"It isn't Christmas until the lights are strung around the house"

I may be the Gumpy Christmas Blogger, but here's just one more reason I'm glad I don't have to string lights around the house every Christmas.

You could own all of Netflix. Or purchase 747 Boeing 747s, with change to spare. Or erase the national debts of Venezuela, Nigeria, Peru and Iceland, combined. Or, if you're Mary Horomanski, you could pay for one month's worth of electricity.

 Pennsylvania woman gets $284 billion electric bill, wonders whether it's her Christmas lights - Chicago Tribune:

Merry Christmas Eve

In the spirit of Peace on Earth and the universal Good Will Toward Men, here is your vision for the future:

By phasing out a mindset of absolute ownership of guns and creating a mindset of nonviolence, we can start on the path toward a safer and more secure society.

Binod Kumar, UD, nonviolence, gun violence, gun culture:

We expect that the gangsters will read and heed that hopeful message.

Borepatch has a more realistic message: enjoy!

Dear Washington State: You're screwed!

David Codrea details the sad state of Washington under Democrat Leadership:

Anti-gun laws are expected.  Sorry, but if it wasn't y'all, your neighbors voted for those idiots.

Proposed Washington Law Shows Gun-Grabbers Intend to Have It Both Ways | Oath Keepers: “November’s special election will give Democrats control of both the state House and Senate for the first time since 2012 during the next legislative session,” Seattle’s My Northwest reported Tuesday. “November’s special election will give Democrats control of both the state House and Senate for the first time since 2012 during the next legislative session.”

Expect your 2nd Amendment Rights to be thoroughly and painfully "Rogered".

Over-reacting much?

I personally think it's just SWELL that "officials" closed the school because some nerd crayoned the boys-room mirror.   If I was cloistered in a catholic boys-only school, I might not choose this particular means, but I'd be desperate to get the HELL out of there ... whatever it takes.

Thankfully, the "officials"  ... uh ... responded appropriately?

Or maybe just predictably.

Loyola Blakefield closed after racist graffiti in bathroom stall, Towson boys school says - Baltimore Sun:

Officials at Loyola Blakefield, a Catholic boys’ school in Towson, closed the school Thursday after threatening graffiti using a racial slur was discovered in a bathroom stall, administrators said. “We are heartbroken and outraged by this attack on the respect and dignity of members of our community, especially our African-American members who were targeted by this hateful message,” school President Anthony Day said in a statement. “We will discover who did this,” Day said, “and they will no longer be a part of our community.” The Jesuit school enrolls students in grades six through 12. School officials said they were working with Baltimore County police “to investigate this hateful act.”

Adding Insult to Injury in the State of Misery

Good intentions, I'm sure, but how happy will you be to prosecute a parent who has just lost his or her child due to an accident in the home?

Bill would hold adults liable for unsecured guns | Local News | newspressnow.com:

A Missouri state representative is proposing a bill that will hold an adult responsible if a child gains access to an unsecured firearm. Stacey Newman, D-St. Louis, is sponsoring House Bill 1343, which specifies that a person commits the offense of endangering the welfare of a child if he or she knowingly fails to secure a firearm. The goal is to eliminate the cases of children accidentally shooting themselves or others after gaining access to a firearm.

Welcome to England, where our anti-firearms laws are making this a safer hunting ground!

Other than that, remember that you cannot legally defend your person or home with a paring knife!
Or pepper spray.  Or anything else which might inconvenience your friendly  neighborhood home-intruder/murderer.   But you CAN use a Rape Alarm!

Violent crime rising in England and Wales, police figures show | UK news | The Guardian:

There have been “small but genuine” increases in murder and other violent crimes, including 13-14% increases in gun and knife crime in 2016, according to the latest police-recorded crime figures. The Office for National Statistics said the police data showed a 9% rise in overall crime in 2016, but that had to be viewed alongside the more authoritative crime survey of England and Wales, which showed an apparent 5% fall over the same period. These figures do, however, show an increase in violent crime, with a 10% rise in robberies, a 35% increase in public order offences and a 12% rise in sexual offences, including rapes.

,,, which has nothing at all, of course, to do with that when seconds count, the bobby on the block is only an hour or two away; and while you are waiting,  you are free to try to talk to your home intruder ... but you can't hurt him!

also check the Bearing Arms article here ...

