Trump Asks Gun Owners to .. do WHAT?

Trump ignites new firestorm: Gun backers might stop Clinton | WRIC: WILMINGTON, N.C. (AP) Donald Trump ignited a fresh political firestorm Tuesday by declaring gun rights supporters might still find a way to stop Hillary Clinton, even if she should defeat him and then name anti-gun Supreme Court justices. Democrats pounced, accusing him of openly encouraging violence against his opponent.

Last time I payed any attention to TRUMP, he was candidly coyly blatantly insultingly assuming that gun owners would resort to physical violence to stop HILLARY.   That statement alone came as close to losing him the gun-owners vote as anything he could have said.

He doesn't seem to have learned from the experience.

Responsible gun owners will probably vote for Trump 'anyway', but we will surely be holding our noses when we vote.

I cannot remember, in the fifty years of voting for or against presidential candidates, when we have had such odious choices,

It's the same thing as having no choices at all.

PS:  My first Presidential Election, I voted against Nixon.   He won.  In fact, I've never voted for an elected president.  Maybe I should vote for Hillary?

No, that would break the jinx.

The Tyranny of the Majority

Liberal States (including every state on the West coast ... sadly, including my home state of Oregon) consist of a plethora of Liberal voters, because so many of us/them exist on the Public Dole.   Voters who are dependent on The State for the food they eat will bow down to whatever they think The State wants them to vote.

Which means that, in true evidence of "The Tyrany of the Majority", most voters in these states will vote in favor of whatever inane bills which appear on the ballot.

They will vote in favor of this:

Gun control goes on the ballot | TheHill:
Stymied on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures, supporters of stricter gun control measures are taking their cause to the ballot box. Voters in four states will decide ballot measures relating to gun control this November.
In Maine and Nevada, voters will decide whether to expand background check requirements to include private gun sales.
 In Washington, voters will decide whether to take guns out of the hands of people who are subject to extreme risk protection orders, which include restraining orders and people at risk of suicide.

 And in California, voters will decide whether to ban the possession of large-capacity magazines.
The California measure, Proposition 63, would also require individuals to pass a background check before purchasing ammunition. 

Those of us who do not live in major population centers (Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane,  San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego) will probably vote against these unconsitituion bills.

We are out-numbered three to one, and so we will lose our rights to perform perfectly lawful transactions without intrusive governmental interference.

It will be a sad day in American History, when the Federal Oligarchy can rule by fiat.

Hey! Who are you calling crazy?

This guy says he's officially crazy, but he still managed to buy, be trained in the use of, and carry a firearm.(H/T: GUNFEED)

I'm not sure he's more emotional than the guy's I've seen at a match, throwing their magazines downrange because they're disappointed at their performance; but if he says he's a lunatic, I'm willing to take his word for it.

But ..... interesting.

I have a mental disorder. This is what happened when I tried to buy a gun.:
My brain is a massive ocean of too much information. Without my medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, it’s easy for me to get lost in the undertow. No matter how hard I try to fight the current, I still get overwhelmed and distracted by every strange texture I feel beneath my feet. This never goes away.

Fortunately for me, he lives on the 'other side' of the continent.

In Massachuttes?

Not Your Father's Idaho

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” 

That link (above) is SO 1999!

It's now 2016, and the current version is:

"Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled rapists ..."


At the risk of being considered a "something-ist", I think that America needs to be just a little bit more particular about the "huddled masses" we welcome here.

5-year-old victim's father watched the video:

The case, which has largely been ignored or dismissed by the mainstream media, has created a political firestorm as pro- and anti-immigration proponents have clashed about the assault in an election year where the candidacy of Republican nominee Donald Trump has brought immigration and refugee issues to the forefront of national political discussion. Although the establishment press has given little time to the story that does not fit the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s narrative on refugees and immigration, the story has caused a stir on right-leaning media through the work of activists like Pamela Geller.

