"She thought she was going to die. She knew that she should shoot this guy, but she chose not to, because she didn't want her family or the department to have to go through the scrutiny the next day on national news," Supt. Johnson said.
I know I couldn't do the job.
Being a police officer .. that's the toughest job in the world. And I'm not "up to it".
But to learn that some police would rather risk their own life, instead of just shooting the asshole who is pummeling them, is something that I've never considered.
A nearby business captured surveillance video of the incident. The owner didn't see the incident firsthand, but saw how the incident unfolded on the surveillance video. "It is terrible. It is total disregard for law enforcement. They put their lives forward every day for us and to see somebody do this, to pummel the police officer is terrible. It is a terrible thing," business owner Louie Rainone said.
I want to be proud of this officer, who is willing to give her life at the hands of a brute who thinks nothing of pummeling a sworn officer to the point of ... possible ... death. But at the same time, I'm appalled that she would make that terrible choice and let this VIOLENT BRUTE go free.
How is it, that we are so conflicted with the duties of our police, that we cannot support them in the execution of their duties?
Why do we ask so much of them, that they are willing to risk death, and accept the certain infliction of pain and Public Mortification, for the sole purpose of protecting their fellow officers from social ostracism?
Can't we just let them do their job, and take into custody the obvious "Bad Guys" without concern for how their legal actions would look bad in the Press?
Since when has the Fifth Estate taken a greater importance than the reasonable imposition of Law and Order?Surely, there are opportunities for sworn officers to abuse the power of their office.
I'm know a number of Police Officers, and I've known them to be honorable, and compliant with the duties of their office. I live in a small town, in a small state, and perhaps police in other jurisdictions are less ... attendant to the duties of their office.
But I've never met a police officer who was other than polite, respectful, and competent.
FORT WAYNE, INDIANA – Fort Wayne police were called just after 10:30 p.m. Sunday to an address at 4701 Plaza Dr., near Standish Street just south of McMillen Park, on a report of a shooting there. When police arrived they found a man in a clown costume shot in his head in critical condition. Fort Wayne Police Department spokesperson Michael Joyner said a white colored suv pulled up alongside of the clown. A man was driving. Joyner said the man got out of the car and fired several shots. The man then got back in the suv and headed north on Plaza.
Are we REALLY this entirely, clue-less, that we're freaking out because of Clown Warnings?
Or is the American Press quite so ready to so over-report 'exceptional events' that they willingly start anew meme which is killing people?
My best guess is: "YES!"
But no, not really.
All of these "reports" are from the same website, AKA: "Daily Finesse"
And here am I, accidentally and irresponsibly promoting what might be the WORST website on the internet!
I should be ashamed of myself ...
... but I'm not
(By The Way .. this should show the fierce clown mask .. if it takes longer to load than you expect, or if it doesn't load at all ... Be Very Afraid, for Halloween has occurred earlier than scheduled!)
In the wake of Kim Kardashian being held at gunpoint and robbed of 8.5 million worth of jewellery in Paris, high profile celebrities look set to increase their security.
Barbra Streisand is hoping California voters will soon make gun violence the way we were. In a fundraising email Wednesday, the Oscar-winning actress and singer endorsed Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 63, the November ballot initiative that would institute background checks for ammunition purchases and other new gun control regulations.
There's something squeaky about The Way We Were: we didn't use to have to wade thorough background checks to purchase ammunition, as Proposition 63 would mandate.
Why would this be an issue? Is this all about "Gun Control"?
No, it's just about control, and it's an attempt to impose every impediment imaginable in the interest of impeding California Citizens from exercising their constitutional rights to Keep and Bear Arms.
BY THE WAY, this isn't the first time that California legislators have imposed draconian laws to impede the Second Amendment Rights of Californians:
GO SCREW YOURSELF MOMENTS: A Sample
DROP TEST ... California Legislators made it a law that pistol manufacturers must subject each firearm to test-to-destruction tests to prove that their guns will not 'accidentally' fire when dropped six feet onto a concrete surface. S&W (if I recall correctly) discontinued all sales to California rather than subject their guns to these tests ... at their own expense.
They also passed a law which essentially required that Ronnie Barrett's .50 BMG rifles must be regulated; Barrett responded by discontinuing all support for maintenance for California LEO sniper rifles ... California LEOs must now perform all "factory level" maintenance on their own rifles. Sucks to be you, California Highway Patrol!
This is only the most recent manner in which California Legislators have shot themselves in the foot, and it probably won't be the last. But they don't care about their citizens; they only care about their own political agenda.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with firearm safety; but it has everything with California trying to get around the Second Amendment rights of free citizens.
Now they want every citizen who purchases ammunition to go through the same tiresome regulatory procedures every time they want to reload their guns.
