Kaine and Able

"Clinton will look to her VP to take on the NRA"

There's a new sheriff in town.

His name is Jack Elam. *

No, I'm just kidding.   His name is Tim Kaine, really.   See ("About Jack Elam" below.)


Tim Kaine likes guns, and that could be a problem for the NRA - VICE News:

Kaine is the face of a new new kind of gun control messaging: a white dude gun owner who understands skepticism toward people who don’t like guns and who thinks the NRA has lost its way.
 “The overwhelming majority of gun owners support the kinds of proposals that we’re pushing, like background record checks,” Kaine told VICE News Tonight. “And sadly, the NRA has switched from being a representative of gun owners to being representative of gun manufacturers.”
 If Democrats are going to get new gun laws passed in a Clinton administration, they’ll need guys like Kaine to make their case.

I don't think that just because Tim Kaine "likes guns" makes him any better representative of  gun owners than it makes Jack Elam representative of bandits.   And I'm waffling about Jack Elam, who is a better actor than either Tim Kaine or Alex Baldwin are fathers.

ABOUT TIM KAINE:

Here's Tim Kaine in his very best  Alex Baldwin moment:




This is the party, you will recall, who accepted the idiotic incompetent  unforgettable  Joe Biden on the Obama ticket about eight years ago.   You might also recall how well THAT worked out.
Sorry, Mister Kaine, but you're no Jack Elam.   But you might be an Alec Baldwin.

And you're not the man to be "... a heartbeat away from the presidency ..."  (SALON said that?)

Although even he might be a better Leader of the Free World than Hillary, he doesn't exactly inspire us with confidence.

* ABOUT JACK ELAM:

Good To Know *Vox Populi*

We're not "The Only Ones".

You Hate Gun Control, and the Media Didn’t Tell You | SlowFacts:
OCTOBER 28, 2016)

 Hillary Clinton says guns should be outlawed.  We  disagree. When I say “we”, I mean all of us.  Gallop took a poll this month.  They asked “Do you think there should a law that bans the possession of handguns..”  We said no, and we said it in a big way.  By more than a three to one ratio, 23 percent to 76 percent, we rejected the idea of a handgun ban.  That is the strongest response the poll has ever recorded.  You were not told that public opinion changed.  That is interesting too.

"Interesting" in that this kind of polling results don't show up on MSM front pages.

But .. we know it.

And we are encouraged by the understanding that we may have a small voice, but there are many of us ... whispering quietly; many whispers make an oceanic roar which cannot be ignored.

Except on the shooting range, of course, where we are rudely load!

As Robert Duvall never said:
("I love the smell of gunpowder in the morning")

Some People Never Learn

You would think that after all these years, I would know better.

I tried to send an email after midnight on the First of the Month, and SURPRISE!  My Comcast Email connection was not responsive.

I knew immediately what was going on, but in the spirit of Customer Response I called the COMCAST Emergency Hot Line and met a very sweet-voiced lady named Dianne (not her real name!)  who explained to me that Comcast was aware of the problem and told me that they had already received "a number of calls" about the problem.

The "problem" was that comcast were doing their regularly scheduled (midnight to 5am) backups and database maintenance, and they put on their very best CSR (Customer Service Representatives) to field all the phone calls they expected to receive from ignorant goobers.

You know ... people like me.

They turned it around on me, though.

After being very sympathetic to my concerns, said Sweet Young Thing asked me if I would be available between 6am and noon to participate in an extensive phone survey to discuss 'the problem'.

In other words .... you called me NOW?  How about I call you THEN!

I responded by pointing out that it was 2am and I would probably be asleep at the time they phoned me, so thank you for the offer but I respectfully decline.

(Which was to say: "yes, I know I'm a jerk and it's nice that you pointed out my character flaws in such a gentile manner".)

Which was exactly the expected response.

I make this call to Comcast a couple of times a year, just because I actually AM 'a jerk with nothing better to do at 2am'.

Maybe I ought to find a girl-friend.

Then I'd have something better to do than stay awake half the night and call strangers.  You think?

CDC and Reporting of Firearm Deaths

The Center for Disease Control ("CDC"), despite having been penalized in the past by losing millions of dollars in federal funding because of their biased reporting of "firearm violence", continues to poison the well of Second Amendment Rights.

This time, it was "an accident".   It was 'a coding error'.

Right.