What they are talking about is a five year old girl (FIVE YEARS OLD!) who was sexually assaulted by a group of adolescent boys.  The parents of the girl ... at least the father .. was "treated" to a video of the attack.

Yes, the boys recorded the attack, and showed it around.  Sweet.

The parents of the girl were 'encouraged' to not report the assault.  Because they all came from a 'rape culture', you see, and so it's not really that unusual much of a "big deal".

Stranahan: “The refugee family was trying to stop you from calling the police?”
Victim’s Father: “Yes. They were pleading with us, saying everything was okay, they did nothing wrong, you know – ‘No police! No police!’ – because they did not speak… they speak Arabic, so they had very few words that they can actually…”

Personally, I think that the boys who were involved in the attack (no matter how tangentially) should be forcibly returned to the country of their origin.
Their parents as well should be deported, because somehow they had failed to teach their children that Rape Is Wrong!

(Who knows what other dicta of a civilized society they do not understand?)

I know not what the culture is in their home country, but I refuse to allow them to import their sick cultural 'norms' into my homeland.   I have children, and grandchildren here. They deserve to live under the cultural norms of my country; which do not include a casual acceptance of rape.

These are not Americans, they never will be, because it's obvious that they just ... don't ... GET IT!

Give me your tired, your homeless, your huddled masses yearning to be free.

That dictum of the Statue of Liberty implies nothing about accepting "cultural norms" which are anethema to civilization, and America.

This is America.

We deal in lead.

Hey Man, why you burnin' this here gas station?

I always wondered why people rioted and burned places up.

Then I found the perfectly good reason for burning up your neighborhood,

“It’s sad, because you know, this is what happens, you know, because they’re not helping the black community,” the man said. “Like, you know, rich people, they got all this money and they not, like, trying to give us none.”

I was sort of hoping that he could help me understand how burning up a gas station might lead to economic fulfillment.

Those rich people?  All that money?  They're not giving to give me none, either.

Maybe I should go burn up the gas station in my neighborhood.
Yeah, that'll do it.  Those rich people are sure to give me money for doing that.

Because, you know, they got privilege and all like that.

But they're not, like,  trying to help the white community.

NRA ad falsely quotes Clinton

NRA ad falsely says Clinton 'doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self-defense' | PolitiFact North Carolina:

NRA ad falsely says Clinton 'doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self-defense'

Actually, that's not a false premise.

It may not be an accurate quote.

However, the facts are that when Clinton was questioned about the "Australian Solution", her reply  "that's something we should look into".

The "Australian solution" was that private citizens had few options available if they wanted to keep a firearm in their home for self defense ... or for most other options.

The "Australian Solution" banned and confiscated guns.

This is a 'fact' which Politifact politely ignored, when the ignored Hillary's comment that that's
"..worthy of looking into".

What Clinton is very careful NOT to say is "That's something that is not on the board in my administration".

If she meant, it, she would have said it.

I doubt if anyone failed to understand what she was saying.

Protection of the Second Amendment Rights of Americans is not only NOT on her list of priorities, but the infringment of the constitition is a HIGH priority to her.   She sees no reason why the Consititution should direct her decisions, should she be elected to the office of President.

That may work for the trusting souls who think that the Democratic Party can do no wrong, but it has a negative effect on those of us who don't trust candidates of EITHER party to "Do The Right Thing" when it comes to protecting our constitutional rights.

And they say that gun owners are "intractable"!

We see Gun Control Advocates changing directions like an IPSC competitor changes magazines ... if this load of BS isn't working, let's try another load.

Gun control goes on the ballot | TheHill:

This year’s measure to limit access to firearms for people under protective orders, Initiative 1491, is modeled on legislation that has passed in states like California, Connecticut and Indiana. If it is successful, it too will be exported to other states.

Protective Orders have their own special place in hell for a male partner who has been targetted by his female partner.

