Match Notes: ARPC 1302

I never actually saw the sun today.  As I pulled into the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club range at 8:40 this morning, I could see some light on the eastern side of the ginormous gray sky which completely obscured the entire Willamette Valley.  This was the hour when the weather.com website had forecast as "partly cloudy" and 38 degrees.   By 10am, the forecasters had predicted "cloudy" with a temperature of 43 degrees.

Over fifty shooters signed up to shoot at a club match at a range which just happens to be one of the best "action shooting" clubs in the country; many of them drove upwards of 100 miles to be there despite the dismal weather.

Perfect shooting weather!   No rain, no snow, and the wind wasn't blowing targets down.  I had three shirts and a heavy parka, and a couple hundred rounds of 10mm ammunition for my STI Edge.  (Some of the ammo I had scrounged from various unmarked tubs scattered around my house ... it might even still be good!)

I ran into WhiteFish,  who was filling out a squad roster;  I asked him to put my name in there along with Bob, who was shooting revolver today.  I was glad he wasn't shooting his antique Chinese Norinco 1911 ... he kicks my ass with that dilapidated P.O.S. and I didn't need another lesson in humility from him.(I suspect he still beat me, regardless of what gun he shoots.)  WhiteFish had another new open gun, and another huge collection of stories to relate.  I was confident that even if I didn't shoot well (which was a self-fullfilling prophecy), it would not be a boring day.

Four of my five students from last weekend's "Introduction to USPSA" class were there, too.  Two of the three Fire Department members were there ... don't know what happened to Doug.  As it happened, they had already signed up for bigger squads, so I was confident that they would do just fine without me hovering over them like a mother hen.  I could just relax and enjoy myself ... which I did.

My only disappointment was when one of the 'premium' batches of ammunition gave me a jam when loading my magazine under the clock on the Classifier stage.  That turned an 8 second 7-round stage into an 11 or 12 second fiasco, but at least I didn't get any mikes nor did I hit either of the two overlapping no-shoot targets;  I decided to claim that I was sandbagging so I wouldn't lose my B-class rating.  (As If!)   Nobody  even mentioned it.  Well, they had watched me get mikes on about half of the stages, so it probably didn't surprise them that I had run into some kind of difficulty.

A couple of guys in the squad following ours commented on the huge quantities of 10mm brass they found on the stages.   No, they didn't pick it up;  they did, however, take great glee in relating how they could always tell I was on the range when they had to wade through the piles of brass.   I had actually made an effort to pick up my own brass, but I couldn't find more than a few pieces here and there.  I decided that what they were finding was the brass which kicked over the berm into the bay I had been in the previous stage.

One of the guys in our squad was a student in the 3-months-earlier Intro to USPSA class.  This was his fourth match.   He came over to chat with me toward the end of the match,  and said: "You know, every match the adrenalin rush just gets bigger!"

I know exactly what he means.  I've been shooting IPSC for almost 30 years,  and that has been my experience, as well.   I pretty much quit worrying about being "competitive" a few years ago, when I lost my shooting partner.   I've gone from shooting up to 30 matches a year (usually including a few Level III matches) to less than a dozen.  I'm there for the congenial company, the exercise, the fresh air, the chance to shoot as fast as I can and hope I got some kind of hits on most of the shots ....  which I guess has turned a match from a "sport" to a "social event".

But the rush ... ah, yes.   When I lose the rush I'll hang up my guns and just stay home on Saturdays.

That's the day when I start dying. 

In a couple of weeks I'll celebrate my 68th birthday.   Actually, today was my birthday gift to me.

The Eyes Of A Murderer

Doubling Down on Anti-Gun News - Brent Bozell - [page]:

To be sure, the "news" manufacturers aren't hoping for a school shooting. But that doesn't mean they aren't ready to exploit it. Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen was explicit back in 1999: ""Perhaps it will take one more school shooting to move the majority of Americans into a position more powerful than that of the NRA. Perhaps it will take one more school shooting to move us from people who support gun control to people who vote it." 

A new Media Research Center study reviewed a sample of 216 gun-policy stories on ABC, CBS and NBC in the first month after Newtown, from the Jan. 14 shooting through the morning after President Obama's Feb. 16 speech pushing new gun control proposals. The number is instructive. That's not 216 stories in a month on Newtown. That's 216 stories just about the policy "solution" -- more gun control.

"One more school shooting".

That's a frightful Shot In The Dark, isn't it?  That some MSM comentators might be wishing .. hoping .. praying? ... for "one more school shooting" to teach we Conservative/Second Amendment advocates that our priorities are just "wrong headed"?

I don't think that Brent Bozell believes that of his Liberal colleagues, nor do I believe it of them.  I don't always (okay .. usually) agree with the opinions of Liberal Columnists, but you and I know that the detestation of massacres is universal.

Well, except for The Men With The Guns, of course.
______________________

The thing is .. I know a whole lot more Men With The Guns than Brent and Anna do.   Combined.   And all of their friends, and all of their friends' friends, for that matter.

Nobody that I know evinces the "eyes lighting up with glee" symptoms of a murderer.

Some of us have been in the military; we have killed our nation's enemies, and we regretted it.

The rest of us cannot imagine us taking a life; we hope and pray that we are never found in the position where we would have to kill some benighted soul to defend our family, although many (most?) of us still stand ready to do so .. reluctantly.   We do not talk about it between ourselves, which I think is a good sign that our reluctance is profound.

The thing is, the East Coasters probably don't usually even own a firearm, let along do they have any experience or expertise with gun-handling.  That may be a "Left Coast"  thing  (isn't it odd?  That California should share their coast with Oregon and Washington .. and Northern California?)

The Left Coast is, I'm sad to say, largely populated with people who have the ability to Hit What They Shoot At, if not the will.  I'm mot saying that East Coaster don't include equally qualified shooters;  Good Heavens, I don't know what any other man .. or woman, for all that .. is capable of doing under the right (or "wrong") circumstances.  I'm just saying that the 'willingness' to shoot to kill in defense of self and family is evident in my own personal area.  Whether or not that same determination .. or "sange froid" .. is  as common in the East Coast states, I don't know.  I don't even know if I wish they do, or do not, share this personality characteristic .. or moral lapse.

But what I DO know is, I hope that our commentators can find a balance between "Defense of Home and Family" and "Respect for Human Life".


Both are important .. equally important, except that in the final analysis, I firmly believe that the life of my family (and home!) is worth more than the life of some bozo who is so willing to deprive me/us of our well-being and our property (who is to know what is more valuable to him?).

And so, I stand ready to kick his ass.  Literally, and figuratively.

But still .. there was a time 40 years ago when I was obliged by my government to take the lives of people I didn't know, and who had no grievance against me except that I was "The Enemy".  And so they became my Enemy, and I killed them.