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC:

 Note Regarding Unintentional Firearm Deaths in 2014 There was a coding error in the 2014 file that increases the number of unintentional firearm deaths (W32-W34: Accidental discharge of firearms) substantially in some states. The error was not technically isolated to any particular state, but because of the nature of the error, data from some states (TN, NC) were affected more than others in 2014. Results for 2014 unintentional firearm deaths should be interpreted with caution.

As Breitbart reported on October 29:

According to Fox News, the CDC reported “586” accidental gun deaths in 2014. Lott studied the numbers and realized they were inflated by 100; the reported number should have been “486.” ( John) Lott described the CDC’s error as “a big mistake” and said it had the effect of suppressing news that the U.S. had “the lowest number [of accidental gun deaths] on record despite the explosion in gun sales and concealed carry permits.” (emphasis added)
Lott explained that the CDC’s mistake “was not technically isolated to any particular state, but because of the nature of the error, data from some states (TN, NC) were affected more than others in 2014.” This meant TN accidental gun deaths were reported as having jumped from 19 to 105. In reality, Lott said TN’s accidental gun deaths should have been reported as “5.”

This is the kind of biased reporting that CDC has carried out in the past.  This is the reason why Congress defunded their "gun control reporting" decades ago.  And this is the reason why CDC's decision to treat "Gun Violence" as an "epidemic" has led to increasing public lack of confidence in what should have been a valuable public service.

All because the CDC has a staff of politically motivated researchers who cannot divorce their private opinion from their pubic duty to report the truth.

They're suppose to be the best and the brightest, but in the final analysis we can only say;

Sharks!

FBI Obtains Warrant for Newly Discovered Emails in Clinton Probe — as Reid Accuses Comey of Hatch Act Violation - NBC News:

The FBI obtained a warrant to search emails related to the probe of Hillary Clinton's private server that were discovered on ex-congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop, law enforcement officials confirmed Sunday.

You got to swing to the left, swing to the right, because you're the only girl in town!
Like your husband said, it all depends on what the meaning of "IS", is.

No, I never understood what that meant, any more than you probably do.  But the Hillary-Beast has once again found herself with her tits in the wringer.  And she brought it on herself when she demanded that the FBI re-think its  earlier (soft pedalled) determination/re-evaluation of the Clinton Emails.

Turns out, it wasn't as bad as they said.

It's worse.

Don't go there, Hillary.  The sharks are in the water, and they smell blood.

INEQUITY?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Presidential Pardons.
I just wonder why this "most gun control president" in "the most transparent" administration ever, has chosen a bunch of gang bangers to pardon for their crimes.   Could it be .. "CHICAGO?"

Convicted of a Gun Crime? Obama Will Cut You Loose. – Bearing Arms:

 President Obama is using his last few months in office to commute the sentences of criminals, many of whom committed crimes with guns. Of the 98 commuted sentences President Obama signed on Thursday, 19 of them had felony firearms convictions. 19.3 percent of them had felony gun convictions. “Earlier this month, President Obama granted commutation to 102 federal inmates. Today, he granted another 98 commutations, underscoring his commitment to using his clemency authority through the remainder of his time in office,” the White House said in a statement.

From the comments:

If you are not a gang member, a member of his urban elite you can count on a long expensive trial and a lengthy jail sentence you will not be pardoned from for even the smallest violation let alone for actually using a weapon in a crime.Z

[HT:  Bearing Arms]

"Nobody wants to take your guns?" That may be more true than you think

Apparently, there is a majority of Americans (including those who do not personally own firearms) who do NOT want to take your guns!

According to a recent  [link ==> Gallup poll <== link], there is a minority (36%) of Americans who ...

 " ,,, favor a ban on assault rifles, down from 44% four years ago."

This is just one poll, from one source, but Gallup is perhaps the most trusted polling agency in the world.  That reputation may be due to their reputation for defining polls without subtle bias.

Some polls are like the notorious Kellermann poll, which 'determined' that:

* Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

... and the "polling technique" used by Kellermann was biased by the pollster, who was determined to 'prove' his original bias by statistically unfounded methods.  It has since been 'debunked'.

Apparently, enough people have learned to ignore Kellermann's false statistics to the point where they are looking at the realities of "Self Defense" as a viable option.

Feeling the Pulse of the Nation ... NOT!