When a partnership disintegrates, accusations run wild and courts have neither the resources nor the inclination to investigate the claims and counterclaims.  If a woman states that she fears for her physical safety, courts will first look for records of police visitations to the home, searching for evidence of abuse.  However, if those events are not evident, the court will still almost invariably accept the woman's statement as sufficient to issue a Protective Order.

Usually, the conditions of that order include that the male partner must vacate the family home, maintain a physical distance from the spouse (and often the children, depending on what arrangements Family Services can establish), and continue to provide maintenance.

This is proper; a relationship which has been established with the expectation that the man will provide sustenance and the woman will care for home and children is a common arrangement, and should not be broken merely because the partners are engaged in a contretemps ... one hopes that they are jointly seeking third-party counselling.

However, in any disagreement between the 'stories' told by both parties in those counselling sessions, the story told by the supposed 'abused' female partner will always be believed.

Unfortunately, minor squables become court actions, and a female partner who feels vindictive can rely on the courts to impose crippling conditions on the ousted male partner.

When the condition of separation changes to include unilateral imposition on the partner's Second Amendment Rights (perhaps to the point where his personal firearms must be surrendered, or his legal ability to purchase a firearm is infringed), then a court hearing should be a part of the process.   It should not be sufficient that in a "She Said/He Said" disputation, the female partner's testimony should automatically be held to be true.

Constitutional Rights.

Although the Constition should be considered (and it rarely becomes in issue in lower courts), the possibility that one partner is vindictively painting her former partner in the worst possible light should be examined carefully.   Courts generally take the Second Amendment seriously .. except for when they do not.

When a domestic ruling against a partner (former partner) includes the suggestion that his constititional rights be infringed, that is NOT an issue which should be handled in a lower court.

Stephanie Ervin, who is running the pro-1491 campaign, said she expected a similar measure to appear on the ballot in Oregon. “It feels like we’re at a real tipping point, and folks are really engaging in the dialogue around gun responsibility issues,” Ervin said.

Well, yes, it's a true Tipping Point, and one which should be approached carefully, with respect to the rights of both parties in even (relatively minor) domestic disputes.

It's not easy for Domestic Partners to testify against each other.  Except for when it is. 

And it is very easy, when grudges have been allowed to fester in a relationship, and one (or both) partners have decided that "All Is Fair In Love And War!" for a partner to decide to "stick it to" the other partner.  This is no longer a matter of a fair distribution of wealth, and privacy, and support;  it may become a matter of much greater significanse.

Before a lower-court judge allows a judgement against a domestic partner which violates his or her Constitutional rights, it should be moved to a higher court.

The arbirary ruling which deprives a domestic partner of his or her rights should not be decided in family court.

Support by Gun Control Backers:

 Gun rights advocates, too, believe they are seeing the opening moves in a prolonged campaign by gun control backers. They say the proposals for expanded background checks are unenforceable and represent a slippery slope toward something more sinister, like gun registration. “This is the camel getting its nose under the tent. Before you know it, you’ve got a whole camel in your tent,” said Maine state Sen. Eric Brakey (R), one of the leading opponents of the ballot measure in his state.

The Gun Control folks never saw a Gun Control Law they didn't like.

 Expect a strong surge of support for this kind of ruling by Domestic Courts; one which takes away a constitutional right for domestic suits, without strong support by unbiased testimony.

This is not an issue which rightfully should be decided there.  It should be an issue worthy of advancing to a higher court, on at least a state level.

Yes, that would would overload the courts with a case-load of issues which the judges would consider 'minor'.

But the infringement of a Consititional right must never be considered to be a 'minor issue'.

Perhaps, by requiring a Higher Court to become involved in this kind of suit, it would have the effect (eventually) of stilling vindictive terms of separation by Lower courts.

Custer (Washington) Club Matches: Challenging!

If it need be said, these are NOT 'my' videos; I cannot shoot to this level of expertise, but I admire the experiences of those who can.  It's fortunate that 'Gunbot' posts these match videos for the rest of us to enjoy.