Someone needs to put the bridle on the horse and the bit in her mouth, to keep California from inventing new ways to impede Second Amendment Rights (which by the way, apply to ammunition as well as firearms.
PS:Olympian campaigns Against The Bill!
Who you gonna listen to? The chick that sings, or the chick that shoots?
You know where my money is going .. but I'll probably lose that bet.
Democrats are making noises about the Gun Control Conspiracy again, accusing mean ol' Republicans of not playing fair after they took the Dem's Favorite Toy (CDC Gun Control Research Funding) away.
House Democrats are calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to update a report it last published nearly two decades ago about gun violence to help inform public policy on the issue.
Yes, that 'old' report was biased and misleading, which is why that toy was taken away until Dems grew up. They haven't grown up yet, so they can't have their dangerous toy ... CDC.
The ATF last published a report titled “Following the Gun,” which reviewed how criminals obtain firearms, in 2000.
If the Donkeys really want to know how criminals obtain firearms, here's how: THEY BREAK THE LAW!
The lawmakers said that a new report with more recent statistics would provide the public with more understanding of how gun violence occurs in America. The lawmakers noted to Brandon that congressional offices and research organizations “continue to regularly cite possibly outdated statistics from the report.” “Updated research and reports will aid policymakers as we continue to confront this crisis we are facing as a nation,” Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who spearheaded the letter, said in a statement on Tuesday.
The Honorable Jackass from Illinois could, if he was really interested in stopping crime in his crime-ridden state (you know, one of those with the toughest gun control laws in the nation), could cut down on crime in a single year if he focused more on GUNS and less on CONTROL.
The way to cut down on gun crime is to make it illegal to use a gun in the commission of a crime.
I know, that sounds obvious ... except to the oblivious. But here's the kicker:
ENFORCE THE LAW!
If Illinois would seriously penalize use of a firearm in commission of a crime ... any crime on the books ... and make it stick, then criminals will eventually figure out that that they're better off with the traditional knife, brass knuckles and baseball bats. You know ... the same tools they use at home to slaughter their wives.
Quigley's district represents parts of Chicago, which has seen hundreds of gun deaths so far this year. Democrats have pushed to eliminate a budget provision that has effectively frozen most government research into gun violence for nearly two decades. The provision, first enacted in 1996 under pressure from gun rights groups, prohibits the use of federal funds “to advocate or promote gun control.” The statute has resulted in a chilling effect on government research into gun violence, even though it is not an outright ban on producing data related to the effects of firearms. Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee blocked a Democratic effort in July to allow the Centers for Disease Control to study gun-related deaths.
Someone sneakily commented that it is a BUDGET PROVISION that they want to reverse, not a POLICY DECISION; The Feds won't pay CDC to follow the party line vis-a-vis gun CONTROL, not gun INCIDENTS. We know how many people get killed by guns.
And here's how we know: "WISQARS" Guess what? The information comes from CDC.
A Tennessee couple, Randy and Vicki McNeal, sued the Massachusetts’ gun maker for more than $75,000 in January. According to their complaint, Randy McNeal was shot in the finger as he attempted to make the gun safe inside a gun store in Murfreesboro, a town just outside of Nashville. They claimed a loose screw on the built-in laser sight of their Bodyguard .380 pistol prevented the slide from locking in position.
The couple’s lawsuit says McNeal dropped the gun as he tried to lock the slide back, which he was having trouble because the screw obstructed the locking mechanism, and the gun discharged when he tried to catch it. Afterward, he needed the small finger on his left hand amputated.
I have just a few comments about this "unsafe firearm injury incident":
(A) ... He was handling a gun in gun store, and he obviously didn't understand the controls. (B) ... Who allows anyone to load a gun in a gun store? NOBODY! (C) ... Sounds as if it was his own gun, which he brought into the store. Why? Had he tried to disassemble it at home, and put it back together wrong? Inquiring people want to know. (D) ... A "Loose Screw"? Ignoring the personal obvious slam, why did he need to lock the slide? (E) ... If it was, in fact, his own pistol, he should have been aware of the problem; that's the crux of the question (and a question which was never addressed in the article). (F) ... I'm looking at the Bodyguard 380 on the S&W website, and I don't see any screw. Do you? (Note: a view of the pistol is included at the bottom of this article) (G) ... the complainant is a jerk, an idiot and incompetent. He's one of those people who should never touch a gun because ... well, mere incompetence is sufficient reason. What do you want to bet that he has never sought a class in "Basic Firearms Safety"? (H) ... basic firearms safety: (1) don't bring a loaded gun into a gun store, and (2) don't try to catch a dropped gun.
Need we mention that this is a DAO ("Double Action Only") design, and you have to squeeze the trigger REALLY HARD to make it fire? We're not talking "hair-trigger" here; merely "Hare-Brained Owner".