Molan Labe

California Lt. Gov Gavin Newsome to NRA: "We ARE Coming for Your Guns":

 “We have a message for the NRA – National Rifle Association of America: If you hurt people, we ARE coming for your guns,” wrote Newsome. The message was accompanied by a video featuring Newsome speaking on how the only thing more certain than another mass shooting is the “moral cowardice” of Republicans who ignore it.

Hat Tip: Red State


What in the  WORLD is this asshole talking about?

What ever gave him the idea that NRA members want to "hurt people"?

I have no information which suggests that the NRA, or members of this organization, have ever  (Individually or as a group) deliberately hurt people except in defense of  innocents who were arbitrarily attacked by other  people.  So I don't know what this means.

And what has all this to do with "Mass Shootings".  Has he information about NRA membership of murderers in the news, recently?  If so, I've not been privy to that news.

The charge of "moral cowardice" is equally as confusing;. As far as I know, the only moral cowardice possible is the dis-inclination to defend self, home and family against assault by those who choose to attack those who they assume are unarmed ... Lord knows the attackers are never, ever, members of the NRA! 

Is he accusing Republicans of "Moral Cowardice" because of their political affiliation?  Someone should tell the Republican Party that their membership is composed of "Moral Cowards".  I'm sure that would be news to them!

I am currently a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA); but the moral equivalence of the NRA has never been an issue; if anything, I sometimes feel that the NRA is insufficiently supportive of the Second Amendment.


An "armed society" is a "respectful society".  So saith the memorable author Robert Heinlein, and more people know his name than know the name of Gavin Knowsless!

And not all members of the NRA are "Republicans" who "ignore"  ... well, the original article is lacking in the definition of moral fiber which is, in his view, ignored by NRA members.  Many of our members are Democrats, and members of other policies; our common ground is to just be left alone to enjoy a day hunting, or shooting a match on the range.

God knows that our intention is not to "hurt people"!

Newsome speaks of "Moral Cowardice", but I'm sure that my brothers who are armed are as astounded as I am to learn that we are so charged.   Many of us are veterans, as I am, and whatever cowardice we may rightfully be accused of is to go to a foreign country and fight a war for a cause which we did not agree ... but we went there, and fought a war we did not believe in, only because our National Leaders decreed that we should do so.

So to my mind, the only "Moral Cowardice" of which we may be accused, is the we didn't emigrate to Canada instead of allowing ourselves to be drafted.  Did Newsome ever face such a moral quandary?

Newsome, you've spent too much time in The Land of Fruits and Nuts.  You should get out more.  Go visit folks in flyover country and discover America.  You may be surprised to learn that most Americans love their country more than their state or their selves, and are willing to get shot at when they are drafted into that "Crazy Asian War" which you so conveniently missed.

Newsome's entire screed is based on disrespect for his country, his people, and anyone whose political viewpoint differs from his.

I lived in California for a couple of years in the 1970's; The weather was great, but  I sure am glad I  moved out of there before people like THIS nimrod came into power!

"Shot At And Missed"

Good intentions notwithstanding; if you have reason to shoot, it's better to hit your target than to miss.

Having been 'shot at and missed' is not a felon's deterrent to future crime escapades.

Robber killed by citizen shooter was shot at weeks earlier - San Antonio Express-News:

When local real estate broker Stephen Manion saw the news that a young father, carrying a concealed weapon and having dinner with his two children at a Popeyes restaurant on the South Side, had shot and killed a masked robber last week at about 8:30 p.m. Wednesday, it struck him as weirdly familiar.
 Around 8:30 p.m. on a Tuesday two weeks prior, Manion said, he was at a Dollar General on W.W. White Road “and stopped a robbery by firing at the very same guy.” Manion missed. A San Antonio Police Department spokesman, Officer Doug Greene, confirmed that detectives believe the suspect who fled the Dollar General that night was Andres Herrera, 19, who was killed a week later at Popeyes.

Has America Gone Crazy?

Sandy Hook Anniversary: These Are the Gun Control Laws That Have Failed Since the Newtown Shooting:

What seemed at the time like the horrifying turning point in the American gun debate—a gunman in Newtown, Connecticut, slaughtering 20 children and six adult employees during the school day after killing his mother—now instead seems like the moment the United States decided no tragedy was too great to change federal gun laws. More than 200 state-level gun laws have passed since Sandy Hook, but every major attempt at federal legislation has failed, even as shootings with ever-higher body counts keep coming. 

