Eric Swalwell touts gun-control reform

I think there's something basically wrong with a politician (especially a proposed candidate for the presidency) who espouses an infringement on our essential liberties.

Eric Swalwell touts gun-control reform in North Liberty – The Daily Iowan: NORTH LIBERTY — U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., rounded out his first visit to Iowa since announcing his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president with a house party event in North Liberty, where he called for a ban and buy back policy for assault rifles.

Well, he's a Californian, so we cannot fault him for being true to his Democratic principles of his culture and his party (Democratic).

Still, he's an American first, and one would hope that he is cognizant of the ...nuances .. of the Constitution of the United States. 

As in: "Shall Not Be Infringed".

I'm not picking on this candidate in particular, except that he has recently made public his disdain for the Constitutional rights which we all enjoy ... so far.

You want to conduct a "buy back campaign" for "assault rifles"?  (One wonders how he defines them.)  Fine.  As long as it's voluntary, rather than mandatory.

But we all know that he's just one more Democrat who thinks that if he has the power to enact laws which affect every citizen in America, he will do so with absolutely NO regard for the Constitution.

I'm disinclined to address his thoughts on non-constitutional rights such as "abortion" or "illegal immigrants" or "Water Rights in Parched Counties" (speaking off the top of my head); but when he openly espouses denying the rights of citizens to Constitutionally protected rights (aka: Second Amendment"), he self-identifies himself as someone who has no respect for his fellow citizens.

It seems redundant for me to encourage Californians to denounce him for his WRONG political philosophy; but those who are eligible to vote for a candidate in California might wonder what OTHER rights he is willing to throw under the political bus in furtherance of his candidacy.

A "Buy-Back" policy?  That leaves it up to the individual firearms owner whether to yield his liberties to the state;

But a "BAN"?   That moves into the area where citizens of The State (here .. the Nation) have no alternative other than to yield to political pressure and conduct themselves according to a dictator who would undermine your RIGHTS ... whether or not you value them.

First a gun ban; what's next?  Would a Swalwell presidency require us to (for example)  present National Identity Cards when crossing state lines?

Who knows?  A President who feels comfortable with undermining one Constitutional right could conceivably segue to denying any other Constitutional right.

Just saying.

A Canadian "Wake Up" Moment?

If you want to reduce crime, the (Toronto, Canada) police argue that spending the money on traditional police services would be more effective than spending in on banning guns.
Toronto Police Association says that national handgun ban won't stop criminals 
There's no way in my world or any world I know that this would have an impact on somebody who’s going to go out and buy an illegal gun and use it to kill another person or shoot another person,” Mike McCormack, the president of the Toronto Police Association, said Friday.
GOMEZNSA says:April 12, 2019 at 7:20 PMGee, it ‘almost’ sounds like they have realized that criminals don’t obey laws!

I could not have said it better myself!

Warrant-less searches exception

Bearing in mind that I recently posted a screed against "warrent-less" searches, I now admit that I once permitted such a search.

It happened about 30 years ago, when I was living in a rented house in the vicinity of Portland, Oregon.

It happened on an autumn night, about 8:30 pm, when I heard a knock on my door.   Not expecting any visitors, I looked through the peephole in my front door  and I saw two uniformed police officers ... one who was standing far away, and partially obscured by the garage which projected past the front porch.

(I highly advise that every exterior door have a peep-hole!)

Since I saw only uniformed officers, I carefully asked (without opening the door) "who are you and what do you want?"

The nearest officer replied: "... (name of town) Police; we received a report that you are holding a young girl here against her will.  We want to come in."

Well, that was interesting.   So I replied: "Okay, give me 30 seconds please".

Then I went back to my sofa and hid the pistol I was holding behind a cushion.

Then I opened the door, and asked who told them that story? 

"Sorry, we cannot reveal the name of the complainant.  May we come in and look for the girl"?

Having been informed that they were only looking for another person, I stood back and allowed them to enter.   I informed them that I was the only one in the house.