This "DICKWAD" (I'm not sure what this word means, but it seem appropriate under the circumstances ... where was I? Oh, yes) ... this DICKWAD not only proved his own incompetence to possess a firearm, but compounded his own error by suing the manufacturer. I ask you, does this sound like someone who has a legitimate grievance? Or is it that pathetic attempt by an IDIOT to not only excuse his own incompetence, but to compound the error he attempts to sue the manufacturer for building an "unsafe" weapon.
(I do not like a lot of those rules, because they often make your firearm unavailable for personal defense.)
Lots of people have various versions of Gun Safety Rules, but one thing is clear: He screwed up!
Himself. It wasn't the gun, it was the man with the gun in his hand (or in this case, the man who dropped the gun. Which presupposes another rule of gun safety ... Do Not Drop The Gun and perhaps also Do Not Attempt To Catch A Dropped Gun!
What is that ... seven rules of gun safety? Eight? Never mind; he didn't do ANYTHING that a responsible gun owner should do! But he blamed the gun.
PERSONAL NOTE TO Randy and Vicki McNeal ... get rid of your guns. Buy a guard dog. Let him pee on the carpet. It will be cheaper, and less embarrassing. Also, less likely to hurt innocent gun dealers who foolishly allowed you to handle a loaded pistol in their shop. (Apparently, there is no end to the proliferation of idiocy in America!)
BY THE WAY .... I'm looking at a LOT of controls on this pistol.
The button behind the trigger is obviously the magazine release.
Among the controls just under the slide, I'm guessing that the most forward is the slide lock; the second (middle) is the safety, and the rear-most is the de-cocker. I have to admit that the plethora of thumb-activated controls can be confusing for a new shooter. But with a lot of practice, the manipulation of controls should become second-nature for someone who has used the gun enough to become so familiar with them so that they are activated appropriately without conscious thought.
THE TRIGGER IS OBVIOUS, and one which our Dear Friend, Randy, has not yet quite become familiar with.
... and any other website which requires a FaceBook membership before they accept my comments:
I attempted tonight to submit a comment to an article on your website, and I was stopped because I was required to have a FACEBOOK membership before I could post my comment.
Rather than do so, I deleted my comment. I do not have a FACEBOOK account, nor will I ever.
FACEBOOK requires a lot of private information before I can subscribe; I am reluctant to provide that information, and because of that I cannot comment nor can I contribute. Among other things, FACEBOOK asks for my photo ID (in the form of, for example, a screenshot of my drivers license).
One of the nice things about BlogSpot is that it allows me to provide commentary with a minimum amount of infringement upon my privacy. As it happens, I have provided to BlogSpot much of what is required to FACEBOOK ... but not a jot or a tittle more.
I have provided a face picture to BLOGSPOT, and my comments in what I consider a "private" membership are those which any normal person might consider reasonable.
But not my full name and address.
Not a photo ID.
Not my true date of birth, or my phone number; not my driver's license number, and not full access to other items of personal data which would leave me uncomfortable; or data which provides the chance that my personal data would become public knowledge ... and liable to hacking.
If Bearing Arms (or FACEBOOK) think they are entitled to more personal information than I wish to provide before they will allow me to comment, then I will not contribute. I'm not sure what benefit these intrusive websites expect to garner from intruding on my privacy, but I AM certain that I don't trust them with my personal information.
Oh ... I probably could have made this whole email more succinct:
Dear FACEBOOK and Bearing Arms: Screw you. I don't need you.
A US Justice Department report faulted local authorities Wednesday for failing to update a federal database used in background checks for gun sales, sometimes with "tragic consequences."
The inspector general's report cited the June 2015 mass slaying at a black church in Charleston, South Carolina as one such case.
Dylan Roof, a white supremacist who shot and killed nine churchgoers in cold blood, should not have been authorized to buy guns since he had been arrested previously for a drug offense.
Roof had not been convicted of a crime (drug habituation) at the time, so he was not YET identified as a person who should not be allowed to own a firearm. Also, the background-check was (reportedly) delayed .. perhaps for that reason ... for more than the statuary limit of time.
The local authorities could not identify Roof as a felon because of the lack of conviction. He was, in fact, only accused of a crime. At the point where he received a firearm, he was not legally constrained from firearms ownership. "Local Authorities" could not identify him as a person who was a danger to his community, lacking a conviction. This might explain, at least in part, the delay which resulted in his not being identified as a "person" who should not possess a firearm. Calls for an 'Australian Style" Gun Control Process would probably not have affected his possession.
Anti-gun fanatics proponents have been racking their brains for laws which will keep people from killing people.
Good luck with that. Abel/Cain? Samson/Jawbone of an ASS? Crucifixion? etc.