Shooting USPSA in the Sand @ Custer | Gunbot!:

Custer’s range is one of the best run with very interesting bays which allows them to design fun and challenging stages. This month’s match had lots of low ports which makes it hard for aging knees to deal with, at least the bays had soft sand. I felt slow in some stages because I was waiting for a perfect sight picture instead of shooting early, calling my shots and correcting them if needed.

I competed at the Area 1 match at this range in 2001 ("The Space Oddity" match) and the range had not been anything like as well developed, nor as sophisticated in range design, as we see today.

You have got to watch this exciting run!
It's not on YouTube ... so please go to the underlined link above to see the embedded video.

Obama: Trying On A New Hat

The President has found himself in a quagmire, so he's pulling himself out by someone else's bootstraps.

Mine ... and yours, if you are a Second Amendment Advocate.


Obama: U.S. Gun Law 'Has Made...Homegrown Extremists' Strategy More Attractive to Them':
By Susan Jones | August 5, 2016 | 5:05 AM EDT

(CNSNews.com) - "In terms of the threat that ISIL poses to the homeland, I think it is serious," President Obama told a news conference on Thursday. "We take it seriously." The president pointed to a New York Times report on ISIS' radicalization efforts to suggest that U.S. gun laws may encourage lone-wolf attacks here.

You can't blame him for the stunning turnaround by the group of desert hobos which he initially described as the "Junior Varsity".   He figures the events have embarassed himself, so he's 'reconstructing the dialogue'.

He has found a way to use pirated dialogue to blame anyone but him:

"But the fact that we have what he referred to as 'open gun laws' meant that anybody, as long as they didn't have a criminal record that could bar them from purchase, could go in and buy weapons. That has made the sort of homegrown extremists' strategy more attractive to them. And those are the hardest to stop because by definition, if somebody doesn't have a record, if it's not triggering something, it means that anticipating their actions becomes that much more difficult.

Translation: (and I'm extrapolating here; he didn't really say any of this, but this is the impression I got from the statement) ---

If those Crackers didn't cling so firmly to their guns and their God, we would by God put some teeth into Gun Control and nobody could own a gun unless we say they could!

So it's not his fault (he is perfect) and it's not the fault of ISIS because they found a crack in our ass; it's the fault of American Gun Owners who insist that the Second Amendment is a Constitutional Right ... which is flawed logic.

If he had his way, nobody would own a gun unless he said we could ... and we would either be a policeman, or a soldier!

Transform America!

His recovery reminds me of one of my favorite comic strips, "Rick O'Shay".   In one episode, Rick goes looking for a new hat because his old one is worn out.  He buys a hat, looks at it and it just looks ... wrong.   So he jumps on his new hat until it looks the way he thinks a hat SHOULD look!

I am probably lacking in the moral correctness which suggests that I should give up my individual constitutional rights for the good of the many, but I have always believed that the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of the group.  People who are much smarter than I am refer to this as "Individual vs Collective Rights".

Being (as I am) a "Cracker", and a stubborn one at that, I'm probably not going to change my opinion just because My President thinks I should.

My President can change his hats as frequently as he talks to another diplomat, and beat it onto whatever shape  best suits him.

For me, my Old Hat works just fine.  I'm not an intellectual, and I didn't grow up in Chicago, so there is probably something that I don't understand about The New America.

The one thing that I do understand is, I have kind of got use to The Old America, and I've learned to love it.

I don't want some Obama-come-lately to be "re-imaging" my country.   My "old hat" may be tawdry in the eyes of a Comsmopolitan, but it fits me just fine.

Oh, and if another "Reshaper Of America" should enter office next year?

Same thing.

FOAD

Dear Mister President

What ... not ransom?

Never mind.

I guess I was wrong about you,

all this time.

"Not Terror Related"

Yes, he was a terrorist, and yes, he was acting under the aegis of a religious motivation.