It bothered me not one little whit, except that I grieved for the waste.   I don't know if I have that same detachment in me, now.  I would rather  I did not, but I don't know.  I'm pretty sure that it would "bother me" a lot more now, than it did "then", to take a human life.

I made a pledge to myself some time ago that I would never do so again; it's important to me, and if someone were to invade my private life so that I felt obliged to defend myself .. I would be grieved.

Or, in other words .. it would severely piss me off.  I REALLY don't want to do that!
______________________

Getting back on our original track:  I/we must acknowledge (but not necessarily accept) that some people MAY wish for "On More School Shooting"  in order to advance their political agenda of .. whatever.  Enhanced Gun Control?

 No Guns Ever, Anywhere, Anyone? 

Reasonable Measures?

Common-Sense Gun Laws?

It doesn't matter what the rhetoric, it's still all the same:   It's much easier (and cheaper, if not more effective) to legislate against civil rights than it is to deal with Mental Health, the Culture of Violence, and people who ignore laws and societal values in favor of doing whatever-the-heck they want to do.

Like ...  some people just want to kill people.  Not because  they harbor any personal animosity against the individuals, but .. be cause they CAN!

There are some people who are Just Evil, and there are some people who are Just Crazy.  And there is an overlap of those who are both Evil and Crazy.  We can't always tell who is which, and It Doesn't' Really Matter, does it?  Evil or Crazy, they do the same evil/crazy things.  The same people die, and for the same lack of any reason at all.

I think .. it doesn't matter what their motivation is.   All that matters is that we probably can't recognize them until they start doing their Evil/Crazy thing, and then we stop them.  Dead.  Right There.

The people who I have chosen to tag as "East Coasters"  (or "Liberals" or "Clueless" or "Sheeple" .. words don't really count for much in the final analysis) don't, and won't ever, "get this".  They  MAY not be 'part of the problem', but they will NEVER be "Part Of The Solution".  They won't carry a gun into a mall, or a church, or a school, or into any other "Gun-Free Zone" because .. hey, it's against the law!

That would be the same set of laws which the Shooter has already decided to ignore; but never mind.  The East Coasters already don't "Get That". and they never will. In a "worst case" situation, they might be hoping for another school shooting so they can justify new  Draconian Anti-Gun Laws.

(Oh dear, I had already decided I wouldn't go there, hadn't I?)

Okay, getting back on-line:

• Cops will never get to the scene of a school/church/mall shooting in time to make a difference .. in terms of human lives;
• Liberals will never enter this factor in their "Human Equation", so they will not accede to the concept of "First Responders" (eg: armed teachers/staff) who may be pre-positioned in the target area.
   

And Murderers just don't give a shit.  All they are looking for is a target-rich environment with a minimum of risk.

Thesis: There is a severe element of risk in our public areas
Antithesis: murderers will find somewhere else to predate if the public areas are too problematic for them.
Conclusion: make our most important areas (schools, churches, malls?) so dangerous to predators that they will avoid them.

I don't know; it's so obvious to me, I must be missing something. But the solution does not .. to me ... include restricting access to firearms for honest citizens.  I'm looking at the Israeli solution, and I see that they have a lot of people who want to kill them, and THEIR solution is to put armed teachers in their schools, on their buses, and in their public places.  No teachers have yet gone "rogue", but they have stopped the Crazies in their gracks. Maybe it's too early to tell?

Oh, I don't really know.  It's a complicated issue, and I'm not qualified to  say whether its safer to have more guns, on no guns in our public areas.  All I know is that the "no guns" thing has been demonstrated not to work, and the 'at least one gun" In the case of the Clackamas Mall/Oregon) has been demonstrated to .. at least NOT have a negative outcome.

Ultimately, do we need "one more school shooting" to justify abrogation of the Second Amendment?

I don't think so.  "No Guns In The Mall" hasn't worked all that well for us, but "One Gun In The Mall" has.

I'm too tired.  YOU do that math!

Ten Reasons Why States Should Reject Assault Weapon and Large Magazine Bans

NRA-ILA | Ten Reasons Why States Should Reject Assault Weapon and Large Magazine Bans
Reason #1: Semi-automatic firearms are not fully-automatic military machine guns.
Reason #2: Semi-automatic firearms are not “more powerful” than other guns.
Reason #3: As the numbers of “assault weapons” and “large” magazines have soared to all-time highs, violent crime has been cut in half.
Reason #4: So-called “assault weapons” have never been used in more than a small percentage of firearm-related violent crime. 
Reason #5: “Assault weapon” and “large” magazine bans have not reduced crime..
Reason #6: Criminals could easily get around a limit on newly-manufactured magazines.
Reason #7: Criminals could switch to more concealable guns. 
Reason #8: Criminals could switch to more powerful guns. Reason 9: The Second Amendment protects the right to semi-automatic firearms and magazines designed for self-defense.
 Reason 10: The slippery slope.


Okay, I could have told you all of that myself, in my own words; but actually --- I HAVE told you all of that myself, in my words.  Several times, actually; although I might have under-emphasized some of the talking points which I consider "minor".  (After all, the NRA needed to come up with "Ten Talking Points" somehow!)

 You will follow the links .. or you will not.  But it's important to me that you understand the underlying premises, which are:

(a)  CRIMINALS are by definition not limited by law;  whatever they want to do , they will find a way.  If you enact a law restricting firearms (or ammunition .. whatever) ownership, only the law-abiding will abide by that law.  What part of that statement is not intuitively obvious?

(b) The people who are so hopeful that enacting MORE restrictive laws, are equally as clueless in their definitions as they are hopeful that outlaws will obey their paper tigers.  Specifically, they think that if they can define "forbidden firearms" with sufficient clarity, they will have made a wide range of firearms illegal.  Unfortunately [sigh] their cluelessness knows no bounds.   The more narrowly they define "forbidden features", the easier it is for firearms manufactures to avoid them .. and still provide the same features.

Face it: Firearms Manufactures are in the business of building and selling firearms.  That's what they do.  And they pay  their lawyers MUCH more than the Federal Government does!  If they find that adding a pistol grip to a rifle sells more rifles, they will call it an "ergonomic whatshisname" instead of a "Pistol Grip" and avoid all governmental sanctions. Those who honestly believe that they can ban pistol grips (which have very little ergonomic or military advantages .. but which are great selling factors) by fiat are not only fooling themselves, but are stupid.  No, Liberal Lawyers and Governmental Goons can't move faster than Economic Eggheads in the War Against Guns.  Accept it. Move On.  Retire!

I don't know why Liberal Anti-gun Lawyers continue to accept the outrageous fees from Liberal Politicians and "Special Interest Groups"!

[Snigger}

Yes, of course I do.  There's money in it, and a lot of it, and the firearms manufactures pass it on to their highly paid lawyers.    Liberals; has it ever occurred to you that Private Interests have more money .. and can hire better lawyers .. than you?