We won't stop people from killing each other, so get out of yourself. But what if we can find a law that actually works to ... if not eliminate firearms homicides, at least appropriately penalizes them?
My Modest Proposal (and I know you're going to think I'm a madman for saying this), is, how about we just impose the penalties for firearms possession which are already in the law books?
Most states impose an 'enhanced sentence' for dealing in drugs when a firearm is involved.
Most prosecutors are willing to trade with drug dealers by 'forgetting' the firearms enhancement if the drug dealers will plead guilty to the charge of "dealing" if the prosecutor ignores the gun charges.
In 2004 for example, Marnail Washington, a 22-year-old with no criminal history, was sentenced to 40 years after conviction of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and two §924(c) counts based on possessing, but not using, guns in connection with his drug offenses. That is, 30 years of his 40-year sentence were on gun counts.
Clearly, Liberals are more concerned with the sale of Crack Cocaine than they are with the possession of firearms while dealing in drugs. Is this not a fine example of "Cognitive Disonance"?
In what way is dealing in Crack more dangerous to society than dealing in Crack while armed?
QUID PRO QUO:
Crack will fuck mess you up; carrying a gun while dealing in Crack will fuck mess you up Big Time, if you (as a Crack Dealer) find that your 'turf' is being encroached.
DA's will forget the gun violations if the dealer will admit to the drug violation. QED
It's easier to prosecute for 'dealing' if the felon admits to the crime. But the sentence is lighter, and it only gets the armed felon off the streets for a relatively short time. He'll be back on the street in six months, still dealing, and still carrying ... and still a threat to public safety. (Not a quote)
(Granted, he's probably only a threat to his competitors, but I guess the prosecutors consider this "a feature" rather than "a bug".)
Which brings us to the problems of Firearms Violence in such towns as Chicago, Baltimore, etc.
Prosecutors there are equally eager to put dealers away for "Soft Crimes" because it's easy to dump them in the county jail for six months, for dealing Crack. It makes them (the prosecutors) look like they are "Doing Something", instead of admitting that they are prosecuting 'soft crime' instead of dealing with the threats of armed drug dealers.
Which perhaps explains, in part, why these communities are among the most violent cities in the world.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN ...
... if those same prosecutors could work a little harder on clear cases of an armed drug dealer? Might they put a few of them in jail for long sentences, with compounded felonies to present to a judge?
Sure, the District Attorneys wouldn't win as many cases; it's harder to prosecute when dealers won't 'cop a plea'. But the dealers aren't stupid; they know they can 'carry' illegally, plead guilty to lesser drug crimes and not be penalized for it, because the District Attorney won't prosecute them for gun crimes. And drug crimes are often ALSO argued down to mere 'possession', no matter how much "product" they're holding.
Prosecutors win MORE cases, if they don't try to convict for gun crimes.
They aren't in the business to get dangerous felons off the street; they're in the business to get re-elected, and eventually to get a soft job in a law office, where their goal is to defend the same oft-convicted felons they have been putting in jail (for six months at a time, instead of seven years at a time) for decades.
It's a symbiotic relationship, and if nobody puts a bright spotlight on the process, then everybody wins.
Except for the victims of drugs and shootings, of course.
The teacher who desecrated the American flag inside a North Carolina classroom told me he has no regrets and wants the student who photographed him to be punished. Lee Francis, a first year history teacher at Massey Hill Classical High School in Fayetteville, has been placed on administrative leave while the school district investigates the incident.
I fought for this flag, and ....
Actually, I didn't fight for this flag.
I fought for " ...the Republic for which it stands ....” If some yahoo wants to burn the flag, and I'm there, I may choose to challenge it. But this yahoo is right. Living in a free country means that you are not obliged to respect it. And I think there's more to the story than meets the eye. I'm not sure if his students actually understood the lesson; I hope that he explained that he disrespected neither the flag or the country. I hope that this was not some demonstration of the BLM/Slavery outrage that's currently in vogue. I hope that he was illustrating the point that this IS a country where there are no laws constraining our freedom to protest. To assemble, to speak, to assert our rights even when the means of our expression are unpopular. But even if none of my hopes are realistic, he was very clear in his point that freedom means we can disrespect, and disagree, and protest. The Constitution is clear; that's why the First and Second Freedoms are so important, and why it's important that the next generation understand what 'freedom' really means. America isn't undermined because some first-year teacher tramples the flag. America is undermined when our young people grow up fearing our government. We don't have to respect (for example) the representatives which 'other people' have elected, contrary to our wishes. I know that I don't respect a lot of our Congress-critters. I didn't vote for them, but they were elected fairly; I'll protest THAT, and then I'll accept it. But I respect the system which gives us a choice, even if I have to hold my nose to vote for some of them. America is a country which gives us hope. Not a lot of countries can claim that. America is a country which accepts dissidents, and protest, and disrespect. That's what I fought for. That's what I came home to. It makes me proud to know that I live in a country where a teacher can defile the flag, and the worst consequence is that some people call him unkind names. I won't be one of those people; I think this teacher earned his pay by teaching a very difficult lesson.
