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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feeling the Pulse of the Nation ... NOT!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gauging Candidate Popularity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR IS THAT A VALID EVALUATION?

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

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

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

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

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

In Defense of Campfires

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Yep, there's nothing like a Camp Fire.

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

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

Rifle KaBOOM!

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

The Three Things I Detest

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

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

1. Politics
2. Politicians
3. Elections

Here's why:

POLITICS:

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

POLITICIANS:

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

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

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

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

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

ELECTIONS:

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

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

This is the best America has to offer?

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

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

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

The Crook Versus the Monster | Scott Adams' Blog:

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

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

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

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

Napolitano: What if you needed permission?

Published on Oct 20, 2016

 Judge exposes the “Big Deception”!

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

(Pretty Radical stuff!)

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

Gun Ownership v Firearm Deaths

So America has the most guns, but less crimes?

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

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

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

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

As Rachel Weisz said in THE MUMMY:

"Take THAT, Bainbridge scholars!"

Oh ... and on a final note:

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

Saint, Showman or Charlatan?

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

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



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

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

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

Clinton as gun control candidate

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

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

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

(H/T "New Jovian Thunderbolt")

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

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

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

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

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

And nobody loves "The Donald".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It gets worse!

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

How NOT to market "Smart Guns"

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

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

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

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

(1) Useless Caliber

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

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

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

Armatix finally figured this one out all by themselves:

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

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

(2) Overpriced!

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

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

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

(3) Arrogant marketing!

But the manufacturer thinks the introductory price is reasonable:

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

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

You're not doing that.

Hell, you can't even find dealers!

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

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

(4) Identify, and Sell to  your market

Who buys guns?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your niche just became much smaller.

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

Did I mention  young, homeowners, children?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not a great publicity moment for Armitix.

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

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

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

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

And after that?  

You're still screwed.

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

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

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

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

The Weapon Shops of Isher

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

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

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

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

Here's a blurb from AMAZON website:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




xxx

EDNDO and Gun Control

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


YOU DO WHAT I SAY!!

The Ugliest Gun In The World!

POTD: Pumpkin Glock 19 - The Firearm Blog:

While I was pulling up some information on the Glock 19 for the review we just posted, I stumbled across this monstrosity. The pumpkin pie Glock looks to be a rather well abused Gen 3 gun with one of the worst stipple jobs I have ever seen, or are those teeth marks?

The author apologizes for being "a bit harsh" in his criticism.

I say he didn't go far enough.

I've always contended that a Glock was the ugliest gun in the history of gun-making, but this goes FAR beyond!

And I live in a town where the College Colors are "Orange and Black"!

New Jersey: "You do what I say you do!"

NJ holding police depts hostage to push 'smart guns'... - Gunmart Blog

I'm not sure that the mayor of Newark has the power to dictate to Major Firearms Manufacturers.

If the police departments in New Jersey require firearms which are "Dependable", rather than "Politically Acceptable ... aren't the police the people who are putting their lives on the line?

Shouldn't the police, who live or die by the reliability of their firearms, be the people who are defining the specifications for "acceptable weapons"?

Perhaps not:

(Newark Mayor Ras J. Baraka demands:)

Surrounded by clergy and bi-partisan groups on the steps of Newark City Hall Thursday afternoon, Baraka called on all New Jersey mayors to convene before purchasing additional weapons for their law enforcement agencies and create a list of manufacturers who are listening to their concerns, chiefly: safer gun distribution practices and technologies.
"We put our money in places, with people who support what we think is right for our community," Baraka told NJ Advance Media following the press conference. "You're talking about over 560 municipalities in the State of New Jersey. If we can get a quarter of them to say, 'Look, we agree with this, and we're not going to purchase bullets, guns or whatever from these four or five manufactures until (they) do what we ask them to do.'"

Is this guy requiring smart guns?  Or has he made under-the-counter deals with a few manufacturers just for the badda-boom?

Is it all about the money?

Is that what it's all about?  Where the mayor of Newark wants to put his money, determines what quality of firearms are distributed to the police, who need to defend their lives every day?

"You do what I say you do!

Not "carry friendly"? Texas has an AP for that!

Personally, I don't know if this is necessary.  But Texas is a big state and it would be a disappointment to travel a way to get what looks like a good deal only to find the business doesn't support your 2nd Amendment  rights.

Texas Phone App Shows 'Second Amendment Unfriendly' Businesses Near You:
(October 11, 2016)

Gun advocates and licensed to carry holders can search for and add businesses to the interactive website or use the iPhone and Android apps for free. The founder of the website, Russell Jones told Breitbart Texas, “This is not a for-profit venture. We are in it to help the community because it’s important to know both who supports the Second Amendment and who allows us to protect ourselves and our families.” The Texas3006.com website has almost 11,000 registered users and 9,200 updated entries.