Yesterday I noted that the fire of politicians' resentment was curiously missing from this year's Electoral Experience.   Nobody has said: "If Trump Wins, I'm Leaving The Country", or "If Hillary Wins, I'm Leaving The Country".

Forgive my smug assertion.   Apparently I wasn't paying attention.

There are about the same proportion of politicians (and celebrities who consider themselves gurus of politics ... aka Barba Streisand) who have dredged up the entire sore-loser mantra as if they had invented it!

By the way, doesn't anyone remember when Barbra chided the professional politicians because they weren't running the world the way she thought they should?  (In 2001, the Dems weren't hitting Bush hard enough;  in 2011, Republicans were on "the wrong side of history".)

Don't get me wrong, I love Barbra's music.  But she should only open her mouth to sing ... without an orchestra, she's alternatively a political embarrassment, or an idiot.   Sometimes, both.

Well, Barbra frequently embarrasses, but she never disappoints.    Except that, she continues to make those wild claims but has she left the country yet?  NOOOoooooooo!

(Okay, so she DOES disappoint ... but she's still consistent!)

For those who have made this "promise",
... *(many of whom I have never heard of; none of whom I would miss)* .......     here are a few tips.

My personal advice?   GO!   I would cheerfully donate five dollars to your travel fund!  *

If you're so shallow that you can't endure a president you don't like, we don't need you.   I don't like either candidate.  It's not the first time America has had an unpopular president.

We have endured Nixon, Carter, Clinton Senior, Obama, FDR.  We're still here,
We don't have to like it.  We can endure either Clinton Junior or Trump.

* uh ... that's five dollars CANADIAN, not American.
At the current exchange rate of 0.7470, that is only $3.59 American
Get use to it.

Gauging Candidate Popularity

Does anyone remember how many Democrats (Alec Baldwin ... where are you now?) declared back in 2000 that "If George Bush Wins The Presidency, I will leave the country"?

(Here's a 'short list' from Salon: September 20, 2000)

Well, I took an informal poll by using Norton Safe Search software based on the search argument:
"IF BUSH WINS I WILL LEAVE".

 2,680,000 results :  That's not a link, that's just how many hits I got.

As a comparison of the 2000 and 2016 elections, I ran searches on HILLARY and TRUMP

"IF HILLARY WINS I WILL LEAVE"  garnered 12,600,000 hits

"IF TRUMP WINS I WILL LEAVE" garnered 18,400,000 hits

I'm not about to offer any kind of statistical analysis between the popularity of 'Dubya' and the current candidates, because the world has changes so much and the blogosphere has gone hog wild.

This neither proves that Hillary is a more acceptable presidential candidate, or that Democrats are more emotional.  You could argue either way, and I couldn't refute you.

But suffice it to say the the George W. Bush candidacy excited a lot of people.

Today there are two candidates in the same statistical realm, and the most comfortable with the current democratic candidate among us are 12 to 18 LESS people over-reacting about HILLARY as a president. than about TRUMP as a president.

OR IS THAT A VALID EVALUATION?

Could it just be that Democrats are more emotional, more prone to over-react or make extreme statements?

I think that it might be possible to make a case for that premise.  You do recall that George Walker Bush's competitor in 2000 was Al Gore?  (also know as "Al Sore-Loser")

Well, to provide a balanced 'research project" I also ran a search for:

"IF GORE WINS I WILL LEAVE"
....    and I didn't get a single hit.

Maybe nobody thought Al "I Invented The Internet" Gore was much of a challenge?

In Defense of Campfires

Never Yet Melted blogged about an article about campfires. Which article   explain(ed) that campfires are “a dangerous, polluting, wasteful relic of the past,” way too hazardous and unsafe for ordinary Americans to safely enjoy.
He's dismissive of the citified wussy wimp nincompoops who hike or bike or ski or climb in the Out-of-Doors wearing expensive synthetic getups in the same kinds of colors as lifesavers.

I'm with him.   It's just not a camp-out without you got a camp fire!

For the Geek Clan, it's a Family Tradition.

For over 30 years, the Geek Clan would gather at least annually for a Family Camp-out.  Usually scheduled for Fourth of July, or some warm summer month (hopefully with a 3-day weekend), between 30 and 50 Geek Clan members would gather at Motett Meadows .. off Beaver Creek (a branch of the Grande Ronde River in Eastern Oregon) and subject ourselves to the collective version of the Hunting Camp.  Only, without the hunting.