Well, except that he spoiled it all by demanding that the student who took the photo be punished; perhaps this teacher wasn't quite as convinced that the rights to free speech extend to the students as well as to the teacher.
If the student doesn't get an "A" in the class, then I will have lost all of my respect for the teacher!
Well, the teacher is young; he'll learn as much from the experience as did his students, I expect.
When do light bulbs usually fail? When you turn them on, and they go , right, and you know you just blew a bulb.
Happened to me last night, except ... I walked out of my computer room (AKA "The Hell Room") and noticed that the bulb which provides the ONLY illumination to the stairwell between the 2nd floor and the ground floor was no longer doing its job. It had been on for several hours.
Curious.
So I got another new bulb from the shelf over my water heater, and it didn't work either. I assumed that there was something wrong with the line.
Because it's over the upper landing, it's on a 3-way switch. I assumed that either the switch at the top of the landing (2nd floor) or the switch at the bottom of stairs (ground floor) had failed, so having tested the circuit, I took no other steps. Oh, it's the only direct illumination to the steep stairs.
Sweet.
I didn't notify my landlord at the time, because I didn't want him to hire a contractor to come rewire the house. (NOTE: the place was built in the 1960's for about two dollars, top, and most of the upstairs lights and plug-ins are on one circuit ... the same circuit serves many downstairs kitchen plug-ins. It was a "Lowest Bidder" project; I've learned to have low expectations.)
Tonight, I was thinking ... what are the odds? The original bulb was one of those ECO-FRIENDLY spiral bulbs; the replacement was a conventional tungsten filament bulb. Neither worked; I've done my job, it's now my landlord's problem. Right?
Maybe I haven't explored ALL of the possibilities.
So I took a bulb out of bedside lamp, which had been on all evening, and replaced the bulb in the landing-light fixture.
Ta-DAA! It works just fine. The wiring worked: it's just that two bulbs were burnt out; one of them new, never been used, and of the 'reliable' tungsten filament type. Go figure.
I HAD EXPERIENCED JUST_ANOTHER_GEEK_MOMENT!
A 'long life' bulb failed after six months, and a brand new bulb didn't work at all.
But another not-so-new bulb works just fine.
BTW .. neither the spiral bulb nor the first new tungsten bulb worked in my bedside reading light.
PS: I replaced the bedside lightbulb with another new bulb from the 'new' pack; it works great.
Yes, this is a petty domestic issue.
Now I have to decide how to dispose of that curly-spiral bulb which, if you break it, you need to call for Explosive Ordnance Depot experts, or something.
I put it in the "GLASS" recycle box on the curb. They pick up tomorrow morning.
I hope it gives all those "Do It For The Environment" Weanies a frigging heart attack. I'm not going to EVER buy any of those spiral carbon mercury whatever light bulbs. It's all a lie from The Dark Side!
Hillary Clinton believes Americans need to be as worried about gun violence as they are about terrorism. "[I]t's not only terrorists we need to be worried about," Clinton said in an interview published Thursday afternoon by AARP. The Democratic nominee's remarks came as she explained she has a plan to combat both terrorism as well as the broader issue of gun violence in the US ....
Seems to me, you get rid of the 'terrorists', you got no problems with "gun violence".
I don't think that's what she's saying: She doesn't care about terrorists so much as getting rid of private ownership of firearms. After all ... this is the Politician who says:
"We Cannot End Terrorism Without Gun Control!"
So ... if I understand correctly, everyone who owns a gun is a terrorist, in her personal lexicon.
That makes me feel so much more confident in her determination to abide by the terms of her Oath of Office, should she be elected POTUS:
I have reservations about her veracity if she should be diligent in protecting the Constitution; she has never made that a priority in her office as a Senator.
BTW: This is one of the reasons why I never accepted my many 'invitations' to join the American Association of Retired People: They're great on 'benefits', but they don't give a shit about the Constitution.
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V, 552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Question: Does this apply only to documents delivered via the U.S. Mail?
Does EMAIL carry the same penalty?
Or does Hilary, in her office of Secretary of State, qualify under the definition " ... in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States...."?
One cannot help but wonder if this Federal Code would apply to a candidate for the office of (or sitting) POTUS.
On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what’s feasible keeps what needs to happen—no more guns—from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically, if it’s to be reckoned with.
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).
Phoebe (did you notice that she is living in Canada?) is only one of many folks who allow their timidity to overwhelm their good sense.