Yes.

Madmen arise in any society; they don't obey laws, but here ... in America ... they take advantage of the freedoms which our country holds most dear.

There is little we can do about that, without infringing on our own constitutional rights.

The problem isn't with the constitution; the problem is with our society.   Will we give up the rights which our progenitors fought for, because we now realize that we have created a "sick" society?

Our system of government is deliberately "skewed" to protect our rights.  That some people abuse those rights is not the fault of the laws, nor the Constitution; it's something in our national character which promoted aberration.

It may have begun when President Reagan undermined the Mental Health System.

Reagan observed a system which regularly locked up people with mild psychotic symptoms, and determined that it undermined the civil rights of people who were "just different".  He acted to correct this social injustice, and people who were committed for no greater offense than being 'different" were set free and thus protected from the distrust of their society.

Was Reagan wrong?  Is he the cause of the slaughter we have recently experienced?

As is the case in many decisions to protect individuals at the expense of the general population, this single act may have served to ignore delusional people, who have become a larger portion of our population than was earlier allowed to remain free. 

Whatever the cause or the effect, America today seems to have its fair share of crazies who feel no compunction against acting out their rage.

And the few sane people left ,,,

 ("I fear all are mad except me and thee, and I worry betimes about thee!")

... now suffer the consequences of a society which is so "free" that the madmen are ruling the institution.

Well ... the politicians, of course. 

But I was speaking about normal people.

Christmas and Adolescent Angst

There is nothing like trying to hang long (snarled) strings of wire and bulbs from the eves of the house ... and then trying to find the one bulb that is burned out ... to suck the Christmas Spirit from the heart of a teenage boy.

About the time I moved on to College I realized it was a lot warmer in the house, so I unsnarled the wires and tested all the bulbs in the living room.  (I recall my father's paternal pride when he remarked:  I was wondering how old you would be when you figured that out.)

The next year, we built a new set of light strings ... wired in parallel.   My father was disappointed when I did that; I think he enjoyed my annual outrage.   If nothing else, he kept track of what new curse words I had learned since the previous year; because I kept coming home for Christmas, and the box 'o bulbs was always waiting in the attic.  (Pop claimed his rheumatism made it too hard for him to climb the ladder ... it always seemed to kick in toward the END of Elk Season.)

Now I live in an apartment, and if anyone is going to climb a ladder to decorate the place it won't be me.  My landlord went out of town to visit his kids for the rest of the month, so even HE won't be bugging me to "lend him a hand".

My afternoon has been spent watching my neighbors hang out their lights.  It went so fast, I almost missed it.  They didn't seem to have any problems.

Probably just "new technology".

A Credit to American Ingenuity?

[Video] Head-shot on a Whitetail Doe with .50 BMG [He missed but the deer still dies] - The Gun Feed: [Video] Head-shot on a Whitetail Doe with .50 BMG

  [He missed but the deer still dies]

"Who knows?  The next time I may actually hit the animal!"

Well, that's something to look forward to.

Lies, but without even the courtesy of statistics or a "thank You Ma'am"!

NRA hijacks bipartisan gun bill. Now it's too dangerous to pass.:

Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul. As a package, “Fix NICS” would keep guns from domestic abusers — while “Concealed Carry Reciprocity” would force states to allow people to carry concealed guns in public even if they are domestic abusers, have other dangerous histories, or lack even the most basic safety training to carry concealed guns in public.

USA Today is among the many public forums which have deliberately lied about current  (and proposed)  firearms legislation, and their agenda is to completely disallow the free exercise of the Second Amendment.

There are no state or federal laws, currently active or proposed, which would:
"force states to allow people to carry concealed guns in public even if they are domestic abusers, have other dangerous histories, or lack even the most basic safety training to carry concealed guns in public. "

There are NO states which have enacted gun-control laws which "force states" to allow convicted felons or domestic abusers to be allowed to carry concealed firearms.    That's just stupid!

How many times must this point be emphasized, to deny the false hoods engendered by public forums?

Intelligent people would probably read the statement, and dismiss it without needing to cite other resources.

Stupid people will read the USA TODAY article, and take it at face value; after all, it's USA TODAY And they wouldn't lie to us!

The Big Lie

There was a propaganda technique (often utilized by the Russians in the 20th century) which proposed that if you tell a lie which is so obviously WRONG ... many people will believe it because "who would tell such a horrible lie, if it was not true???"