On Day 1, the Senior Geek Men would meet at the Meadows and go off in the woods to find a dead tree.  There was always a dead tree, usually a blow-down.  They would hook a chain on the tree and drag it back to the camp.  Uncle Shorty would fire up his chain saw and buck the log after cutting off the limbs for 'kindling'. (Most of the Geek Men were loggers, at one time in their history ... starting off in the 1930s when they would use cross-cut saws to cut down giant Doug Fir and haul them to sawmills in the are.)

Someone would carefully clear a 10-foot fire-circle  ... we used the same place most years ... and start a fire with the limbs.  The Senior Geek Women would be watering down their whiskey bottles in the meantime. (see below)

Uncle Shorty was the guy who took a long branch to poke the fire for the next two nights, nudging the wood around because "... it looks like it's gonna be a cold night ..." but mostly because he liked playing with fire.  Which explains why he was married twice.

After dinner (cooked on propane stoves placed on jerry-built tables at first; in later years, we showed up with trailer houses instead of tents) the guys would find themselves places around the fire, sitting on the bucked pieces of tree.   And then someone would produce a bottle of whiskey and pass it around the fire.

My father, whom I called "POP"  (my mother was "MOM" to me .. it's a Geek Thing, you wouldn't understand) kept a galvanized metal wash tub of about 3' diameter,and they would fill it with ice and a case or two of beer.  They drank horrible bear, the cheapest they could find, but they treated it with respect.   They waited for as much as 20 minute after they iced the beer before the started drinking it.
Pop had an old patchwork quilt which was older than I was, and they wrapped the ice and beer in the quilt to hold in the coolth.   One of my jobs was to put the quilt in the tub, then the beer, then the ice.

I always felt proud that I was assigned such a high post.  Until I turned 21, and we turned the job over to a more junior cousin *(a boy)*.

One year, my cousin *(a girl cousin)* married a nice guy named Rowndy.  He wanted to fit in, so the first year of their marriage he brought a fifth of Black Velvet whiskey to the campfire.   He had a couple of snorts, and one of the Seniors asked him if he planned to drink the whole damn thing by himself?    He allowed that it was not neighborly of him, so he passed the bottle around the campfire.   I and my cousins were all 'of age' by then, so it was no longer just five or six Old Men (both my parents came from large families) but also the Second Generation.   Which is why we needed a big campfire; surely you can understand the validity of their "Plenty Of Room For Everybody" logic.

Rowndy got the bottle back with just enough for one sip.  Not a SWALLOW, mind you ... just a 'taste'.

In later years, Rowndy brought two bottles; one for him, one for the campfire.  It's nice to see how effectively the older generation trains the younger.

Yes, we had one or two of the younger generation get a little drunk, but there was very little intoxication most years.  And those young men were sufficiently shamed the next day by the Olders who sat around the morning campfire tsking about the younger generation who "just can't hold their liquor".

Another year, the First Generation Women got together and poured all of the Booze out of Uncle Orville's Vodka bottle and replaced it with creek water.   Uncle Orville and Uncle Shorty liked Vodka mixed with Squirt .. resulting in a clear drink, which was poured over ice in a plastic glass.

When the Men came back from dragging in the Campfire Tree, they poured their first drink while waiting for the log to catch from the kindling.   Uncle Orville took a sip, watched the budding blaze, and sighed:  "Mmmmm   Heap Good Drink."

Uncle Shorty took another sip, and opined: "Yep.  Heap Good Drink.  But it could use a little more firewater" upon which he poured some more 'vodka' from the bottle into his glass.  And refilled Uncle Orville's glass, too.


"Y'know?  I think I can use just a little more firewater.  That damn Squirt .. must have put too much into my drink."

Meanwhile, in the background Mom and The Aunts were giggling like crazy.  "What you laughing about?" asked Uncle Orville?

"Who us?  Oh, nothing.  It's woman stuff, you wouldn't understand."

It took those two brothers about a half hour to finally figure it out.  Mom and Auntie Grace finally broke up laughing so hard, and couldn't help rubbing their nose in it.

At which time the two Geek brothers dumped their glasses into the fire ... and there was so little alcohol in the glasses that it damn near put out the fire!

Yep, there's nothing like a Camp Fire.

Especially if you suspect that just maybe there isn't enough Fire in the Firewater.