Both officers had their hands on their holstered pistols.   I stood back and kept my hands in plain sight.  One officer stayed near me at the front-door alcove while the other officer moved though the front room, into the dining room and kitchen, then, moved down the hallway to look through the bathroom, and both bedrooms.

I yelled out to him "The last door on the left leads to the garage, feel free to walk through it; the light switch is on the right as you enter the garage".
I heard him open that door, and waited while he looked through it.  My car was parked in the garage, but he never asked for the keys to search the car.  But I heard him calling out for "anyone there?"

I kept my hands in plain sight of the officer standing by the front door, didn't put my hands in my pockets, and remained silent.

After a few minutes, the other officer returned to the front room and reported that he didn't find anyone else in the house.

They thanked me for my courtesy, and left.

Guns, Guns, Guns ... but no Captive Princess
At the time I had a very large glass-fronted  gun cabinet (hand-crafted in Blond "Birds Eye" Maple by my father as a Christmas gift a few years ago) displaying several rifles and shotguns in the locked but glass-fronted doors.  There were many handguns in the locked drawers below the rifles.  The officer searching the house never mentioned them to me, and I did not bother trying to carry on a further conversation with the officer who had remained with me in the entryway.

Apparently, they were not concerned by the obvious fact that I was a conspicuous firearms owner.   Since Oregon is a "Free State", there were no silly laws requiring that firearms be registered (nor are any such unconstitutional obscenities allowed today).

After they left, with appropriate apologies, I breathed a sigh of relief .. and a silent prayer of thankfulness that I lived in the Free State of Oregon.

In many other states, the officers might have expressed their disappointment by harassing me about the firearms I owned.
They could have asked me to provide proof of ownership about the guns.
They could have asked to see my Firearms ownership License and checked to see if all firearms were registered and whether I had kept all such licences and registrations current. 
They could have searched my house for non-displayed firearms, and called back to their office and checked to see if I had other firearms which were not registered, or whether all registrations were current.

But they (and I'm proud to announce that they were members of the Hillsboro, Oregon Police Department) stuck to their primary duty, and only checked to see if I had a kidnapped girl held captive, and when they were satisfied that I was the only person on the premises, they returned to their primary duty and went on to pursue other leads.

I never learned whether they found the girl.

But if I had never allowed a warrantless search of my home, who knows what suspicions would have resulted in further harassment by LEOs who were not convinced of the original unwarranted charges of kidnapping and suspicion of such heinous crimes on my behalf.

I hope they did find the girl and I hope that it was only a false report; I never was told, either, whether they found that the story of a missing girl was a fraud, or who reported my name, or why.

There are times when Citizens are obliged to concede our rights, in order to "do right" for the benefit of others.

It's not about "ME"; it's about "all of us".

Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks

The President has instituted a plan to ensure that American defense systems are able to protect themselves against EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse ) attacks.

President Trump Signs Executive Order for Resilience Against Electromagnetic Pulses | Department of Energy: 

WASHINGTON, D.C. - On March 26, 2019, President Trump signed an Executive Order (E.O.) establishing the first ever comprehensive whole-of-government policy to build resilience and protect against electromagnetic pulses, or EMPs – temporary electromagnetic signals that can disrupt, degrade, and damage technology and critical infrastructure systems across large areas.

This may bode well for the nation, because the alternative defence is to "... use fiberoptic cable which would be unaffected by EMP".

But for the rest of us, who depend upon copper cables to power our homes and our automobiles, the consequences may well mean that we have no access to convenient transportation (cars, trains, airplanes) and communication over systems which are primarily dependent on copper cables ... which are VERY vulnerable.   

National security systems may survive, but the systems which we use in our personal lives may not.

You may not be able to communicate by any electromagnetic means (internet, telephone, etc.) which transmit signals via copper wires.  You can't drive your car, because the circuits are burned out.  

Some say that if the circuit is not in use when the EMP occurs, the system may survive.   Some say that is an oversimplification of the effects of an EMP.

I don't claim to be an authority on EMP ... its cause nor its effects ... but this is a possibility which we should be aware of.   Not that there is anything we can do about it.  (Personally, I'm thinking about buying a wood-stove and a dog-sled; which would be helpful until the refrigerator stops working.  I could always eat the dogs, cooked over the wood stove.)