Well, many people use The Big Lie to argue against facts which are obviously true, and unfortunately it is all-to-often accepted as "TRUE" because who would lie about that so disingenuously?

Answer: people who think you are stupid enough to believe obvious lies.

There are no states which allow convicted domestic abusers to possess firearms, let along "force" them to do so. 

Second Amendment Supporters recognize that there are a sub-genre of people who are not responsible to carry firearms, and domestic abusers have proven their poor judgement.

USA TODAY is just one of the public forums which abuse their privilege to report the news, in order to publish their bias on social issues ... about which they are insufficiently informed.

"Throw 'em In Prison!"

Welcome to the Garden State ... bring a gun, we'll have you cultivating a prison garden in no time!

This is the essential message that NJ Dem Sen. Bob Menendez prefers to send to travelers who enter New Jersey with a firearm ... and who are ignorant of the state's draconian firearm laws.

Sen: Jail CCW Holders If They Enter Jersey | The Daily Caller: WASHINGTON —

“Throw’em into prison for five years” is what New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez wants for any out-of-state concealed carry permit holder who enter his state with a firearm.
 “People violate our law — we are a state that has decided that we are against concealed carry weapons. We have stronger gun laws. We believe we have made the states safer as that,” Menendez told The Daily Caller Thursday. “They violate our laws, then whatever is the law, and they are found guilty of it, they should pay the consequence.”

 When pressed about travelers with concealed carry permits who may be detoured into his state by accident, he replied: “They know what our state’s law is. They should know what our state law is if they want to carry a concealed weapon. I don’t think that they just simply get detoured and they should think in advance when they are traveling.”

 He continued, “I find it amazing that Republicans who believe in state rights all of a sudden have a problem observing the state rights of those states that think that stronger gun laws is the way to protect citizens and that’s what I have to say about it.”


 New Jersey has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country. Its state troopers are known to pull over drivers and question them on whether they are carrying concealed firearms.  Unfortunately, some out-of-state travelers are not aware that the Concealed Handgun Licences issued in their home state are not recognized in New Jersey .. so when the drivers answer truthfully, they are arrested.  Their firearms confiscated.  And they may find themselves in jail.

In the New England States, the borders seem to be amorphous; drivers from one state assume that they are still "home", even though they may have unwittingly crossed a state line.  It is possible there to drive for one hour and find yourself having entered three states.

And they assume that the freedoms they enjoy "locally" are recognized in adjacent states.

Unfortunately, when they cross into The Twilight Zone which is (for firearms owners) New Jersey,  they are often not only surprised to learn that their Concealed Handgun License is not recognized, but their civil rights are similarly not recognized.

New Jersey is not alone in their determination to deny firearms owners their Second Amendment Rights:  Florida also has made it illegal to carry a firearm.

We need a federal law which recognizes the 2nd Amendment.  We need for all states to recognize this right.  We thought we had it, but we were wrong.

Universal backgrounds checks are just one side on the controversy. 

Universal carry rights are the other side of the issue, and as long as America is willing to impose upon the Second Amendment, we should (all states) pay as much attention to our universal rights.  as we do to our local limitations.

More Wapo Lies

The Washington Post is up in arms (so to speak) about new legislation which acknowledges the Second Amendment Rights of Americans.

The GOP's idea of gun control | Washington Post | heraldstandard.com:

Incredibly, what the Republican-led House appears ready to do is make it easier for people — including those with dangerous histories — to carry hidden, loaded guns across the country. 

No, what the Republican-lead house appears ready to do is to acknowledge the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a weapon ... which is enumerated in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

 The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 was the National Rifle Association’s “highest legislative priority,” so Republicans fell in line, brushing aside the reasonable objections of law enforcement officials about the dangerous consequences to public safety.

No, Republicans fell in line to acknowledge the right (already confirmed in most states) for law-abiding citizens to carry a weapon in all states if they have already been vetted in their home state to do so.

" ...— including those with dangerous histories — ..."

No state in the union will issue a Concealed Carry Permit to anyone with "dangerous history".

All states perform a thorough background on every candidate for a concealed carry permit'; nobody who has a criminal history will ever be issued a Concealed Carry Permit, in any state, if the candidate fails the background check.