(PS:  yes, the Aunts did save the Firewater.  They got a little tipsy on it before they gave it back , though.)

Rifle KaBOOM!

I'm betting we see a multimillion dollar suit about this!

The Three Things I Detest

I'm normally an easy-going kind of guy, but when Election Season comes about I turn into a raving lunatic!

The three things I hate about America are, in order:

1. Politics
2. Politicians
3. Elections

Here's why:

POLITICS:

The thing about Politics is that it's not about keeping a nation (state/county/city) endowed with leaders who will best serve the electorate.   It's about finding a way to cajole honest folks into supporting some other guy in who doesn't have the same priorities as I do, but they don't look at the things which are important to me; they look at the things that will get some totally incompetent Willy Loman elected because he has a fresh-blocked hat and a shine on his shoes.

POLITICIANS:

A good politician isn't one who will look out for your best interests; he's the guy that can get elected.
Never mind if he is morally suspect or dumb as a box of rocks, he's got charisma and doesn't pick his nose in public (or at least, not when the cameras are on him).

A "Good Politician" is a snake-oil salesman who keeps his mistress hidden, and his wife accepts his peccadilloes because she might end up The First Lady of Ward 7.   If he is on the graft, he doesn't go out and buy a fancy car the day after he gets "The Envelope" (stuffed full of case, courtesy of his sponsors).  This allows him to vote for the causes of his 'contributors' with a free conscience.

Any man who runs for election to public office must have an ulterior motive.  It may be personal vanity, or the wish to be liked; it may be the power of the position; it may be because he just can't make it in private industry (but he looks and talks "real good!").

Or it might be because he has done so well in his career, this is the next step up on the ladder of success.

The worst of the candidates are those who have a "Vision".  You want to steer clear of these evangelists, because their vision is probably not yours.

ELECTIONS:

This is the very worst part.  Politicians pander to private parties.  You might want to write that down.
No matter what they say (it's all a lie), their sole goal is to get elected to high public office.  The day of "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" is over.  Dead as Chivalry.   Serious as a Heart Attack. Pick your poison, as sure as hell, sooner or later your elected official will turn out to be a Felon.

Now we are involved in a Presidential Election which has selected (as the primary candidates on each side) The Creep and The Crook.

This is the best America has to offer?

 We are obliged to choose between two candidates, neither of which an honest, self-respecting person would invite to dinner in their home?

The American political process was designed to allow our citizens to choose between The Best of The Best; but in a few days we will have to choose between The Least Horrible of the Awful.

Frankly, I'm relying on Scott Adams for political guidance.

The Crook Versus the Monster | Scott Adams' Blog:

The biggest illusion this election is that we think the people on the other side can’t see the warts on their own candidate. But I think they do. Clinton supporters know she is crooked, but I think they assume it is a normal degree of crookedness for an American politician. Americans assume that even the “good” politicians are trading favors and breaking every rule that is inconvenient to them. I’ve never heard a Clinton supporter defend Clinton as being pure and honest. Her supporters like her despite her crookedness.

 Likewise, Trump supporters know what they are getting. They know he’s offensive. They know he’s under-informed on policies. They know he pays as little in taxes as possible. They know he uses bankruptcy laws when needed. They know he ignores facts that are inconvenient to his message. They just don’t care. They want to push the monster into Washington D.C., close the door, and let him break everything that needs to be broken. Demolition is usually the first step of building something new. And Trump also knows how to build things when he isn’t in monster mode.

This isn't "The Answer", but at least it's one viewpoint which has attempted to provide a quick summary of our National Quandry.

And Scott Adams is not among the things I detest.
Perhaps it's because I'm a Dilbert at heart.

Napolitano: What if you needed permission?

Published on Oct 20, 2016

 Judge exposes the “Big Deception”!

(Judge And NSA “The Big Deception” and "Constitutional Chaos" )

(Pretty Radical stuff!)

Note this sequence includes more than one video, and the transition is not obvious.

Gun Ownership v Firearm Deaths

So America has the most guns, but less crimes?

Telegraph: U.S. Top Country for Gun Ownership, Not Even in Top 10 for Firearm Deaths - Breitbart:

On October 22 The Telegraph published a map showing the U.S. leads the world in private firearm ownership but does not even crack the Top 10 when it comes to firearm-related deaths.