No, I'm not serious about that.   There is absolutely nothing which the private citizen could do to ameliorate the effects of EMP over much of America.  Any country which depends on electricity to power their homes above a barely subsistence level is vulnerable.   The cost of lives, and the attempt to re-channel national resources to support a newly defined primitive life-style is beyond imagination.

In the words of some long-dead pundant from decades past: "there's no use worrying, nothing's going to work out all right".
It gives me a queasy feeling to realize that everything which supports our lives depends on the competence of politicians who are elected by the majority of people who are accustomed to living on the Governmental Dole.

How to respond when the Police want to search your premises.

All that follows may not be applicable in your state; you would be well-advised to consult a lawyer who is familiar with the laws of your state, and familiarize yourself with the applicable laws in your state.  I am not a lawyer, and what I have to say here may not be applicable in your state.

In a situation where the police want to search your property, and they have not acquired a warrant to do so ... you may not have a legal obligation to allow them to search your property.

This is what may be known as an Illegal Entry; or it may be a "No-Knock Warrant".  in the case where Police are permitted by local laws to enter your property for the purpose of executing a search with or without your permission.  

(Confusing?  YES!)

Evidence discovered via a warrantless search, MAY BE defensible in court.
If the searchers discover something which they subsequently present in a court of law as "evidence", it might legally be held against you, regardless of the circumstances .. if you gave permission to  allow them the search.

Any arrest based on a warrantless (or otherwise not-legal) search may be defensible.  You may not be able to defend yourself in court against an illegal search, if you permit it at the time.  Demonstrating that the search was not grounded by a warrant may not be sufficient defense to require the court to ignore the evidence discovered there-in.   If you have uttered words which might be considered as "consenting" to the search, any evidence found during the search may be used against you.

I'm not a member of the bar, so you should seek legal counsel if you find yourself in this kind of quandary; but I encourage you to defend yourself against any charges based upon "questionable evidence" discovered during a search which is not specifically named in a  legal warrant which purports to justify a search of your home and/or property.

Rule #1: Admit NOTHING. It's better to remain silent, and be considered a fool, than to speak and prove to be a fool.

Rule #2: Never agree to a warrantless search.   The first words out of your mouth should be "Show Me Your Warrant".  If the would-be searchers cannot present a warrant, the search is not legal.  Evidence found in an illegal search may not be used in evidence against you in court ... but don't count on it.  Note carefully the conditions and terms of the warrant; it should include the areas to be searched, and the objects for which they are searching.  If they are looking for guns, and happen to notice a sword in a closet ... the sword may not be a significant finding, or anything found in the closet may not be subject to confiscation.   But if they are looking for "weapons", it may be taken in evidence.

Rule #3: The next words you speak (and the last words) should be: "I need to have my lawyer present before I answer any questions or consent to a search".

Rule #4: Heed Your Lawyer! Nobody else: and certainly do not heed the advice of anyone who has the power to arrest you.

There are defenses: in some states, if you do not consent to a search of your privately owned property, under certain circumstances evidence found may not be admissible in a court of law.   Again, you will probably need to present the search warrant (if one is offered) to you attorney to ensure that your rights have not been  violated by a too-exuberant exercise of search which are not permitted under the terms of the search warrant. 

The terms of a search warrant should include the areas to be searched, and the objects for which the searchers expect to find.  Which is not to say that if the searchers are looking for machine guns and the find illicit drugs, they must overlook the drugs, but that confuses the mission and may sometimes obviate their findings.  (If the police are looking for machine guns and find an ounce of drugs in a pill-box ... the machine guns could not be expected to be found in a pill-box, and so the finding of a pill-box of drugs may not be the result of a "legal search".   But don't count on it!)

This commentary is much too short to completely address the issues involved in Constitutional law, and it is not intended to be definitive.  If you have issues which are not addressed here, you are invited to raise them with the expectation that they MAY be discussed in subsequent issues.