My advise to you is to just be as graceful as possible when you back off and yield the field to your betters.  You know you will, eventually, and if you don't spend the money on your lawyers ..... well, then, you can consider your treasure as some convoluted form of "Take-Home Pay".  You've done your best, you've lost, so why waste your contributions on ineffectual lawyers?

PS:  Some hints which may serve you better than your cheap lawyers:

• Deliberately mus-interpreting technical terms is not serving you well; eg: semi-automatic vs fully automatic .. you think your constituency doesn't know the difference?
• "Look-ism" is not acceptable in Liberal politics: eg black vs white, male vs female.  So why do you think that you can call a rifle "evil" just because it is black and reliably expect your constituents to not notice that you are racist?
• "Statistics" is the art of lying with numbers.  Most of your "Statistics" have been discredited so thoroughly that one would expect you to be embarrassed when you trot out the same old "44%" references.   Are you still unclear about WHY the Atlanta Center for Disease Control is not forbidden to render opinions vis a vis gun crime statistics?  Answer: they are so obviously biased, and they have been caught in their lies so long, that the Lord Of Flies (the Federal Government, in the person of the Senate and the House) have told them to "BACK OFF".   You need to find a new butt-boy, because the CDC is still bleeding.

So ... hit us with your best shot.  We're the Second Amendment, we are the Citizens of the United States of America, and we are equal to the best you can throw us.  So far, and apparently forever, because you are still all nothing but a bunch of whining wimps who think you can run rough-shod over our Constitution.

As Bugs Bunny would say: "What a bunch of Maroons!"

O'Reilly: Debate Over Guns Ramps Up

O'Reilly: Debate Over Guns Ramps Up | Gun Control | Fox Nation

-list celebrities are now weighing in on the gun control issue, but are they adding to intelligent debate or political posturing? Bill O'Reilly examines Hollywood's involvement in the push for gun control.

I don't particularly like Bill O'Reilly, nor do I always agree with him.

I feel the same way about Chris Rock.

And I don't agree Chris Rock's assertion that " ... the president of the United States is -- you know -- 'our boss'".

He's not "Our Boss".

File that statement under "Political Posturing".  Okay, I agree with O'Reilly there.  It's hardly "intelligent debate".


The POTUS is our employee; he's suppose to do simple little things like look out for our best interests, and support our Constitution.

(The statements of Tony Bennet .. who has a wonderful voice ... make me wish he was just singing "I Left My Heart In San Francisco", or something else that he can handle better than anyone else.  And please, Tony, don't be talking about "The Great Country of Germany" during the WWII era ... you sound even more like an Alzheimer's patient than *_I_* do!)

 Now, here's the salient point of O'Reilly's short statement which is NOT clearly obvious in the accompanying text, and which he stated quickly in obvious hopes that nobody would notice.  O'Reilly said:

"Talking Points has clearly stated clearly stated that "

This was shortly after he (Bill O'Reilly) said:

"Hitler imposed the strictest gun control on earth.    The only reason that the Nazi's didn't get further was because (folks in the Balkans  and France and) occupied countries hid weapons and used them against the Nazis.  (Those people were called .. Partisans.)

 "Trotting out vacuous .... celebrities --- gets us nowhere"  O'Reilly concluded.

I don't know what O'Reilly meant by "Talking Points"; I can guess that he meant the Talking Points Memo website.
... but I would probably be wrong.  That is a Conservative website, and Conservatives invariably support the Constitution, and thus the Second Amendment.

Still .. when O'Reilly says straight out: "... gun registration and all gun crimes should be federalized.", I get this funny feeling running up my leg that says:   "This Guy Is Pro-Gun Registration".

I've talked about gun registration before, especially in reference to the California gun registration scheme of the 1990's.  But here's the short story:

California allowed ownership of some firearms (eg: SKS) in the late 1990's, but required that owners "register" these firearms. Shortly after, the Attorney General's office of California determined that these same firearms were "illegal" .. and use those registration lists as a convenient means to force owners to surrender the same guns which were previously deemed 'legeal, but must be registered'.  Essentially, Registration led directly to Confiscation.

This has been a lesson to us all: Registration IS Confiscation ... save only a (short, very short) time laps.

So ..... Legitimate (today) gun owners will/must NEVER agree to any form of "Registration", knowing full well that it is only the first short step to "Confiscastion" of (tomorrow) "Restricted" guns.  No, we're not being paranoid; we are citing American history.  This actually happened in America.  It sets a precedent, and it can happen in YOUR state as early as  --- tomorrow.

When Bill O'Reilly says "... gun registeration ... should be federalized ...", he is saying that he supports Registration, and consequently Confiscation, on a nation-wide basis.  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, eh?

Or to Obama when he says "We don't want to take your guns".

Liars, Damned Liars, and Politicians.  What can you do?

I leave it to you to state the obvious answer.   But I would never counsel you to listen to the fast-talking smiling faces who slip in hard messages in the middle of their soft words.

Obama and O'Reilly.  Who knew?

(This  O'Reillyopinion was published on February 7, 2013.)

The baby and the BB gun

Dad arrested after posting picture of himself holding baby and BB gun | Fox News:

An Ohio dad was arrested after police said he posted a photo on Facebook of himself holding his baby daughter and a BB gun, Fox 19 reported.

WTF?

I wonder what possible law he might have broken!

"Domonic Gaines, 22, was charged with child endangerment."

Oh, right.  He was holding a BB gun.  That explains it all, Homer. (No word on whether the BB gun was loaded.  Or whether it had a pistol grip, muzzle-brake, or a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds.)

THIS is what happens when people get so involved with their own private socio-political views that they lose track of reality.  We don't have the photo to evaluate the situation (strike one); and we don't know if the BB gun was loaded (strike two); and we don't know anything about the daddy (strike 3);  but we do have the "fact" that someone saw the photo of FACEBOOK (for goodness sake ... what could be more definitive?) so we know that .... someone in a Law Enforcement Agency in Ohio saw the picture and  reacted.

Was the gun pointed at the child's head?  I don't know.    If so, the man is a moron.  If not ... not.

Here's a photo from Google:

hmmm ... okay, not pointed at child's head.

how about .. well, where IS the Evil BB Gun pointed?

Oh, HERE is a wider picture:

Oh my, he's holding his Evil BB Gun along his thigh, finger off the trigger, pointed at ... nothing at all.  (Well, maybe the photographer, but he kinda got himself into the situation, didn't  he?)

This is just MY personal take, but I'm thinking that the morons are among whomever is part of the District Attorney's office in Ohio who directed the police to arrest this guy because .......

whew!   I have NO idea why they busted this guy.

Oh, wait a minute!  I've got it now!

He's holding a gun, wearing a Black Hoodie.  And he is also (gasp!) a BLACK MAN!