(H/T: thegunfeed.com)

I am fortunate that I live within walking distance of a Kroger store (Fred Meyers).   They don't post rude signs on the door, and they have a corporate philosophy that CHL folks are their friends and neighbors ... and darned good customers.   (Now they have a gas station in town, so they even get my business there,)   I purchase most of my 'consumables' there, but they don't have much of a sporting goods department.    So I just go to Bi-Mart for those items, (including ammo in calibers I don't reload) which is another business without rude signs on their door.

Why give your money to a business that doesn't trust you?

Debate doesn't talk about gun control? Good choice!

Personally, I don't believe either Presidential Candidate understands either the Constitution or the "common man".   So when they are asked to address the Second Amendment, both are thinking about their bodyguards ... they're not worried about you and me.

Gun-control groups fume over debate omission | TheHill: The bipartisan Open Debate Coalition posed a series of questions Americans voted to ask the candidates.

The most popular question: “Would you support requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales?” The second-most popular question: “How will you ensure the Second Amendment is protected?” 

Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, briefly spoke about guns without being prompted by the moderators.
"I respect the Second Amendment, but I believe there should be comprehensive background checks and we should close the gun show loophole and close the online loophole and we should try to save as many lives as we possibly can,” Clinton said toward the end of the debate, according to the Brady Campaign.

It's not reported here whether Ms. Hillary addressed the second-most popular question".  As far as anyone can tell (and we're just guessing), she has absolutely no intention at all of protecting the Constitutional rights of Americans.

PS:   There are no loopholes.  There are merely constitutional rights which Hillary doesn't like.

Mexico moves to arm private citizens..... legally!

A Mexican senator has moved to allow citizens of his country the legal right to "keep and bear arms", using the U.S. Constitution as an example.

PAN  (Mexican) Senator Jorge Luis Preciado made public the initiative to carry guns on vehicles and businesses, supports the Second Amendment of the US Constitution staunchly defended Donald Trump

(NOTE: Quotes in this article represent automatic translation from the original Spanish.  The sometimes labored translation is a computer feature, not an attempt to make the language sound less comprehensible.  It's my fault, I can't speak Spanish!)

Preciado is by law to arm citizens, evokes amendment 'flag' Trump | Excelsior:

Rodriguez ruled that this initiative demarcation of their obligations to the authorities responsible for providing security to citizens; in this regard, he considered that this measure will help to assist the state in this issue. He asserted that the Mexican State has failed in its duty to protect citizens from crime, since in the United States, where it is allowed to carry firearms since 1789, the homicide rate is 4.7 per hundred thousand inhabitants, while that in our country the average is 21 homicides per hundred thousand inhabitants; and he pointed out that in states like his native Colima, or Guerrero, the figure is 56 homicides. He explained that this initiative seeks to prevent crime, since a criminal will think twice before attacking a house or a business.

Preciado is generous in recognizing that the rate of homicides in Mexico exceeds that in the United States by a factor of over 4 times as many murders per 100,000 citizens.

Personal opinion:  As is the case in America, the high "gun-violence" rate in Mexico is driven by gangs and drugs  (ie: cartels).

Unlike America, the average citizen in Mexico is unable to legally possess a firearm.  Which makes them victims of the criminals (back to the drug cartels) who do not fear the legal consequences of having been found to possess a firearm.

(The Cartel members just shoot the Federales and impose their own laws on what they consider their own private turf.   Oh, and they own the judges ... except for the few who are used to 'set an example' by killing the honest judges and their families, in horrible ways.)

I think it's about time that Mexico chose to allow private citizens to keep arms in defense of the criminals, which are the underground government by virtue of the fact that they are armed, and most law-abiding citizens are not.

Since the police and the army are also owned by the cartels, that puts the honest, private citizen in the position of facing hundreds of potential attackers with nobody watching his back.

As unpopular as it will probably turn out to be, Rodriguez is trying to keep his fellow citizens from being nothing more than targets that can't shoot back.

Viva Zapata!

Diversity is more important than reliability: DOJ

DOJ: Criminal Background Checks, Citizenship Requirements Barriers to Police-Force Diversity:

The Department of Justice decided  that it's a bad idea to keep "undocumented aliens" (non-citizens) from working in Law Enforcement jobs because ... diversity.

These people know other languages, and legal Americans don't.   Good point!

That's important when you're interrogating people who cross the American borders illegally.  You know, like drug mules and rapists and murderers.   These people need to be interrogated in their native language, to determine whether their motives to immigrate illegally are societally valid.  

It's a shame that America only judges emigrants based on legal issues; isn't it enough that they want to join us because they can work for low wages?

Why SHOULDN'T we hire them to police our laws?  Should we hold it against them, that they have demonstrated their willingness to break the law in order to gain admittance?   Are we that petty?

Shouldn't we trust our Government?