They (Phoebe and her kin) think that banning guns would stop gun violence, which is usually perpetrated by criminals who are often violating the law by the mere possession of a firearm and compounded by the criminal acts they perform.
They don't stop to consider that firearms are often used to stop crime, or to protect self, family, home. All they see is the downside of firearms, never the benefits.
I think that these radicals are afraid of firearms. Well ... I'm quit certain of that.
Why?
The reason is because they are unfamiliar with firearms ownership, and they project themselves into a place where they see that they might have a gun and they might then be unable to control their inner violence.
No, no, I see you shaking your head. I'm sincere; I believe that they are unable to conceive of themselves being a responsible firearms owner. Yes, I think they're dumb-asses. No, I don't think they have a legitimate authority to criticize people who are responsible gun owners.
Okay, let's see a show of hands: How many of you readers are gun owners who have discharged your firearm within the city limits, outside of a legal shooting range?
Okay, of those of you who are left, how many discharged your firearm within city limits OTHER than in defense of self, family, property?
Oh. MUCH smaller response quota.
How many of those left have been incarcerated for breaking the law because of this discharge?
(I suspect the response quota is now ZERO, because you're not allowed to respond to blogs from within your jail cell. Which is probably where you should be.)
RESPONSIBLE Firearms Ownership:
Anti-gunners (people opposed to the Second Amendment) tend to be emotionally involved in The Movement. They think that nobody should be trusted with a gun, because they don't think they can be trusted with a gun. They judge others by themselves, and the rest of us appear lacking in judgement because THEY don't trust themselves.
It's that old meme, supported by such 'trusted' sources as the New York Times in their December 4, 2015 opinion article "End The Gun Epidemic In America" where the editors opine that
"It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency."
That Grand Old Lady, NYT, suggests:
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
Certain Kinds of Weapons/Certain Kinds of Ammunition
We wonder, as we should, what the word "Certain" defines. And we wonder more who defines it, and why, and what their imperatives must be.
The NYT article 'certainly' avoids being specific, so if you agree with their philosophy, should we likewise agree with the particulars ... particularly when they are so careful to avoid being specific?
This is the kind of opposition that legal, responsible gun owners face; a huge megalopolous newspaper has made a decision about a constitutional issue, and they certainly have the subscriptions to persuade a bunch of readers in a state where firearms are almost totally BANNED.
As Ned Pepper said in the movie: "That's Bold Talk from a One-Eyed Fat Man!" (*See Below)
But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, as Ned Pepper discovered to his disappointment, just challenging The Law isn't the same thing as obviating The Law. The thing about Laws is, the folks who enact them generally understand that a certain degree of specificity is required. Otherwise, the first wise guy who runs up against it hires a lawyer who (in turn) destroys a poorly written law, and his client goes free.
Which is the sort of thing which gun owners usually like, and the folks who fear gun owners don't like.
Let's get back to that part about:
... yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
In the first place, those of my "fellow citizens" whom I count as 'friends' are not willing to trust their lives to "a policeman on every corner"; they carry their own protection, and are prepared to defend themselves against the plethora of neer-do-wells who would do them harm. As do I. In the state where I live, a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) is not difficult to acquire .. it's a "Shall Issue" state; and they have availed themselves of the legalities.
In the second place, anyone who is not prepared to defend himself is assuming the "Cop On Every Corner" defense, which is ridiculous. The police can't be everywhere, and to believe otherwise is to expose yourself as a victim to every nut-job in the neighborhood. That's just stupid.
And in the third place ... well. there is no 'third place'; if you don't care enough about your own life to defend it in this era of global terrorism (which can strike anywhere), then you probably don't carry a jack and a spare tire in the trunk of your automobile, either. Dumbshit!
Getting back to the quote above, I don't consider it an act of concern "for the good of (my) fellow citizens" to give up my weapon(s).
Those folks back East, who remark nonchalantly about the Second Amendment as if it were an inconsequential option, are far too trusting in their Police Departments for my taste. I've seen the cops in my little college town, and they are fat, dumb and happy. They don't expect things to 'go wrong' .. instantly, without warning, and fatally.
See Florida, and California, and El Salvador.
(By the way, these are 'places' where Gun Control is often The Law Of The Land)
And while I'm not a 'one-eyed fat man', I admit to being outspoken on the issue of self-defense.
BOTH my eyes are functional. *
During his first official visit to Bangladesh, Secretary of State John Kerry held a press conference and addressed the threat of terrorism.
Kerry offered a novel way to combat terrorism, suggesting that the media would “do us all a service” if they didn’t cover it “quite as much.