Well, of COURSE they arrested him!  He's a Black Man, and wearing a Black Hoodie.  He's obviously guilty on prima facea evidence of "Holding A Baby And A BB Gun While Black".

No, wait.  That's not quite it

The problem is, he's holding a BB GUN.

The fact that there's a baby in his lap is just an excuse; he's a "Cause Celebre", if you will.

I'm not even sure that BB gun is protected by the Second Amendment; it's not usually considered a "deadly weapon".  (Well, legally, perhaps it is .. conceivably.).  But even if it isn't .. he is still WRONG!

You know why:


The Second Amendment Is The New Black.

"I don't want him to come into the house!"

1 dead after Las Vegas homeowner opens fire on intruders | Fox News:

One of three men who allegedly broke into a Las Vegas home was reportedly killed by the homeowner, who opened fire on the group. Fox 5 reports that Mark Schwendener knew his family’s security was jeopardized when he noticed a stranger lurking around his west Las Vegas home early Monday. 

"He was coming this way,” he told the station. “My family was screaming and crying. My daughter was screaming and freaking out because she didn't want me to go outside with a gun. I was like, ‘I don't want him to come into the house.’”

 Schwendener, a recent burglary victim, called 911 before retreating into a bedroom to retrieve a handgun, according to Las Vegas Metro Police. He then fired at least one round at the suspects, prompting them to flee. One of the suspects, however, later identified as a Latino male, died at the scene from a gunshot wound.

Chicago ... you who consider "burglary" to be a "minor crime" ... pay attention, okay?  THIS is the way it works when *(a)* homeowners are 'allowed' to defend their home and family, and *(b)* police response isn't 3-4 business days.

Betcha the Las Vegas statistics for  "home invasion burgularies" go down for a couple of weeks in Las Vegas. (By at least one.)

Goblin Count increased by one;  Hero count increased by one.

I know, this is a gruesome story, but I'm sure you think that the headline  "1 dead after Las Vegas homeowner opens fire on burgulars" is better than "Las Vegas Family of Three Slaughtered During Home Invasion"?

As Mister Rogers might have said:  "I knew you would" .

I wish this guy was MY neighbor.

Bambi-Gate

Couple Charged For Saving Injured Baby Deer:

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources has said it is asking a prosecutor to drop charges against a couple who nursed an injured baby deer back to health. The case, dubbed "Bambigate", has sparked an internet backlash after an Indianapolis man set up a Facebook page in support of the couple that had attracted more than 38,000 supporters by Friday.

Jeff and Jennifer Councellor have been charged with illegal possession of a white-tailed deer - punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a fine of $500 - after finding a wounded fawn in 2010 and taking care of it on their 17-acre farm. The Councellors found the deer on a neighbour's doorstep suffering from maggot-infested puncture wounds. They named it Dani and kept it in a fenced enclosure while it healed.

Mr Councellor, a police officer, said he and his wife did not know it was illegal to keep the deer and that releasing it into the wild would have guaranteed its death. The couple eventually applied for a rescue permit, but were denied. Dani reportedly vanished in 2012 the day the DNR had planned to put it down.

Only two comments:

1. Great timing
2. Bad government

Afghan Girl

Search for the Afghan Girl | Watch the Documentary Film Free Online | SnagFilms

The photo is unforgettable.

The story is exemplary.

The video is an hour long ... but worth the viewing.

This is the story, writ small, of the Afghani people .

If you decide it's important ...

Obama sez:  "Common Sense Gun Control Measures ..."


http://video.foxnews.com/v/2142692647001/


"... but it will only happen if you decide it's important"

aka:  "Do you feel lucky, punk?  Well, do you?"

Uh ... how about the economy?

Evil Assault-boot

I know I've been doing FAR too much blogging lately about "assault weapons" and "Gun Control".

Thanks to Larry the Dee, I'm just been informed that there is another, perhaps equally vicious and deadly, military weapon available to the general public with NO Federal Controls.

Perhaps we should stop and think about this for awhile.

Okay, that's enough thinking.  Forget thinking about it.

Let's just ... ban it, okay?

Too Dangerous for Civilian Ownership!

That says it all, doesn't it?

Chicago -- don't bother calling the cops

10News - Chicago PD changes policy in responding to minor crimes - Watercooler Story:

CHICAGO - The Chicago Police Department will no longer dispatch officers for minor crimes, such as burglaries and car thefts, if the offender is no longer at the scene and there is no immediate danger. Instead, a report will be taken by phone. The department says it hopes the change will free up about 44 officers each day to respond to more serious crimes.

Such a short story.   A tiny, tiny, inconsequential story which in its brevity answers a few questions ... and also demonstrates just how well that Toddling Town is fairing under the leadership of Rahm Emanuel.

We talked here, a few days ago, about the death by walk-by shooting of a young girl in Chicago.   I posited there what some people consider root causes of violence; among them are corruption and a lack of civil liberties.

What I did NOT mention was the unwillingness or inability of municipal government to actively enforce the law.   Failure to aggressively investigate  "minor crimes" should have been mentioned.

Broken Window Theory: Broken Window Policy

After Rudi Giuliani was elected mayor of New York City in 1993,  he hired William Bratton as his new Commissioner of Police.   Bratton had just finished a 3-year stint as head of NYC Transit Police.  Braxton severely reduced "transit crime" by establishing a "Zero Tolerance" policy on such "petty" crimes as grafitti, fare-hopping, etc.  Giuliani asked Bratton to use the same techniques to reduce crime city-wide.

Bratton received criticism for his work for going after these "petty" crimes. The general statement towards this was "Why care about panhandlers, hookers, or graffiti artists when there are more serious crimes to be dealt with in the city?" The main notion of the broken window theory is that small crimes can make way for larger crimes. If the "petty" criminals are often overlooked and given space to do what they want, then their level of criminality might escalate from petty crimes to more serious offences [sic]. Bratton's work is to attack while the offenders are still green, as it would prevent an escalation of criminal acts in the future. According to the 2001 study of crime trends in New York by George Kelling and William Sousa, rates of both petty and serious crime fell suddenly and significantly, and continued to drop for the following ten years.

 (Note that "Zero Tolerance", as used here, is not in the same sense as a ten year old boy in Virginia being arrested for bringing a toy gun to school; instead, it refers to a policy of not ignoring "petty crimes", such as public urination.)

As cited in the Wikipedia article, the aggressive enforcement of the law of the city not only reduced petty crimes, but serious crimes as well.

(See also:  The National Bureau for Economic Research: "What Reduced Crime in New York City"; and Center on Juvenile and Public Justice "Assessing 'Broken Windows': a Brief Critique")

Chicago has serious problem with "serious crimes" ... such as murder!  And people think that the way to deal with gun violence is to reduce the number of guns available.  So far, that hasn't worked well in the exceptionally violent society which is found in major cities.