The interesting fact, which is not mentioned in the Telegraph article, is that of the Top 10 nations in firearms ownership ... only ONE of those nations (Uruguay) is listed in the Top 10 in firearm-related deaths.

Which once again seems to vindicate Dr. John Lott's assertion that "More Guns = Less Crime".

As Rachel Weisz said in THE MUMMY:

"Take THAT, Bainbridge scholars!"

Oh ... and on a final note:

Many of the "Top 10 in Firearms Deaths" nations permit few, if any, civilians to possess firearms.

Saint, Showman or Charlatan?

Representative Trey Gowdy (R/SC) is a politician, and I instinctively distrust politicians of every stripe.

But I've been watching a lot of videos lately featuring the Honorable Gentleman from South Carolina, and Mr. Gowdy is one hell of an orator!



This is a representative melange of his in-house speeches.

I like a lot of the things he has to say.

(If you haven't the patience for a one-hour video, search youtube or google.)

Clinton as gun control candidate

This sort of campaign rhetoric will NOT hurt Clinton during the elections.

Email: Clinton's 'Forceful' Gun Position Had Some Democrats 'Freaking':

Clinton has supported an “assault weapons” ban and expansion of background checks to gun sales between private parties. She has praised Australia’s mandatory gun buyback program as a “good example” and something that is “worth considering” in the United States, something no other major party candidate had previously done. She also told donors the Supreme Court is “wrong” on the Second Amendment, calling into question the landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which affirmed that the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

(H/T "New Jovian Thunderbolt")

In what may be acknowledged as the most radical presidential election in American History, a radical stance may prove to be the best technique for the Liberal candidate.

“Already, she has been more forceful on guns/gun lobby than any other person who ever seriously ran for president,” 

People who are opposed to her gun control plans won't vote for her anyway, so she has nothing to lose in this demographic.

She is positioning herself with the "Radical Left", and they love it.

On the other hand, they already love her ... so it's not clear that her Gun Control stance is likely to gain her more than a few votes.

And nobody loves "The Donald".

In voting for Trump over Clinton, the American electorate may find themselves in the position of the naval officers in the movie "Master and Commander":

October 19, 2016 4:43 pm
Hillary Clinton’s “forceful” stance in favor of gun control caused some members of the Democratic Caucus to freak out, an email exchange published Wednesday shows.
Campaign staffers and outside strategists discussed the best way to approach issues such as President Obama’s handling of foreign policy, Wall Street, and gun control during a back and forth over an internal strategy memo in December 2015. Much of the conversation focused on how Clinton could differentiate herself from Obama in ways that would be advantageous to the campaign. One consultant pointed out during the exchange that Clinton was already “more forceful on guns/gun lobby than any other person who ever seriously ran for president” and some unnamed Democratic Caucus members were “freaking out about it.”

Hillary quote: Yes, we DO want to take your guns! (history)

Clinton Won't Say if Right to Bear Arms is Constitutional Right:  (Video in link)
June 5, 2016 9:58 am

 Hillary Clinton couldn’t definitively say Sunday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guaranteed the right to bear arms during an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. Republican rival Donald Trump has charged that Clinton wants to abolish the amendment.
While Stephanopoulos said he knew that wasn’t true, he pressed her on her gun views that have increasingly gone to the left. “Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it’s not linked to service in a militia?” he asked.
 “I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia, and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulations,” she said. “So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Translation:  Yes, we DO want to take your guns.

(Quote Provided  for people who want to prove her actual words vis-a-vis 2nd Amendment Rights.
Yes, someday she will deny and/or quibble about her statement: you have proof here.)

It gets worse!

And then it gets MUCH WORSE!  (Toddler Alert!)

How NOT to market "Smart Guns"

German arms maker Armatix to release second smart gun in U.S. | Computerworld:

Yes, it's another article about how great Smart Gun Technology is.

The only problem is, nobody wants to buy them.
Even as new standards are being considered and proposed, nobody wants to buy them anyway.

This article mentions the 'problems' the makers  (Armatix) are having, trying to get someone to BUY their product.  But in the text, it's the bad things about Smart Guns that jump out at the reader.

(1) Useless Caliber

German firearms manufacturer Armatix LLC is planning to release its second smart gun in the U.S. next year after sales of its first model -- the .22 caliber iP1 -- were quashed by pressure from some gun owners and gun rights advocates who saw it as a threat to Second Amendment freedoms.