Kerry, who proposed himself and was awarded a Purple Heart for 'a hangnail', (actually a scratch, when he fired an M79 Grenade Launcher at a non-target which was too close, and suffered a slight wound from his own round) has chosen to exercise the duties of his office as Secretary of State by placing the blame for the world's Terrorism Woes on the media ... he sees the problem not as an indication of too much violence by terrorists, but too much coverage by the press.
In the meantime, Kerry has nothing to offer as a resolution to the world-wide problem of terrorism.
Well, that's not his job, is it?
“No country is immune from terrorism," Kerry said at a press availability in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on Monday. "It’s easy to terrorize. Government and law enforcement have to be correct 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. But if you decide one day you’re going to be a terrorist and you’re willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”
Since Kerry seems to think that his job is too hard, perhaps President Obama might consider finding some one who is 'fit to command'. Certainly, some idiot who thinks the 'solution' is for the public to not "know what's going on" doesn't strike most readers as someone who has proposed a real solution for a problem which he doesn't even understand.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton reacted on America's Newsroom, slamming Kerry's comments:
“If you really think that less publicity would help reduce the terrorist threat, then really after you should apply for a job after you are secretary of state to be editor-in-chief of “The Onion”,” Bolton said, referring to the satirical newspaper.
There is an unsubstantiated rumor going around that Kerry applied for a job with "The Onion", but his application was rejected as being insufficiently credible.
David Correa draws our attention to an 'incident' in Oregon where a single-mom and her children came home to find a man hiding in her closet. (See the link for details.)
She shot him dead.
SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO THINK that the only time you are justified in armed defense is when you KNOW your invader is armed and you KNOW that he intends to do harm.
Those people are a dying subspecies: they do not take into account the natural instincts of a Mother.
DELAWARE, Ohio — Donald J. Trump is not popular in this prospering county north of Columbus. The Republican nominee’s dystopian language does not resonate here. Signs that read “Now Hiring” outnumber “Trump” campaign placards. But many residents of this reliably Republican county, which last voted for a Democratic president in 1916, simply cannot imagine voting for Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. And that goes a long way toward explaining why she has struggled to separate herself from Mr. Trump in this bellwether state.
I don't blame the good citizens of Red Ohio County for their dyslexic choices in the upcoming Presidential Election.
I guess it depends on which dystopian choices you find least impalpable ... and which candidate you choose to represent those choices.
Abolition of natural reproduction. Human embryos are raised artificially in "hatcheries and conditioning centres".
Educating children by the hypnopaedic process, which provides each with appropriate subconscious messages to mould the child's self-image appropriate to their caste.
Discouragement of critical thinking.
Discouragement of individual action and initiative
An abundance of material goods. However (presumably because of advanced technology) conditions of work are not onerous, in contrast to the contemporaryMetropolis in which the workers are forced to arduous exertions. To maintain the World State's command economy, citizens are conditioned to promote consumption (and hence production) with platitudes such as "ending is better than mending".
In "1984", the choices are subtly different ... but perhaps not SO different:
Nineteen Eighty-Four, often published as 1984, is a dystopian novel by English author George Orwell published in 1949.[1][2] The novel is set in Airstrip One (formerly known as Great Britain), a province of the superstate Oceania in a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation, dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (or Ingsoc in the government's invented language, Newspeak) under the control of a privileged elite of the Inner Party, that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as "thoughtcrime."[3]The tyranny is epitomised by Big Brother, the Party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality but who may not even exist. The Party "seeks power entirely for its own sake. It is not interested in the good of others; it is interested solely in power."
The problem is .. which dystopian world should be assigned to which current candidate?
It's a vexing question, and your choice would be as private as your vote.
BOTH worlds discourage "Critical Thinking" (sound familiar?).
CLINTON's Democratic background seems to lean toward "abundance of material goods" in that the welfare society is one of the mainstays THE Mainstay of the Democratic party; pointing toward the "Brave New World" schematic.
For myself, if I HAD to make a choice, I would consider Hillary Clinton as the Avatar of that 'party'.
TRUMP's isolationism seems more of the "1984" variety, although the "... privileged elite of the Inner Party ..." resonates for both candidates. However, while the "Cult of Personality seems to be critical to both candidates, I'm inclined to nudge that caste toward Trump more than Clinton for the sole reason that Clinton at least has a history in Government, while Trump has nothing more than his financial success and his personality. (Such as it is ... and it isn't much!)
Still, you need to weigh "English Socialism" on his side, as Trump is on the record as resistant to non-english-speaking-peoples emigrating freely to America.
On the other hand, "1984" promotes a Socialistic Society, which is much more congruent to Clinton than Trump.
Or is it? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't trust either of them if they were given the reins of power.
Not to suggest that EITHER CANDIDATE HAS A PERSONALITY ... at least in the sense that you would want to take them home to meet your mother!
But BIG BROTHER is all about Trump; not saying he's a bully, but Clinton seems much more ... nuanced ... in her drive toward Total Thought Control.