IF POLICE COME FOR YOUR GUNS

IF POLICE COME FOR YOUR GUNS: DO NOT RESIST, COOPERATE, sort it out in the courts. It is the law. Yes, the very same legal system who ordered the firearms confiscation. If not resisting and cooperating is in your opinion “dropping to your knees, and handing them over” that would be your opinion.

I'm not sure what the law is ... which is one of the reasons why this "law enforcement" thingie is so confusing .. is that police need to be specific about what they are searching for .. and they need to have a warrant  (a legal document) specifying they are searching for ...

search warrant of a private home

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-the-police-search-your-house-without-a-warrant

Essentially, if the police want to search your home, they must have a warrant signed by a judge.  If it is not signed by a judge, it is not a legal warrant.  That's the first hurdle they must surmount.

Then, there's the Constitution of the United States of America ..

Comman Takem

Joel's Gulch is a refreshing counterpoint to the "we don't wanna confiscate, we just wanna alleviate the menace" crowd:

Nyet, Tovarich. | The Ultimate Answer to Kings:

This isn’t frickin’ New Zealand, Bernie. This is America. We’re descended from bootleggers, smugglers and gun-toting traitors, and before you got hold of the college campuses we wrote songs about it. Not everybody here went to college, Bernie, and not everybody who goes to college buys the bullshit. Do you really think this is going to end well?

Not to gild the Lilly, but I'm glad that bold 2nd Amendment supporters such as Joel are providing the erudite (and common-sensical) counterpoint to the smooth talkers who would cheerfully take your guns ... if they can only find someone to do the dirty work for them.

Make no mistake.  The smooth talkers would will confiscate all firearms in America if they thought they can get away with it.  (Not to mention finding enough Law Enforcement Officers willing to do the job ... all both of them.)

Oh ... LEOS actually aren't anti-Second Amendment.

When the Hound becomes too useful

There comes a time, when training a dog, when you need to let the dog run free and hope that he comes back from time to time to predate the foxes in the chicken coop.

The difficulty lies in hoping that the dog remains faithful to the master.

Today, it seems almost trite to compare the American experience with that which others have lived through, in the process of moving from the status of "sub-state" to "Equal State".

Looking back at the history of the British Empire, we see that other "colonies" (other than the American Colony) of the Empire have accepted the culture of England, and yet have established their own selves as viable sub-cultures.

Perhaps the English have learned to be less assertive of their culture, and in doing so their 'friends' have become friends, rather than sub-states of England.

It occurs  that the "American Experience" has served to teach England that they could no longer usurp the prerogatives of their nation-states.  Certainly, countries such as Australia and New Zealand (perhaps others, including
 the Caribbean Islands) seem to have achieved a degree of independence, notwithstanding the support of their former masters.

In declaring their independence from England, the Americas may have provide a primogeniture lesson to the British that their outlying nations will not accept complete subservient role in their relation.   Whether their unique solutions are viable is subject to discussion

New Zealand and Australia (for example) have chosen to retain a useful relationship to England, which serves their mutual criteria ...  a degree of independence,. and a mutual trade agreement. among other issues which are still being discussed.

These new-found agreements may not have been possible if England had not suffered the debilitating loss of America as a "Colony" due to the arrogance of the British Masters.

Since that time, England has become more cognizant of the needs of their nation-states, and worked diligently to become "partners", rather than "masters" ... to the benefit of all concerned.

Had the Americas not rebelled against their master, this lesson might not have been driven with sufficient strength that England could learn that it was no longer the "Master", but a partner, to its "hounds" ... eg: Australia, et al.

The world (and England!) have benefited from this new international relationship.  And American has learned from England that trade relations are more important  (and more lucrative) when trade is based on mutual profit, rather than the ability of a powerful nation to take advantage of a less powerful nation.

We do not want to impose our morality on other nations; we hope to demonstrate that our morality is more advantageous to our citizens and to our national prosperity than nations which impose ...

... but whether or not that independence includes a "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" or not; that is a side-bar to the discussion, and one which will not be discussed in THIS article.

