to you that honest folks have Concealed Carry Licenses because they have been vetted by your county sheriff, and the 'other guys with guns' (you know, the Bad Guys?) have been incarcerated by your county sheriff because he knows who the Bad Guys are?

You want us to give up our constitutional rights.  That's not going to happen.  What are YOU willing to give up?

Your life?  That's what you get when mugged by The Bad Guys.

Your Comfort Zone?
If you have one ... it's probably not a reasonable expectation, if you refuse to arm yourself and still expect The Bad Guys not to pick on you.

Picture a herd of .. llamas.  You're a llama.  You're threatened by wolves.  You're comfortable with your life expectancy because wolves typically attack the "sick, lame and lazy".  Which especially includes herd members who are too sick or too young to defend themselves ... because the wolves know that YOU aren't going to do anything to protect individuals;  you just protect the herd.

Picture your children as being outside the herd, and attacked by wolves.  Your "Herd" won't do anything to protect them, let alone rescue them.  Welcome to Liberal City!

What are YOU going to do to protect your progeny?
Nothing?

Or if you're not doing "Nothing", where can you turn for help?
You have a lot of friends, but they're all .. poseurs.


Doesn't speak well for your personal values system, does it?

SQUIB!

POTD: Squib Round Stuck in Polish P-64 Pistol! - The Firearm Blog



I had a squib once. But it wasn't as obvious as this one.

I was at a match, using my S&W 659, and double-tapping like I had just invented it.  Shooting minor power, I needed to be FAST!

Of course, the squib round was the first shot of the double-tap, and I had already pulled the trigger to launch the 2nd round before my brain registered that the gun had gone *POOF* instead of *BANG!*.

Well, I was done for the day.  The barrel had a big bulge in it, I couldn't even rack the slide and it hadn't gone into battery because ... barrel bulge.

It cost me $155 for a replacement barrel, and the gunsmith had a helluva time getting the pistol stripped so you know his fee wasn't insignificant.

The problem was, I was using this LEE Auto-Indexing Turret Press (with the plastic bushing) ...

 ... and at the time I was using the powder measure and actually rotating the turret.

For some reason it didn't load powder into one of the cartridges.  And I didn't notice.  

Note that I assume that I was in that purple haze that sometimes occurs when you start loading ammo at 9pm on Friday Night for the match on Saturday.  Not the fault of the press, it was entirely my fault.
(There are several lessons to be learned from this.)

I'm just glad that I didn't need to replace the slide, as well.

I do wish I had photographed the bulged  barrel, but I didn't at the time and I've lost track of it.  I've moved a couple of times since then, so I probably junked it.

Academia .. what a bunch of Maroons!

So this horse walks into a bar, and the bartender says "Hey, will you sign this petition pledging to send money to Hamas and Hesbolla and all them other dudes?"

And the horse says: "Hey, look at me! I'm a HORSE, I'm not a MORON!"

Academics are a joke with no punch line.    We should be laughing at them, but this is where our future leaders are taught how to be human.

So far, most of them are abject failures in Humanities.
Not just the students, but faculty as well,





(Project Veritas videos don't always translate to being embedded; see the link here
... or copy and paste this: https://youtu.be/nHBadNyIhzw )

The only hopeful sign is that one or two people actually "Get It"

NOT good enough.



OH ... did I mention that these are universities in CALIFORNIA?

Public Health and Gun Control -- Exposing Kellerman

from Public Health Gun Control: A Brief History—Part II | Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership:
(2013)

The reality is that most Americans consider owning guns to be not a public health menace, but a constitutionally protected right.  It is part of their heritage.  Rosenberg clearly had no understanding of the American mind on this subject 19 years ago.  This quotation of his from the Connecticut Post in a January 14, 2013 article indicates he has learned nothing in the intervening years: “A more respectful attitude that views guns as dangerous and potentially lethal weapons—and not as cool, sexy, and macho glamour symbols—would help to promote public safety.” 

 Rosenberg really thinks American gun owners view their firearms as “cool, sexy, and macho glamour symbols”?  This revealing statement typifies the attitude of urban elites toward a subject about which they are woefully ignorant.  They see guns as evil talismans with no social utility whatsoever.  And they clearly are not interested in learning about the long and ingrained American tradition of responsible gun ownership.

Dr Timothy Wheeler (MD) has written extensively on the Doctors for Responsible Ownership website about the positive aspects of firearms ownership.

I recommend you read the entire series;  
Part 1,
Part 2 (which is also the link for the leading quote), and
Part 3.

There are other links and quotes available in these sections of the monograph, many of them worthy of bookmarking for future reference.

While you're there, you might consider looking at other articles in the Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership  (DRGO) website