And she is quite as much of a bully as Trump, except she seems more comfortable in that role. Let's put that down to 'experience'; after all, she bullied President Bill Clingon Clinton for eight years (although with little success in suppressing his excesses.)
=========
So there you have it.
Clinton is the "Brave New World" candidate, while Trump is the "1984" Candidate.
Or the other way around; it doesn't much matter, because if you just watch their lips you see that Trump is the liar with the fat lips, and Clinton is the liar with the thin lips.
I see both candidates as One Giant Step Forward toward a Dystopian Society, and I don't like it at all, at all, at all.
Any group of responsible individuals which can't find a reason to vote for either candidate has my sincere appreciation for their judgement, and my great sorrow for their lack of choices.
Oh, and why oh WHY, in this nation of nearly a billion peoples, can we not find Presidential Candidates which are not only electable, but admirable? My Dear God, have we sunk this low?
The fact is many high government officials do not believe that the average American citizen DESERVES protection from international or homegrown terrorism, or common criminals.
That's true; for various values of truth ... and I think it deserves a place in the Gun Blogger's Hall of Fame.
I'm declaring this "Murphy's Law" (with apologies to the movie by the same name, which was .. not so much of a much).
Someone may come up with a more terse version, but I don't think it can be much improved upon.
If I were to put it into a general case, rather than the specific, I might suggest:
Government officials do not believe that American citizens DESERVE protection from terrorists or criminals.
And thanks to my VERY good friend ANONYMOUS for continuing his fine tradition of helping me to make the point when I labor clumsily against the language.
The NRA is making a (relatively) Big Splash on recent state efforts to require that every bullet, and every cartridge case, carry an unique serial number which (supposedly) can lead crime investigators to identify the person who purchased the ammunition used in a crime.
I say "supposedly', because the proposal has exactly zero chance of (a) aiding crime investigators and (b) being enacted for any purpose other than infringing on America's Second Amendment.
America's 1st Freedom | The Truth About Illinois’ Ammo Serial Numbering Scheme: Do you like to hunt or shoot? If so, hang onto your wallet, because ammunition could soon become prohibitively expensive if some Democrat lawmakers get their way. An Illinois state representative wants to impose a scheme that’s not only been proven to be a multi-million-dollar failure at solving crimes, but could also make ammunition unaffordable for honest citizens*, while leaving criminals—who make millions dealing drugs, guns and (if this legislation is passed) ammunition—untouched. And don’t just shrug if you don’t live in Illinois: As Fox News reports, similar bills are pending in at least 20 states.
The curious thing is, this isn't the first time this proposal has been aired. And back in 2008, when it first was caught in the spotlight, I spent some serious blogging time exploring the whys and the wherefores.
Here is a link to my accumulated list of blog articles. It's long, because the subject is complex, but it might mention a few issues which haven't been mentioned in a brief NRA warning message. (Feel free to skim through it; not all of the issues are mentioned in only a single article.)
Here's a brief summary:
It would be financially impossible for ammunition manufacturers to reliable encode each bullet with the case bearing the same unique identifying number ... let's call it "ID" for simplicity.*
Packaging at the plant would be a vital, yet labor-intensive step because if one bullet/case combination got into a package with a different ID, the manufacturer would (probably) be liable to civil suit in case one round was used during the commission of a crime, and the wrong person was arrested based on this scheme.*
Even that is a "mega-event', because the technology to match a bullet with the case bearing the same ID is not currently available.*
...WHICH IS EVEN MORE complex, because the original scheme proposed that the bullet would have the ID engraved on the BASE of the bullet ... which suggests that the "Quality Control Survey" would necessarily take place before the bullet was loaded into the case. So much for Mass Production Technology.*
The cost of such intensive quality control and inspection* (remember these are tiny little numbers, even it can be made to happen with the machinery) would require minutes per round, rather than the less-than-a-second progress which modern manufacturing technology provides.
The cost of the complete cartridge would therefore be magnified* by a factor of .. oh, a thousand? A two-cent cartridge would cost you two dollars, because bullshit-factor.
Ultimately, manufacturers of complete ammunition would refuse to upset their entire industry, and therefore their ammunition would NOT be sold to states with this kind of absurd legal requirements.
WHICH IS THE POINT OF THE EXERCISE!
These states aren't trying to "Solve Crimes"*; they're trying to do an end-run on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
(PS: What happens when you reload your own ammunition? In 'these states', there's a bit of a problem because you can't GET bullets with the same serial number as the cartridge case you're reloading!)
I'm pretty sure this is what the NRA is saying in their article, but they can't go into such fine detail as I can because (a) they're professionals, and (b) they assume everyone else can figure it out for themselves, and (c) they hope their warning-article will be read.