(NOTE: "Freedom" has various meanings, and the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not apply globally; different states have different experiences.  What works more-or-less for "us" does NOT work for others@)

As Others See Us

Opinion | Hate Speech, Guns and the New Zealand Massacre - The New York Times: I lived in New Zealand for nine years. I have never encountered anything that could be called a gun culture. Indeed, Kiwis are very critical of the gun violence that they see in the United States. Many New Zealanders, upon returning from their first visit to the United States, express disquiet over seeing armed police officers. While New Zealand police officers now have access to arms, they normally do not carry them. In New Zealand there is no basic right to bear arms, and there is nothing comparable to the perverse influence of the National Rifle Association.
(New York "Times/Letters to the Editor, March 18, 2019)

In a follow-up I hope to discuss related subjects, such as socialism, a Free Market Community, and the Second Amendment ... and how they are  inter-related.

Back In The Saddle Again

For the benefit of my Constant Readers (both of you) .. yes, I am still here and the reason that I have not been blogging recently is because I have endeavored to accept a kinder, gentler attitude towards the world at large.

I thought that would make it a better place to live.  Unfortunately, nobody else noticed the movement and it's still a crappy place to live, so I will now resume my normal schedule of broadcasting the news that sucks:

In Oregon:

Portland Statue University (a community college at best) demands that Campus Cops patrol without firearms because it "makes the students feel safer".

Apparently, a Campus Cop drew down on a student, mistaking him for a nefarious individual who had been threatening other students.  This student freaked out and so the entire campus freaked out .. never mind that the cops are trained and experienced, and the unidentified wanna-be terrorist is now "The Only One" on the campus with a gun.

Well, if it makes you teen-age students feel safer knowing that a freak with a gun will NOT be countered by a "good guy with a gun", that's your choice.

I wish you well, and hope that the memorials which your co-students will build in your honor are glorious.   They will probably be in place until the expensive floral arrangements die, and the the flowers will hit the same dustbin in which your remains will be consecrated.

AS LONG AS YOU "FEEL SAFE", that's all that's important.

Me?  I'd rather know that I was safe.  But I'm old, so what do I know?

Parenthetically, as far as I know, PSU (Portland State University) is part of OUS (Oregon University System), which has decided that students and faculty are allowed to possess weapons on campus.

I was an employee of the "system", and I carried a firearm for over 20 years on campus.  Never needed it; never worried about it.   Everybody in my office knew I carried, and nobody ever mentioned it as a concern for their safety.

New York Restrictions

New York, New York!

This is potentially A Really Big Deal, in that both the state of New York and the Supreme court (pardon the alliteration) have both determined that it is necessary to review the rights of a State to infringe upon the rights of American Citizens to freely exercise their Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to jump back into the national debate over gun rights after nearly a decade on the sidelines.
The justices agreed to consider a petition backed by gun owners’ groups asking them to strike down New York City’s strict rules for carrying legally owned guns outside the home.

?  Is it just me, or have the Supremes finally chosen the RIGHT issue to rule upon the 2nd Amendment?

"They" (New York Politicians) don't trust you to exercise your Second Amendment Rights ... safely.

The Captain's Journal: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Gun Rights Case Stemming From New York Restrictions: "I don’t want to hear another damn word about gun safety."

(You REALLY need to read the context provided by The Captain's Journal to understand the issue!)

Here's the crux of the NYC explanation for increased infringements on the 2nd Amendment:

“Unlike golf clubs and musical instruments, firearms present public safety risks that the city has a legitimate interest in protecting against,” their brief to the court said. “Limiting their possession and use in public minimizes the risk of gun violence.”

Their argument against Citizen Ownership of Firearms follows the same old mantra:  ("if we keep honest citizens from owning guns, criminals will be denied access to firearms which are used to commit crimes".)

This is an obvious fallacy ... criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun.  Honest Citizens are "The Only Ones" who are ham-stringed by laws which make it more difficult to acquire the means of self-defense.

But I've said this before.  Haven't I?

The Generation Gun

The Generation Gun, in my family, was the 30 caliber (.30 WCF) Lever action rifle which my father claimed was the rifle he used to kill his first deer .... when he was 5 years old.