Russell Square stabbing attack 'not terror related', say police after interviewing Norwegian suspect | Crime | News | The Independent:

A Norwegian man was being held in custody on Thursday on suspicion of murdering an American woman in a “random” stabbing rampage in central London. Investigators say the 19-year-old suspect, who is of Somali origin and moved to the UK aged five, is mentally ill and has no known links to terror groups or radicalisation.

Forgive me if I seem unconvinced, but a "norwegian man ... of somali origin" who "randomly" stabs a number of people in a neighborhood which was historically related to "al-Qaeda inspired attacks that killed 52 people and injured 700" doesn't sound as some kind of a Mental Illness. *
(See "Tavistock Square and Russell Square", below, for historical perspective)

I don't care if he has been described as a "norwegian man"; that's not the important part.
The important part is that he was "... of Somali origin".  Which means he was a muslim, and came from an area which has been suffering violent religious conflict for decades.

You don't need to scream "Allahu Akbar" to make it clear that your motivation is to kill "unbelievers" as a strike for world domination of your religion.   The point is intimidation of the populus, and encouraging the cowering of a free people (or what had once been 'a free people').

Do I Feel Lucky?

San Francisco cop arrested for possessing AR:

An officer with the city of San Francisco was arrested on gun charges Tuesday after the department’s internal affairs division ended a yearlong investigation. Thomas Abrahamsen, 50, a Berkeley resident, was charged with one felony count of manufacturing of an assault weapon and one felony count of possession of an assault weapon. Authorities say internal affairs began its investigation in the summer of 2015 after learning Abrahamsen was in “possession of a prohibited AR-15 style assault rifle and AR-15 receiver components.”

You got to ask yourself; Do I Feel Lucky?

It is no longer enough to expect that the Second Amendment ("... shall not be infringed ...") is sufficient to protect a citizen from prosecution by overly zealous local politicians; now even laws which are not constitutional are being used to prosecute those whose career is based on enforcing the law.

What was that old song?  "I fought The Law, and The Law Won!"

"SHOULD HAVES"

It's too easy to descend to the "Should Have" arguments:

... if the officer wanted to own an AR15 (he should have known it was illegals), he should have moved to Oregon where it's still legal to won an AR15.   So far.

We should have all seen this coming.   New York, California, Chicago, etc. ... all have draconian (and extra-constitutional) anti-gun laws, and The Supreme Court has not weighed in on many of them.   Certainly this Law Enforcement Officer knew what the local laws were, and he deliberately decided to ignore them.  At best, he made a decision to challenge the local (state) laws, and offer himself as a test case against their constitutionality.

It's difficult to believe that he expected to "get away with it".

I hope that was the purpose; I hope he fights like hell for his Constitutional Rights, and wins.
Sounds expensive; I don't expect him to get away without jail-time.

He will certainly be fired from his job.

I have no recommendations.  I don't think he's going to be employable in the state of Californai, and if he's convicted, he'll never be employable as a 'serving officer' in this country.

Officer Abrahamsen knew what he was doing ("Test Case", or else he's an idiot, which I doubt) so we can count on a very interesting court case.  Which he will lose.

Or he will ... eventually .. win in appeals to a higher court (which I doubt) and we will hail him as a hero of the Second Amendment.

Two Words:   Fat Chance.

S.W.I.N.E.

Sometime back in the sixties, Al Capp (he of the "Lil' Abner" cartoon fame) 'invented' an organization which he labelled "S.W.I.N.E." (Students Wildly Indignant About Nearly Everything) to parody student protests about ... well, nearly everything.

I so wish Al were still alive.  He would have loved this!

Gays Against Guns protest targets ‘covert’ gun lobby:

About 30 members and supporters of the newly formed D.C. chapter of Gays Against Guns assembled on Connecticut Avenue outside the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Northwest Washington on Tuesday to protest a conference organized by the National Shooting Sports Foundation or NSSF. Organizers of the protest said their aim was to “out” the little known foundation, which they say portrays itself as an advocate for hunters and outdoor sports enthusiasts but in reality is the national trade association for gun manufacturers, gun dealers and gun show operators. “They have just as much influence on Capitol Hill as the NRA, but few voters even know who they are, the harm they do to the public, or which members of Congress they control,” said D.C. Gays Against Guns co-founder Michael Adolph.