There's not a lot of people who are looking for a teeny .22LR pistol.   So maybe it is a good idea to build one with an actual usable caliber.

Oh, and BTW?  Nobody likes RFD which might conceivably be over-ridden by "outside agencies"!

Armatix finally figured this one out all by themselves:

 Unlike the iP1, which used RFID technology, the new iP9 9mm semi-automatic pistol will have a fingerprint reader. The iP9 will be available in mid-2017, according to Wolfgang Tweraser, CEO and president of Armatix LLC.

Good for you.  You're making a 9mm .. which is still (in the opinion of 'old school' pistol owners, a "Poodle Shooter".  But it's a step in the right direction.

(2) Overpriced!

So, why would someone want to pay over $1,000 for a tiny pistol?

The iP9 is expected to retail for about the same suggested retail price as the iP1 -- $1,365, which is more than twice the price of many conventional 9mm semi-automatic pistols. While smart gun technology will always bring with it a price premium, Tweraser said that's to be expected, and he compared it to a Tesla electric car.

Yes, well ... the advantage of electric cars is that they will probably, in the long run, save money because electricity is cheaper than gasoline.   But that's a fallacious comparison because you'll never get a return for your dollar by buying a 'Smart Gun'.

(3) Arrogant marketing!

But the manufacturer thinks the introductory price is reasonable:

"Always the latest technology comes with a higher price tag. As you make hundreds and thousands of units, then the price will change also," Tweraser said. "We're not going to replace regular guns because of the price point also."

And you wonder why you can't sell your guns in America?   You are so cocksure in the value of your product you ignore the fact that you have to build a market almost before you build the product.

You're not doing that.

Hell, you can't even find dealers!

When your firearms are competitively price, you will at least get a few people to buy the gun.   Maybe they will try it, discover that it's worth more than they paid for it, and tell their friends.

 You're not going to replace regular guns until you can COMPETE with regular guns!  Your marketing strategy today ... sucks.   Today, you can't afford to  "make hundreds and thousands of units";  when you start SELLING "hundreds and thousands of units", that's when you can start jacking up the price.   It's also called "The Law Of Supply And Demand".  Right now, you have too much supply because you have no demand for your product.

(4) Identify, and Sell to  your market

Who buys guns?

Hunters, Home & Personal Defense folks, plinkers, competition shooters, collectors, military and police, Governments, new firearms owners .. that's the potential market.

This product appeals Plinkers and New Firearms Owners in the .22 caliber configuration.  Not a big market for a small pistol which costs almost $1,400.

In the 9mm caliber, you MIGHT get some "Home & Personal Defense" people interested.

Hunters, Competition Shooters, military & police, they're not going to ... I think the expression is "I wouldn't touch that with YOUR dick!"   So, your market is probably limited to Home & Personal Defense buyers.

That's a very SMALL niche market, especially since the sub-set of that group will probably be "New Gun Owners", and they need to be romanced carefully.

You're doing okay with emphasizing how SAFE your gun is, and probably many most buyers are  will be young homeowners with children in the house.

Your niche just became much smaller.

Now all need to do to sell to a sustainable market (hopefully, more than 100 a month, nationwide) is to get them into the hands of this group, and let them do your marketing for you.

Did I mention  young, homeowners, children?

They're dealing with bloated mortgages and childrens' college trust funds, and you want to sell them a pistol for $1400 (plus plus ... license, taxes, permits, etc.)  Thank Goodness you brought it out in 9mm, which at least justifies some of the cost.

New Jersey!
New Jersey was the 11th of the original 13 colonies.

And it was the first in America to pass a state law that, as soon as (well, 3 years after) a "Smart Gun" became available for civilian purchase an America, only "Smart Guns" would be eligible for purchase in the state.

Unfortunately, the ARMITIX was the only gun in America that met the criteria, so after it came on the market the entire state of NJ was locked into selling only YOUR firearm ... what a great marketing moment for you!

Too bad your version was untrusted, and the available make/model/caliber was so limited, because suddenly you started a whole new revolution.  

Dealers who attempted to retail your gun were threatened because of the precedent which was set by ONE idiotic NJ Salon, and ONE underfunded manufacturer  (cough *Armitix*) was unable to meet the demand, provide a sufficiently wide range of desireable make/model/caliber, and the world came to an end until the NJ Governor nixed the whole damn thing.