That's the thing about Generation Guns; they are so bound up in Tall Tales and Bull-Stuff; after a while you can't tell the difference between truth and "there's no story which cannot be improved".

(And yes, I realize I've talked about this before; bear with me.)

My father (Vernon The Geek) and his brothers {Orville The Geek) and his other brother ("Shorty The Geek") ... AKA "Floyd") would get together on Thanksgiving day, and swap stories about all the deer they had killed at extreme ranges and in inclement weather. As I have mentioned before, the stories always got better with each telling.

I once saw my father, Vernon The Geek, shoot at a deer from mountain top to the other, across a hiway (which was 100 feet below us. Then he made me climb down "our" mountain, and trudge up the opposing mountain ... to find and tote down the mountain.

Yes, he had mad The Impossible Shot with a Thirty-Ought-Six rifle which was older than I was. I was astounded.

But that was only the first time. The Geek Boys love the challenge of long-distance Mule-Deer Murder, and (I think) would pass up easy shots because they were "Too Easy".




Two years later, I saw my father kill another deer on a mountainside, too far away. I was fortunate that I was only Fourteen. years old, and too small to the drag the deer up to the ridgeline where they could load it on to the truck; I only had to lug Pop's rifle, and Uncle Shorty's gun, while they dragged the carcass a couple of hundred yards up the hill to where there was a road we could drive the pick-em-up truck to tote it home.
Of course, this never happened;
I never saw my father shoot across a road, which would have been illegal.

But that fat buck tasted mighty fine!


I miss the taste of venison; it was years before I could learn to appreciate beef.

Politicians And Other Scoundrels

Are we becoming the "New Jersey of the West?"

Oregon is joining the ranks of anti-Constitutional states by toying with the enactment of laws which defy the Second Amendment.

More than one lawmaker cried on the House floor while discussing the damage that a raging person can do with a gun. The chamber's bipartisan adoption of the bill coincidentally came one day after a gunman killed 17 people at a Florida high school.

Will Not Comply!

What's the issue?  Oregon Legislators are considering inflicting even more oppressive restrictions on firearms ownership by law-abiding Oregonians.

And Oregonians are ignoring our own elected representatives, on the grounds that they do not "represent" our Constitutional Prerogatives.

We're not the first state to find ourselves defending ourselves against our own elected legislators:  consider New Jersey:

Open rebellion? | The Price of Liberty:

...  perhaps as many as one million residents of New Jersey have failed to turn in “high-capacity” magazines by the statutory deadline of 11th of December, 2018. This requirement (turn-in or take out of state) is part of a law signed into law in June. The penalty for being found with a magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds, regardless of caliber, is a fine of up to ten thousand dollars and up to eighteen months in jail.  Having possession is a class four felony, which means that anyone convicted would permanently lose their right to own a weapon. 

Ex Post Facto Laws are those which make illegal an activity which was legal at the time the activity occurred.  buying a 15 round magazine They are odious because they impose a fine or other penalty upon the citizenry, and because they often require the citizen to relinquish previously legal possessions without compensation.

"Sometimes, the only way to win is not to play"

But even if compensated by the state, they are just one small step on the road to abrogating the rights of the citizen.   These laws are invariably political in nature and often unconstitutional ... as are the ban on "high-capacity magazines" in several states, soon coming to a state near you.

(Oregonians ... are you listening?)

If the Oregon legislature can impose a ban on "high-capacity magazines", they can impose a ban on the firearms which you purchased legally (which can
accept a high capacity magazine), which is a ban on the Second Amendment ...  which was enacted by the Founding Fathers of our country to protect the rights of the individual citizen against the hypothetical dictatorial government seeking to tyrannize its citizens.

Question:  if the Army can load a 30-round magazine, and you cannot ... how do you defend yourself against an Army which is tasked to undermine the Second Amendment?

That " Hypothetical Dictatorial Government" is here, now, and it's here to stay  ... unless you take action to protect your Constitutional rights in the face of a government, recently imposed by the Party which is becoming more powerful every day.