See the comments:

Wow! I'm flabbergasted. The NSSF is a closet organization that really represents the firearms industry. Who knew? Other than anybody that knows anything about the industry.

PDX confrontation: video blogger threatened, draws weapon

What do you do when confronted by an angry mob, and you're armed?

Is this a 'no win' situation?

Sources are limited, permissions to repost some of the references are refused.  You'll have to do the groundwork for yourselves, but be sure to visit the Victoria Taft connection.

Blogger Jailed for Defending 1A Rights and Life with 2A - The Truth About Guns:

A year ago, Mike Strickland was beaten and ended in the hospital for several months. His cameras were stolen, then returned with the drives wiped clean. He has video of the attack, but the authorities refused to prosecute. Recently, Mike was threatened by a mob of anarchists and Black Lives Matter activists again. This time he protected himself. Victoria Taft has written a well researched article, with video, that shows Mike Strickland defending himself from the mob in Portland. The link has it all. From victoriataft.com: Mike Strickland was arrested and charged in Portland for pulling a gun at a Black Lives Matter/anarchist protest when a mob converged on him. But now he sits in jail. As one person put it, “[Mike Strickland] is now a political prisoner in Multnomah County.”

also see the Washington Times write-up.

(As usual, all links open in a new window.)

Big Brother Comes To Europe

Europe is considering a 'tracking system' to vet ... and follow ... every individual crossing its borders.

The intent?  Watch the movie.


Surveillance of Everyone: Europe's "Smart Borders" Would Automatically Monitor Individuals:

Walls and wire fences are not all that's being built at Europe's borders. The European Commission and Security Companies dream of "smart borders": a multitude of automated and interconnected files and control apparatuses able to follow each individual. The program's objective? Counter-terrorism and keeping migrants out. But these structures -- the effectiveness of which remains to be demonstrated -- risk straining public finances, while threatening civil liberties and private life, should some states decide to pass from border control of each person to surveillance of everybody.

The Courage Of Your Convictions

Oregon priest who spent $3K to destroy AR-15 may have broken background check law:

A Portland area priest who coughed up $3,000 in a charitable raffle so that the AR-15 would not get a chance to run free and “be used to kill kids in schools” is now under investigation. As previously reported by Guns.com, Rev. Jeremy Lucas of Christ Church Episcopal Parish in Lake Oswego went all-in on the raffle madness in July and showed just how deep his own love for the community was by throwing $3,000 in the plate for a girls’ softball team, coming away with the lucky ticket to a new AR-15. Instead of putting the gun in his collection, the good Rev. Lucas told local media he intended to destroy the firearm, saying, “There are millions of guns, I know that. But this gun will never be used to kill kids in schools, kill people in a movie theater, kill people at an office party or at any other place of mass shootings.”

(quote continues, unattributed)

However, as reported by the Lake Oswego Review, Lucas may have broken the state’s new and confusing expanded background check law by asking a parishioner to store the gun while he arranged its transformation into a art object without first going through a mandated check.
Under the new law, all private gun transfers must take place through licensed firearms dealers who would perform background checks. There are some narrow exceptions for family transfers, brief loans at shooting ranges, law enforcement, and – in some cases – inherited firearms, but disregarding these, all others must go through a dealer.

(end unattirbuted quote)

I don't agree with Rev. Lucas, but I applaud his dedication to a goal which seems useful to him.  And I'm disappointed that Oregon's new firearms laws may make him only the latest victim.

The laws require that transfers from one person to another go through a licensed dealer; the reverend did not know nor understand these laws.  He thought that if in good faith he found someone to hold the rifle while he managed to find a way to dispose of it (for the benefit of others), he was doing A Good Thing.