This new Chicago policy of essentially ignoring "minor crimes" not only ignores the under-lying causes of escalating criminality, but it also fails to consider that the causative link between petty crime and minor crime might be approximated by the link between minor crime and major crime.

The Chicago Police Department has thus announced a policy (presumably allowed, if not embraced by Mayor Emanuel) which essentially minimizes the chance of apprehension and prosecution of "minor criminals" ... and thus increases the chance that a burglary may more frequently be escalated to a home invasion, or burglary of an occupied residence.

Even "Dumb Hicks From The Sticks" can see that the political leadership of Chicago have just assumed the "Dying Cockroach" position.

Chicago might as well roll over and play dead, because it's not a matter of "IF", but a matter of "WHEN"  they will completely lose control of the lawless elements.  Well, their mayor has already admitted it, if only tacitly.

As Dirty Harry would have said:  "You got to ask yourself, Do I Feel Lucky?"

Probably not.  But  Chicago (and a lot of other municipalities and states and politicians and celebrities) say they want to address the problem of "Gun Violence", yet focus on eliminating the "Gun  ... " part of the equation ... at the expense of our Civil Liberties.   Perhaps they should look at the " ... Violence" part of the equation.   Let's talk about the expense of  THAT approach.

Please understand that we do not reduce violence by reducing our civil liberties.

So why do politicians focus on anti-gun laws instead anti-violence laws?  And be sure, when you are robbed or when your HOME is robbed, that is violence as sure (if not as immediate, or as physically painful) as Rape and Muggings and Murder.  Perhaps the reason that politicians address guns rather than violence is that, in order to reduce lawlessness and especially violent lawlessness, one must provide effective and aggressive police services.    But that costs money!  If they actually enforce existing laws, they will need to pay for more police, and train them to be more efficient.  It's not just the cost of enforcement at the street level, but also prosecution and punishment.

However, if they focus their attention on keeping honest people from owning guns    eliminating the Right To Keep And Bear Arms  common-sense measures and reasonable gun-control laws ... they might get a few more home-owners killed but they won't have to raise the funds.  Politicians aren't usually re-elected (with the possible exception of Rudy Giuliani) because they reduce crime; they're reduced because they (a) look good on camera, (b) talk tough, and (c) don't spend money.   [Okay, Obama has proved that if you have (a) and (b), you can get away with (c).   But that's different; he's a Liberal Democrat.]

Even if talking tough about Gun Control doesn't actually accomplish anything, it costs nothing.

Talk is cheap.

And that's all you're going to get from the Chicago Police Department, Rahm Emanuel, and Barack Obama.

And Congress.

So .. if you live in Chicago, and someone robs your home or steals your car, just call ... no, don't call anybody.  They aren't answering any more.  Instead, go to the Chicago PD "Online Crime Reporting" webpage and fill out the form.

No hurry.   In Chicago, when seconds count, the police are only 3-5 days response time away.   No, you can't have a gun.  But you still have to fill out the form.

I'm so glad I live in the sticks.

UPDATE:  Later, the same day ...

"City of Los Angeles pension funds should not go to profit companies that produce weapons designed to maximize carnage and death," Mayor Antonia Villaraigosa vowed.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a former Obama White House chief of staff, has made the same commitment and gone a step further. Emanuel has authored letters to Bank of America and TD Bank because they maintain multimillion-dollar lines of credit for major gun manufacturers. In the letters, Emanuel urges the banks to use their influence to "push" the manufacturers to go along with the president's tough new gun controls.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/gun-control-supporters-urge-obama-to-bypass-congress-on-new-measures/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz2KH2ncVK3

AND ...

Feeling bullied by Rahm Emanuel? Bring your business down to Texas. 

That's the message Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is sending big banks and firearms companies, after the Chicago mayor urged those banks to stop lending to the gun manufacturers. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/texas-lawmaker-tells-big-banks-gun-manufactures-to-leave-chicago/?intcmp=obinsite

The freshman senator sent a letter Tuesday to the CEOs of Bank of America and TD Bank Group offering up the Lone Star State as a place where they could do business without hassle from the government. He said he understands that, since they do "considerable business" with Chicago, they might be worried about the "risks" of not complying with Emanuel's request.

 Don't mess with Texas.

He shoots! He Scores!

White House photo shows Obama skeet shooting | General Headlines | Comcast:

 

WASHINGTON — Two days before President Barack Obama's first trip outside Washington to promote his gun-control proposals, the White House tried Saturday to settle a brewing mystery by releasing a photo to back his claim to be a skeet shooter. Obama had set inquiring minds spinning when, in an interview with The New Republic magazine, he answered "yes" when asked if he had ever fired a gun. The admission came as a surprise to many. "Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time," Obama said in the interview released last weekend, referring to the official presidential retreat in rural Maryland, which he last visited in October while campaigning for re-election. Asked whether the entire family participates, the president said: "Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there." Obama never mentioned skeet shooting prior to that interview. The White House photo released Saturday is dated Aug. 4, 2012. The caption says Obama is shooting clay targets on the range at Camp David. Obama is seen holding a gun against his left shoulder, his left index finger on the trigger and smoke coming from the barrel. He is wearing jeans, a dark blue, short-sleeved polo shirt, sunglasses and earmuffs.

 Our President is not only a shooter, but he's looking very dapper.

I don't know about you, but I am very impressed!

This reminds me of a conversation which I had with a Vietnamese boat-person back in the 80's (I was teaching English as a Second Language at the local community college at the time.)
My Vietnamese friend then imparted to me a wisdom which was popular in his country .. before he was forced to flee it:

"Pay no attention to what they say, but look carefully at what they do."

I'm looking very carefully. Are you?

BLOGMEAT: February 02, 2013

BLOGMEAT is my own "special" contribution to the Blogger Community.   Ostensibly, it is an attempt to present a selection of (often unrelated) articles in the general media resources and link them to my own private cultural biases.  BLOGMEAT articles may have no unifying theme other than to provide me with an opportunity to rant.   You may not agree with my interpretation of the issues.

For this issue, all articles are taken from current or issues of the local newspaper, the Gazette-Times.

Letters to the Editor: Furor over assault weapon ban keeps NRA donations rolling in.

Please, can someone tell me why it would be bad to have more stringent laws on gun registration? That is part of being responsible, isn’t it, to be held accountable if something happens?
And why is everyone freaking out about a ban on assault rifles and acting as though “they” are trying to take all your guns away? Who needs an assault rifle or a 30-shot magazine, except to do a lot of harm?
So-called responsible gun owners should have no problem with laws meant to curb illegal guns and mass killings, and all this hue and cry about rights being taken away is ridiculous, overblown and politically motivated. Stir the gun owners into a frenzy of paranoia, and reason goes out the window ... again.

My hand is up, and I'm silently screaming: "Me, Me, Me!  Call on me please, Teacher.  I know the answer to that question."

Thank you.