It is lead by "fearful people".

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the party in power will protect you; they will not.  They do not wish to acknowledge your rights, and they will undermine them until you have no rights at all, except those which are becoming increasingly inconsequential.

Such as the right to vote.

The party in power is not that which is elected, but that which counts the votes.

Don't you wish you had a voice in choosing who counts the votes?

GUNS, MURDERS, AND THE CONSTITUTION

A scholarly thesis from 1990 addresses the negative public vision of firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens.

Essentially, it disputes the "common" thesis that people who own guns have anti-social tendencies:

GUNS, MURDERS, AND THE CONSTITUTION: As early as 1976, it was estimated that more had been written about "gun control" than all other crime-related topics combined.[2] Yet this pre-1976 academic literature was both fundamentally flawed and severely biased. The bias stemmed from the crusading zeal of academics who, by their own admission, could "see no reason ... why anyone should own a weapon in a democracy"[3] and who felt gun owners embodied an American soul that is "hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer."[4] Naturally, this bias led academic crusaders to discuss gun ownership as a social pathology rather than as a value-neutral sociological phenomenon. 

You may want to spend some time reading the entire study summary: I did.

I found that it supported the inalienable Constitutional rights which we currently enjoy. 

And if you want to discuss "Gun Control" with people who don't under stand why you wish to "own a gun", this may provide you with some useful talking points.

I don't now about you, but I soon tire of arguing my rights against the fears of friends and neighbors .. those who only read about one side of the issue.

This article talks about the "other side" ... our side.

"To Protect, and To Serve"

Parkland shooting: Judge says school, cops had no duty to protect kids:

John Bacon, USA TODAYPublished 11:01 a.m. ET Dec. 19, 2018 | Updated 2:52 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2018

A Florida lawyer representing 15 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High students says he is "exploring all of our options" after a federal judge ruled that law enforcement and school officials had no legal duty to protect students during a Valentine's Day rampage at the school that left 17 people dead.  (emphasis added)

"Legal Duty" isn't necessarily the same as "Moral Duty".

*(H/T: David Codrea)*

"Stupid Is as Stupid Does"

You may recall Forrest Gump saying that line.

But now New Jersey has decided to compound their institutional stupidity:

 Former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik slammed New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy over a gun law that bans off-duty officers in the state from carrying magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Kerik tweeted a leaked memo to law enforcement signed by Acting Bergen County Prosecutor Dennis Calo, which said violating the law would result in a fourth-degree crime.

NJ cops are protesting this law, on the grounds that it puts them at a severe disadvantage when they encounter criminal actions during off-duty hours and are required (by their terms of service) to intercede when possible.

The cops are also uncomfortable because the laws reduces their ability to defend themselves as "private citizens".

But what about the other "Private Citizens"? Don't they get to defend themselves?   

Out on the street, criminals can't differentiate between off-duty police (in mufti) and private citizens.    The difference doesn't matter to the mugger or the car thief who will steal your property while menacing you with a club, fists, knife, gun or just harsh language.   And if you take a few lumps during the process, or perhaps get stabbed or shot, isn't that better than a lot of "private citizens" running around with hidden guns in Trenton? 

(And cops can't tell the difference between armed private citizens and armed thugs, which is their story.)

If cops can potentially be under-armed with 10 round magazines, aren't their non-LEO neighbors equally at risk?

Smarter than the average bear

ATF caves on "accessory" classifications.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Taxes and Firearms (ATF) has officially declined to impose regulations on devices which it has designated as an "accessory".  Specifically, those federal employees would not touch the "Bump Stock" issue with the proverbial 10 foot pole!

ATF Discontinues Accessory Classifications – Prince Law Offices Blog: if an individual or company submits an accessory to ATF for classification and it is not attached to a firearm, they won’t be rendering any decisions on it. Some readers inquired what would happen in a case where the accessory made the firearm subject to the control of the NFA. In the past, ATF has returned those items to individuals or companies that hold the appropriate type of SOT. If the individual or company lacks the appropriate SOT, ATF has not returned the item. To the best of my knowledge, ATF has not previously charged any individuals with GCA or NFA violations for seeking a determination.