Spending $3,000 on a raffle, for the sole purpose of 'getting it off the streets', may seem naive to some of us.  (Well, it seems so to me.)   I accept that his intent was noble.
However, according to my blog records:

Last updated August 27, 2015.

In 2015, Oregon enacted a law requiring a private or unlicensed firearm seller to conduct a background check on a private or unlicensed purchaser before transferring a firearm him or her.1 The transfer must be conducted through a federally licensed firearm dealer (FFL). The FFL must process the transaction as if the dealer were selling the firearm from his or her own inventory and comply with all federal and state laws regulating firearms dealers (See the Oregon Background Checks and Federal Law on Private Sales sections for further details).

IF the "Parishioner" was not a FFL, the good Reverend has clearly violated the law ... however inadvertently.

Will the State of Oregon prosecute him for this act of do-gooder-ism??

If justice is to be served ... no.

However, the State Must Be Served, and laws do not allow for 'ignorance as an excuse'.  

Which means that Reverend Lucas had no intent to violate the law; but rather, his intent was to avoid having an Evil Gun enter the community.

This is a classic example of state legislators creating a law for no valid reason other than to show that they are 'doing something' during their tenure.

I'm not much on 'Celebrity News', but ....

I love it when a mom teaches her child 'gun safety'.

Afternoon activity. Bristol Palin is raising eyebrows after she shared a photo of her 7-year-old son, Tripp, shooting a gun. The newly married mom of two, 25, posted a snapshot from their outing via Instagram on Friday, July 29. "#trapper #safetyfirst #teachingthemyoung," she wrote. In the pic, the mother-son duo are both wearing headphones and goggles. Palin stands behind her son while he points a gun near a wooded area.

Is gun violence in the US infectious? - News from Al Jazeera

Is gun violence in the US infectious? - News from Al Jazeera:

Chico Tillmon remembers the first time he saw a dead man.  "I was eight years old, and my mum had sent me to the mailbox. As I approached, I saw a guy being robbed for his Boombox. And the guy was killed right in front of me. I saw a man lying next to the mailbox dead." It wasn't his last. Between when he was 17 and 22, nearly 50 of his friends were shot and killed. "At some point," he says, "it became normal." Chico's story isn't unusual in his community of Austin, one of Chicago's predominantly African-American, low-income neighbourhoods. Like his peers, after a childhood spent witnessing violence, he became a perpetrator of it himself. He went on to spend 16 years in federal prison for gang-related activity.

At first I thought: it's ironic that Al Jazeera is criticizing America for it's gun violence.

Then I thought:

Soft Words; Hard Heart

Hillary Clinton: I Don't Want To Repeal Second Amendment, I Want To Regulate It - Breitbart:

Hillary Clinton tells Fox News Sunday she is “not looking to repeal the Second Amendment,” but she does intend to regulate it.

Regulation = Registration

Registration = Confiscation

Confiscation = Abridgement of Constitutional Rights


Never Give An Inch!

Obama's Parthian Shot: Draconian Edict Against Gunsmiths

BREAKING: Obama Signs New Gun Control Executive Order. Puts Gunsmiths Out of Business:

For local readers who have not yet heard this:

President Obama has just signed a new executive order that will essentially put a majority of small gunsmiths and niche gun parts makers out of business. Essentially, the new regulations mean that small gunsmiths who fabricate or modify parts of any kind could be labeled as manufacturers under current ITAR regulations.

(H/T: Controversial Times)

Gunsmiths (licensed) who violate this 'executive order' are (apparently, I'm just guessing at this point)  subject to fines rather than imprisonment, because this is an "Executive Order" rather than a "LAW"... but the information is not immediately available.

This is typical of Liberals Obama, having no need for either the Legislative branch (you know, the folks who are expected to make laws) or even the Judicial branch (those who try violators of laws and impose sentences).