The answer is: we already have laws against ALL of the things that murderers do, and none of these laws have done a single thing to stop them.  In countries where private ownership of firearms is outlawed, the outlaws still have guns.

But we ... you and I ... would not.

New laws would only prevent honest people from access to the tools of their own defense.   The phrase "laws meant to curb illegal guns and mass killings" is meaningless; we already have those laws.  How are those laws working for us?

"Who needs an assault rifle, or a 30-shot magazine"?

Tell me ... who needs a driver's license?   Why can't you ride a bike or use public transportation?

A driver's license gives you permission to drive.   It can be revoked.
An assault rifle and a 30-shot magazine don't need permission; it's a right embedded in the Constitution.

Who needs a newspaper?  I don't ... I haven't bought a newspaper for years. But the right to publish a newspaper is guaranteed under the Constitution, too.   Just because I don't need it, that doesn't mean I don't support your right publish.

Likewise, the rights to freedom of religion, public assembly ... I haven't been inside a church for years (lots of people have been killed because their religion wasn't popular), but I still support it.  And public assembly?  Do you remember your history?   The Boston Massacre in 1770 led to the American Revolution.  The British Soldiers were successfully defended by John Adams, because they Americans had no right to public assembly.

So .. Why would anyone "need" an assault weapon?   We don't have to show you no stinkin' "need".
_____________________________________--

Letters to the Editor: Why no demand to enforce laws on illegal immigration, drugs?

With all the hue and cry over a number of sheriffs declining to enforce possible gun control laws, one does wonder where the outrage is over the lack of enforcement of federal immigration laws and drug laws.
After all, you are now proclaiming if it is a law, it must be enforced. Seems to be rather hypocritical.

Okay, you've got me there.  I'm looking at the mission statement website for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.  It it says right here that: ...

The Department of Homeland Security secures the nation's air, land, and sea borders to prevent illegal activity while facilitating lawful travel and trade. The Department's border security and management efforts focus on three interrelated goals:

.... but apparently,  that mandate can be abrogated by the Office of the President of the United States.

It's not in the Constitution, nor in the Declaration of Independence. The Preamble to the Constitution includes:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I see nothing about "... secure our borders ..." there.  I can only assume that this means that the President is not constitutionally required to do so.

Well ... except perhaps Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution, which states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "Invasion" is.  Bill Clinton liked this kind free-style interpretation of legal points.

It's not as if the Federal Government isn't talking about the issue: It's just that it has been so severely  "Politicized" that our fearless legislators are more focused on elections than they are on the issues:

The immigration debate is threatening to split the Republican Party, pitting those who focus mainly on presidential elections against those who care mostly about congressional races.
Strategists say that if Republicans are to win presidential elections, which they've been losing lately, partly because of dismal support from Hispanic voters, they must soften their rhetoric about illegal immigrants and embrace some version of "immigration reform."
But granting illegal residents a path to citizenship, which critics call "amnesty," is deeply unpopular in many House Republicans' districts.
President Barack Obama wants such a pathway. So do some prominent GOP lawmakers who are seeking a way out of their party's jam.
The plans differ on when and how citizenship might occur, with border security a central issue. Resolving these differences may determine whether a major law is enacted in the coming months.
Some GOP strategists fear they will lose either way.

 [emphasis added]

As usual, it's all about the Republican Party. 
_____________________________________

Mayor's group sponsors gun control Super Bowl ad:

A gun control group founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is airing an advertisement during the Super Bowl calling for background checks.
The 30-second spot by Mayors Against Illegal Guns will air in the Washington area during the third quarter of the game between the Baltimore Ravens and San Francisco 49ers.
The ad calls on lawmakers to pass rules requiring background checks on guns. It is narrated by children, with "America the Beautiful" playing in the background

This item intrigues me. 

Federal law already mandates background checks on potential firearms purchases through a dealer, so that can't possible be the issue ... can it?  Even Bloomberg wouldn't make a major fuss about an issue which has already been settled.   Would he?
Well, okay, the man's a nutcase on this issue, so perhaps he can.

My guess, though, is that he is talking about private sales of personally owned firearms by non-dealers.

If so, this may be a serious problem.

In order to be completely effective, the law would restrict ALL firearms transfers between private individuals.  That means, it would prohibit a man from giving his family .30-30 Winchester deer rifle to his grandson, for example.  In other words, it would intrude upon all forms of goods transfer regardless of the context.

No other form of "transfer of goods" is currently as highly regulated as firearms.  This measure would trample on familial traditions,  and bring us one giant step closer to a "Big Brother" state.

As demonstrated in earlier comments here, the right to privacy is one of those issues which often tempt people to ask: "Well, if you have nothing to hide, why do object to 'full disclosure'?"  Speaking only for myself, I don't want a CCTV camera in my bathroom.   Perhaps your own valuation of privacy is less extreme than mine.

".... Bag Policy Still Drawing Fire, Interest"

Corvallis’ bag policy has been in effect for a month, but controversy over the issue still is simmering.
It still has opponents in town (a group is gathering signatures to put the matter on the ballot) and the Gazette-Times continues to receive letters and reader comments.
And as smaller retailers get ready to conform to the ordinance, one local business owner says the policy, which bans single-use plastic bags and mandates that merchants charge 5 cents for each paper bag given to customers at checkout, already has cost her about $5,000.

Yes, the tiny little community (in the person of our city commissioners, I guess) has decided that it is "Politically Incorrect" for merchants to give away free 1-mil bags to contain our shopping purchases.  As a consequence, we either have to bring our own bags, pay five cents for each PAPER bag, or take our purchases home in individual bite-size handfuls.

The bags which are available for purchase are "multi-use", and cost eighty-nine cents each.  And if we forget to bring them to the store, we have to buy more.

Personally, I liked the little thin plastic bags my store use to provide me for free.  I used them to line my waste-basket, and to wrap smelly items (such as smoked salmon containers ... made of MUCH heavier plastic)

If I had more bags than I could use?  No problem; the store provided a receptical at each entrance where excess bags could be deposited for recycling.  . I didn't often use it; I found a use for every bag, eventually.
  
Now, I buy much thicker (bulkier) plastic bags at a higher cost to line my waste-baskets.  I empty them as frequently, and truthfully I make no more effort to 'recycle' these expensive bags than I did the free bags I previously employed.

It's a petty issue, and I'm dealing with it.  I am not, I admit, dealing with it with a fair amount of grace.  The first time I went to the store and grumbled to the clerk "... this new bag law is causing all of us a lot more trouble than it's worth!", the clerk replied:

"Tell me about it!"

I swore to myself when I began this article "I am NOT going to use the term 'Nanny-Statism' tonight!"

But I couldn't resist.