Not a great publicity moment for Armitix.

So, I am guessing that the corporate gurus in Armitix are trying to figure a way to dig out of this black hole.

Here are a few suggestions, if you wish to continue making a "Smart Gun":

• make it in many calibers
• find a better platform
• get it tested AND ACCEPTED by LEO and military ... because if they won't trust their life to it, no civilian is going to trust their life to it in a self-defense situation
• find a price that will allow you to get it on the market, even if you have to take a loss
• about New Jersey ... sorry about that.  You lose.

Hope you have a large number of investors with very deep pockets, because you need to rethink your concept, design, marketing, vision and leadership

And after that?  

You're still screwed.

You're building a product which just isn't good  enough  to meet a market which just isn't big enough to justify the effort.

And very few people who are BUYING guns wants it, anyway.  They don't trust it.

Only state legislators want it, and they're all a bunch of pusillanimous idiots that nobody listens too!

"Maybe in six or seven years" ... (as John Wayne said to Ben Johnson in "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon").

The Weapon Shops of Isher

 "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free"

That is the theme from a book by A.E. van Vogt, ca 1941.

A.E. van Vogt wrote a series of short stories (or almost novelettes) starting in 1941, and eventually all three were compiled into this single novel:

The Weapon Shops of Isher (eBook): A. E. van Vogt

Here's a blurb from AMAZON website:

With the publication, in the July 1941 issue of Astounding Science Fiction magazine, of the story Seesaw, van Vogt began unfolding the complex tale of the oppressive Empire of Isher and the mysterious Weapon Shops. This volume, The Weapon Shops of Isher, includes the first three parts of the saga and introduces perhaps the most famous political slogan of science fiction: The Right to Buy Weapons is the Right to Be Free. 

Born at the height of Nazi conquest, the Isher stories suggested that an oppressive government could never completely subjugate its own citizens if they were well armed. The audience appeal was immediate and has endured long beyond other stories of alien invasion, global conflict and post war nuclear angst.

Bear that in mind, as you read this segment from President Abraham Lincoln's immortal 1863 Gettysburg Address:

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow, this ground-- The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.

Unfortunately, the world (and America) have forgotten "... what they did here ...".

And we have largely forgotten why those men dedicated their lives to either preserve the union, or to divide it.

The Gettysburg Address begins: "Four-score and Seven years ago ...", referring to the number of years (87) between the Declaration of Independence (1776) and his current date (1863).  

Van Vogt wrote his seminal novel starting in 1941 ... only days before the beginning of the Pearl Harbor Attack on December 07, which initiated America's entry in what became World War II.  In Lincoln's parlance, that would be "three score and 15 years ago"; not quite as impressive as Lincoln's reference to the gap between the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Gettysburg (1863), but still it is a significant period between 'then' and 'now'.

If Americans had not thought about "Defense" since The Great War (WWI .... 1914-1918), they were certainly beginning to think about it after Pearl Harbor.   Perhaps Van Vogt's novel, which detailed the value of 'personal responsibility' and 'personal defense' found a more receptive audience than it might otherwise have received.

Now we find our country divided again.  Amazingly, the issue now is much the same; what vision for our country must we support?  The Constitution, or appeasement of those who would undermine our rights?

And if Americans cannot find the energy to consider whether their current political climate might be the precursor to Tyranny, they might pay more attention to the Party of Exclusiveness which is striving to infringe upon our Constitutional Rights ... now, more than ever.

"... Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta feared “blowback” from their own supporters if they pushed gun control in Arizona".

Regardless, the book has been hailed as a classic for decades,   Not just because of its timeliness, not just because it's well-crafted, but because it delves into the heart of the America Experience.

 "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free"

The next time someone asks you "Why would ANYONE want to buy a [name the currently least politically correct firearm]", you might consider using those eleven words.  
It's easier to remember, and much shorter than an extended dialogue with a gun-grabber.

(And ...yes, I DO have a paperback copy of this book, somewhere in a box in a shelf.  I'll have to dig it out and read it again.  As I recall, it's well worth the read.)




xxx

EDNDO and Gun Control

Support Gun Control You Child Hating Bigot
This has already been published, but if anyone who reads this doesn't read EDNDO (I know, silly)
... you probably will be informed, or at least entertained, by the simple Democratic Imperative:


YOU DO WHAT I SAY!!