You may be forgiven for considering ATF to be the one Federal Department which is staffed by "people who know better ...:

What I Like About "New Jersey"

The more I learn about New Jersey, the more I appreciate that they live 3000 miles away from me.

Why?

Not only DO they want to take guns away from their honest citizens, but they're proud of it!

If you live in New Jersey, you must relinquish your "hi-capacity magazines".  But there's an up-side:

You can sell them to New Jersey State Troopers, who CAN own those magazines which are a threat to domestic tranquility.

A Powerful Dissent Charges Judges Who Casually Uphold Magazine Restrictions With Disrespecting the Second Amendment - Hit ; Run : Reason.com:

New Jersey, which has banned magazines holding more than 15 rounds since 1990, imposed the stricter limit last June in response to mass shootings. The law requires owners of "large capacity magazines" (LCMs) to surrender them to the state, render them inoperable, modify them so they cannot hold more than 10 rounds, or sell them to authorized owners (such as retired police officers, who are exempt from the ban) by December 10. New Jersey residents who fail to comply by Monday will become felons, subject to a maximum fine of $10,000 and up to 18 months in prison for possessing previously legal products.

(Emphasis Added)

Well, isn't that lovely.  The State of New Jersey can not only deprive you of your legally acquired property, but they can coerce you to arm the minions of The State.   You know ... the fellows who will be required by law to confiscate your legally acquired property.

Funny thing is, we always thought that the whole idea of the Constitution was to protect the private individual against the predatory powers of The State.   But today, you can feed the Power of The State by selling your "High Capacity" magazines to New Jersey State Troupers.  (Will they give you a dime on the dollar when they confiscate purchase your high-capacity magazines?)

I wonder what they are going to do with them.

Sucks to live in New Jersey!

Wasn't the purpose of the Second Amendment to protect private citizens against The State?  Now, in New Jersey, they're forcing encouraging their citizens to ARM the very people who can use your legally acquired magazines against you.

Two good things about this:

(1) at last you have acknowledged who The Masters Of Your Fate  are (and it isn't you)
(2) you can rest assured that the only guns which can be used against you are in "Good Hands" ... the State Troopers.

Good bye, New Jersey.  Americans will miss you.

OOPS!

I have tripped, and hit the back of my head on the concrete patio.

Hurts a bit, it does, and so I have gathered a bunch of ice cubes in a bag and currently am trying to hold it against my head, with hopes of keeping the swelling to go down.

Here's a bit of a hint: if you must trip, don't arrange it so that your head-first point-of-impact is something as unyielding as a concrete patio.

It hurts, a lot. And for a long time.

I'm trying to type with my right hand while my left hand is holding a sandwich-bag of ice on my pate.
It's not working well, but I can only imagine the pain if I was NOT freezing the knot on my head.

NOTE: It's a "Good Idea" to wrap the ice cubes in clothe, like a wash clothe, so you aren't reduced to holding freezing hard ice cubes against your "oowie!";

The ice cube remedy takes a while to be effective, I guess.  I'm getting tired of holding the plastic bag against my head.    It's hard to type like that.  more later .... or not..

(22) All Hell Breaks Loose After Tucker Asks Jorge How Many Caravan Migrants He’ll Will Take In(VIDEO)!! - YouTube

(22) All Hell Breaks Loose After Tucker Asks Jorge How Many Caravan Migrants He’ll Will Take In(VIDEO)!! - YouTube

Do NOT assert your 2nd Amendment rights.

The police WILL arrest you if you're too 2nd Amendment!

(22) Debate with anti gunner leads to arrest at White House - YouTube:

AdamKokesh Published on May 7, 2017 SUBSCRIBE 243K Adam was arrested on a bogus warrant and did a week in jail as a result of this. He was held for Maryland to pick him up from jail in DC and they never did. This is not some big conspiracy, just another case of petty harassment of activists that is a feature of modern America, where everything I want to do is illegal. ;)