There's  just one more reason why this is a solution to a problem which doesn't exist. Our Leaders have just turned a system which worked smoothly with a minimum of ecological impact into a major problem.
__________________________________________

Ah.  That's all the blogmeat for today.  You may have found all of this unimaginally boring, but I feel MUCH better now.  Sometimes, all that is needed to turn a stressful day into a mellow moment in my life is the option to rant until I get it all out.

If you've read this far, perhaps you may be a Redneck. 

Chicago Drive-by

Teen performer at inaugural events fatally shot | US National Headlines | Comcast:

CHICAGO — A 15-year-old girl who had performed in President Barack Obama's inauguration festivities is the latest face on the ever-increasing homicide toll in the president's hometown, killed in a Chicago park as she talked with friends by a gunman who apparently was not even aiming at her. Chicago police said Hadiya Pendleton was in a park about a mile from Obama's home in a South Side neighborhood Tuesday afternoon when a man opened fire on the group. Hadiya was shot in the back as she tried to escape. The city's 42nd slaying is part of Chicago's bloodiest January in more than a decade, following on the heels of 2012, which ended with more than 500 homicides for the first time since 2008. It also comes at a time when Obama, spurred by the Connecticut elementary school massacre in December, is actively pushing for tougher gun laws.

[Emphasis Added]


When I took journalism classes in college, I learned that the usual questions are who, what, where, when, why and how.  These six facts should be answered in the first paragraph of an article.

Answers here are; Innocent, Killed, In Chicago (near Obama's residence), Tuesday, For No Good Reason, and "Because Gun Laws Are Not Tough Enough".

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday that the president and the first lady's "thoughts and prayers are with" the teen's family, adding: "And as the president has said, we will never be able to eradicate every act of evil in this country, but if we can save any one child's life, we have an obligation to try when it comes to the scourge of gun violence."

[Emphasis Added]

Thank you Jay Carney for turning a tragedy into a political talking point.   Had you not said that, we would not have been smart enough to realize that Liberals will do anything, say anything, to advance their agenda of undermining our constitution.

Here are a few more talking points which haven't been addressed

• Chicago laws already make it illegal to own a firearm.  .
• Making it more illegal (if that's even possible) to own a firearm in Chicago won't change a damn thing to effect "the scourge of gun violence".
• I personally own more firearms than I can enumerate without thinking about it for a while, and for the 30th consecutive day this month I have not shot anybody.

 To illustrate the proliferation of guns in Chicago, check out this map:

What you are looking at is a map of all the gun stores in Chicago.  All three of them ... only one of which is actually located IN Chicago.

Where I live, there were three gun stores, but two of them went out of business and the third is actually located in a nearby "bedroom community".  Nobody shot anybody here this year.   One might say that my small town is 42 times safer than Chicago ... but that would be true if there were at least one shooting.  Actually, my small town is infinitely safer than Chicago.

Why should this be?  Could it be because we don't have street gangs here?  Because the police are more efficient?  Certainly it isn't because our gun laws aren't "tough enough" ... hell, we're downright [spit] "Liberal" about firearms ownership here.

Could it be that we don't have a lot of wild and crazy young people here?   Probably not ... our town population is reduced by 30,000 every summer when most of the college kids go home at the end of the school year.  And we have not one, but two high schools.  Trust me, judging by the loud music and drunken parties every week in my neighborhood alone,  many of the young people are certifiably "wild and crazy".

I don't think that the "scourge of gun violence" is caused by lenient gun laws.  In fact, I don't think the problem of "gun violence" has as much to do with guns as it has to do with violence.

(In the same way, the issue of "gun control" has less to do with guns than it has to do with control.)

A July 15, 2012 article in "24/7 Wall Street" (international investor analysis) titled "The Most (and Least) Peaceful Countries in the World"  reports that "The Institute for Economics and Peace released the sixth edition of their annual Global Peace Index".   Here are a few things that report has to say about the root causes for violence ... or lack of violence:

The IEP also considers several socioeconomic factors that are not themselves part of the rank, but that they measured as possible drivers of violence and peace. The data suggests that while a country’s GDP, adult literacy and unemployment do not appear to have a strong impact on peace, others appear to be directly related. The presence of civil liberties and freedom of the press have much closer relationships to peace, according to the report.
The clearest among these are political factors such as corruption. According Killelae, the relationship between corruption and the lack of peace is profound: Slight increases in corruption do not appear to affect slight increases in peace, but he says that once a tipping point is reached peace “just disappears.” While the IEP is not exactly sure why corruption is such a powerful indicator, Killelae suggests that it is near perfect measure of “just how well functioning the level of government is.”

Let me see: civil liberties, freedoms, corruption.   What communities in the United States come immediately to mind here?   How about Detroit, Chicago, and Washington DC?

Lots of violence in those towns.   Really hard for an honest citizen to own a legal firearm, in exactly those places where it's most needed.   Heller was a good start, but what communities are dragging their feet on compliance?  See above.

It is a tragedy that an innocent child was murdered in an act of senseless violence.  

It's also a national shame that the leaders of the most free nation in the world can think of no better way to curb violence than to reduce our freedoms, and limit out ability as free citizens to defend ourselves against attack.

If we let them do this to us, we will no longer be free citizens.   We'll just be "subjects".   I don't want my government to turn me into a subject ... or a felon.

And that is MY political agenda.

"Stick shift? WTF?

Florida thieves forced to shift gears during Corvette carjacking | Fox News:

A Florida Corvette owner said he was almost carjacked at gunpoint, but the would-be thieves ran away because they couldn't figure out how to drive his car.
Randolph Bean was sitting in his bright yellow Corvette when two men took him by surprise, ..... Bean said the two came from behind, and he "barely caught them in the mirror."
According to the police report, one of the men had a gun. "He started yanking on the door and made me open the door. He kind of flung it open and dragged me out and demanded that I get on the ground... face down, so I couldn't look at him, of course," Bean told MyFoxOrlando.com.
Bean, 51, said one of the thieves pointed a gun at him while asking how to use the car. "They apparently couldn't start it," Bean said. "I had to tell him four different times to push in the clutch, because it's a standard transmission." The suspects reportedly gave up and ran away, leaving Bean on the ground. Police tried searching for the suspects, but they took off.

I have to laugh.

About a decade ago, my son came to visit me (he was in his late teens) and we decided to go shopping for .. something which was important to my son.  I dis-remember.  Not important, except that he really wanted to go there and do that.

So I made him drive my car .. a Mazda 686, at the time.  Cute little car, crappy seat-belt system, and a four-speed stick shift.

Poor little Mazda never got so badly beat up.  Ben didn't miss a gear; he ground every damn one of them.  I swear, if I hadn't told him where each gearshift position was, he would never have got out of first gear ... after he finally found it (we're talking ten minutes or so, I kid you not.)

Ben  had never driven a stick shift, and he refused to drive it back home. Or ever again.  He has since gone into the Nave and I have no idea whether he has been taught how to drive a stick there, even though he is now a Petty Officer and a Master-At-Arms. (Doesn't the Navy teach cops how to cope?)

It's probably rude of me to make fun of my own much-beloved son, but .. really?

My thought is that it's probably a really good thing that my son is determined to make a career in Law Enforcement.

He'd never make it as a car-jacker.

PS:  No, he's never been near Florida.

NOTE TO PARENTS:  If you feel you absolutely HAVE to laugh at your kid, do it before he completes his training as a Navy Master-at-Arms.  Even if you don't think that's in his future ... you never know.  The kid will definitely kick your ass, one of these days ....
... just saying.

Obama entirely clueless about 2nd Amendment: Nobody Surprised

Obama: Gun-control advocates have to listen more | General Headlines | Comcast:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says gun-control advocates have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes in the debate over firearms in America.

In an interview with The New Republic, Obama says he has "a profound respect" for the tradition of hunting that dates back for generations. "And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake. Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas," he says.

Obama has called for a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines and is pushing other policies following the mass shooting last month at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. In response, gun-rights advocates have accused Obama and others of ignoring the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

The president says it's understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting. "So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes," he says.

 Just who is it, not listening?

My goodness!  Is it possible that he has not been made aware by his Gun Czar that almost every state in the Union is a "Shall Issue" state?  And that this is a CONTINUING process?

Has it not even occurred to him to ask WHY states (and individual citizens .. of whom he is the presumptive leader) are so strongly coming out in support of the right to carry a concealed weapon?  Doesn't he recognize that this is entirely caused by the common citizenry who have not only lobbied for, but DEMANDED to defend themselves against predators?

(And, of course, a government running wild.  We're not there, and I hope we never find ourselves 'there'; but that IS the reason for the Second Amendment!)

Obama is not stupid.  Inept .. well .... I'll give you that one. Maybe.  Inexperienced, ill-advised, and a lot of other "I-words" which I will not suggest here because they may be interpreted as being Insulting to the office of the President of the United States of America.

Disingenuous?  Absolutely!

Obama is not unaware of the unrest in Red-State America. He knows that there is a strong drive for autonomy in the states, and a similarly powerful outrage in defense of our Constitutional freedoms.

He has taken this opportunity, and this tactic, to distance himself from the RKBA issues by blandly 'supporting' the rights of "his" citizens to continue their traditional "hunting rights".

By doing so, he has obviated the concept that the Second Amendment protects military arms ... firearms which may be used for non-hunting purposes.

(As often as I disparage Wikipedia, they have a very nice summary of 2nd Amendment history. I recommend it as a starting point for your own research.)

In US v Miller, the court essentially disallowed the possession of a 'sawed-off shotgun' because it could not be proven (no defense was offered!) that a similar weapon was a "military arm".  Had Miller offered a defense, he could have shown that "trench guns" were a common personal arm during WWI in the trenches; sawed-off shotguns were, and are, a military weapon.  But because of the lack of a defense, and the testimony to that effect was not offered by the (absent) defendant, the court had no alternative but to find for the State.

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice McReynolds, the Supreme Court stated "the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable."^[140] As the Court explained:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense

 (Emphasis added)

Essentially, the court ruled that military arms .. or firearms which were similar to military arms ... were defended by the Second Amendment.  No other arms --- certainly no 'civilian' arms ... were defended.  Why were the terms ". in the absence of any evidence.." and ".. cannot say ..." included?  That is because the judge recognized, and lamented the lack of defense, because Miller skipped the state before the trial.  Thus, he failed to offer a defense .. which would have been accepted by the judge, and would have formed an entirely different precedence in American Canon Law.  Bummer!

Thus, your Remington .270 may not be defended by the 2nd Amendment.  However, your Remington  .30-06 MAY be defended, because both the Garand and its predecessor the 1903 Springfield used that caliber.  The Garand may not be applicable to your Remington; but the 1903-A3 is a shoulder-fired bolt-action rifle in that same .30-06 caliber, so it is conceivably justifiable as a military arm.

Your Remington Model 1100 in 12 guage is iffy .. but if you cut off it's barrel to match the WWI Trench gun .. hey!  It's a Military weapon .. a Trench Gun!

Get the picture?

Obama .. does not.
In fact, he is ignoring the entire concept of the Second Amendment.  Deliberately.

Personally, I have no problem with a President lying to me.  Reagan did it all the time.  I lost respect for him, but I 'understood' the whole "Iran/Contra" thing. 

[I say this with tongue in cheek; nobody REALLY understood the twisted legal tactics employed by both sides in the extended affair.  Interpret my semi-facetious assertion to mean that I recognized the Reagan administration's intent to accomplish a "private goal" to undermine communist aggression in South America to be merely a logical extension of the Madison Doctrine, which  "... stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention."]

Obama's game plan has nothing to do with the elements of Reagan's "I Miss-spoke" Iran/Contra hearings.  Obama is just acting dumb so he can ignore the essential elements of the Second Amendment.

It's rude, it's insulting to intelligent Americans, and that insult is compounded by the obvious implication that either (a) we are so stupid that we won't notice what he is doing, or (b) we are so insignificant that our opinion  doesn't matter.

I never much liked Barack Obama, either as a President or as a man.  But I have never been so personally insulted as I am now by his regal suggestion that the Second Amendment has been included into the Constitution of the United States of America so we could go kill a dear for dinner.

What does he think he is?  Is he a King ruling over a bunch of Nimrods, or Dimwads?

I do fear for the future of this country, when an elected President can so thinly conceal his calumny under the guise of ignorance .... and enough of our citizens care so little for the constitution that they seem to accept his facade of ignorance without comment.

Woman sues Match.com after online date stabbed her 10 times

Woman sues Match.com after online date stabbed her 10 times | Watch XFINITY Videos Online | News | Comcast

I don't know if this will even 'work' on Blogger .. Comcast is as lame as this ... oh, well, I can't say that out loud. It's helpful to know, sometimes, that just because we get focused on issues which are important to us ... that doesn't mean that there are NOT idiots in the world who are similarly unable to grasp the simple concept that "You are responsible for your own bad judgement ... not me!"

NOTE: In the interest of Full Disclosure;

• Online dating may be dangerous
• Firearms may be dangerous
• Hot coffee may burn you
• Just because you put your RV on "Cruise Control", that doesn't mean it will navigate for you
• DO NOT remove this tag under penalty of law
• The puppy you got from the ASPSA Kennell?  He may bite you!
• Do not mix chemicals to make them clean your toilet bowl "Faster"
• Objects may be closer than they appear in the mirror
• Reading this blog may be hazardous to your health, wealth, and sanity
• If you really need to be warned against injudicious behavior, you should stay in your townhouse apartment and never come out, accept no phone calls, and stay away from the Internet!  (Information is as dangerous as a loaded gun in the hands of an idiot!)