There is no reason for the Washington Post to lie about this; they have a professional staff of researchers who can readily identify the process for allocating Concealed Carry Licences at both the state and (now) the national level.

The Washington Post lies about this because they choose to.

They are (apparently) politically against issuance of a firearms carry license to anyone, and they have obviously chosen to lie in order to ramp up public resistance to the new process.

Criminals ... those previously convicted of a crime ... are not likely to be missed in the vetting process.   EVERYONE who wishes to purchase a firearm from a legitimate dealer must be vetted by the current process to determine that purchases of firearms are not felons or otherwise forbidden to own firearms.

Of course, criminals who get their firearms from folks who steal guns and sell them on the black market will not go through this process; they never have.   When they do, they are committing another crime.    There's nothing new about this.

And when WaPo lies about the new effort to support America's First Freedom (the Second Amendment), they perform a disservice to the American people.

Most states have laws which permit individuals with no criminal background to carry a concealed weapon; this is what WaPo calls permission to  carry hidden, loaded guns across the country.

Their choice of verbiage is loaded to describe a legal process, but to express it in the most negative terminology possible.   Criminals already do this; under this new national law, honest people can protect themselves without the risk of running afoul of the widely varying laws of individual states;  all states will have the same standard, so if you are legally permitted to carry a concealed firearm in Florida, you may also do so in Washington.

This law merely standardizes laws so that honest people will not be harassed during interstate travel.
There is nothing dishonest, nefarious nor shameful in this law.

What is dishonest, nefarious and shameful is the way that the Washington Post has chosen to blacken its name before it is officially enacted.

It's Not Guns ... It's Men!

It's not guns, it's men. 

(Do not say "WHEW!" yet)


The Greenfield (MA) Recorder has an opinion article by Rob Okun which announces that the problem with violence in America might not be guns; he posits that the problem is Men.

My Turn: Men, we can, and should, do better:

... there’s a common denominator among all of the shooters that we in the pro-feminist men’s movement are blue in the face from shouting from the rooftops for decades: They’re all men.

Well, he may have a point there.  I don't know anything about the "Pro-feminist men's movement", and I haven't seen a whole lot of blue-faced guys at pistol matches for the past .. oh, I don't know ... THIRTY YEARS! 

But he may still have a point.
After all, how many mass shootings are committed by women?

Zero?  (Ignoring that the person who provided guns for the Colorado school shootings was a woman.   Women as enablers?  Who knew?)

(Almost everyone!)

I suppose it's legitimate to posit that women are more likely to be "enablers" than killers in the Pro-feminist Men's Murder Class (Dylan, et al).  Which may not be the author's point, but it's what I get from his writing.  Still,  I'm a bit concerned about this one tiny point he makes:

 It’s time for Congress to fund the Centers for Disease Control to conduct a study of how boys are socialized, starting with preschoolers. I’ve proposed this to an aide to Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal. Please, senator, introduce the legislation. 

Ouch!

Given that the CDC has been partially defunded because of their biased political stance against firearms,  this is like throwing baby chicks to the alligators;  gobble gobble gobble.   Let us ignore that the CDC lost a TON of funding from the federal coffers a decade or two ago because of their obvious anti-2nd Amendment bias.  The Namby Boys still haven't forgiven the NRA for that.

 What else? The NRA considers most men tacit supporters, and unless they hear otherwise, they have us right where they want us — silent,

Tacit?   Us?

I'm not sure what men are "tacit supporters" of.   I had to look it up.  Most men I know aren't "tacit" supporters of anything;   They are either indifferent, against, or balls-to-the-wall for it.   Life's too short to be "tacit".   And as for the NRA, they either hate it or they pay their annual dues.

There's no crying in baseball, and there's no "tacit" in guns.

Tacit this, Robie.

You people are beginning to piss me off!

You know, there are a few opinionated articles which just cry out for someone to set them straight.

Unfortunately, these articles seem to be (increasingly) grounded in websites which require that the respondents adhere to strict rules of identification.

It's not enough that we have to identify ourselves, we also have to identify the blog website with which we  re associated.   These folks want not only to know who you are, but what Blog Site you support!  Why the HELL do they need this information .. to the point where you are forbidden to post  a comment without giving up your blog site?

Are they looking for personal blogs which oppose their political viewpoints?  And when they identify these people .. what will they do with that information?

*BTW .. as far as I can tell, if you don't  have a blog .. you can't enter a comment!*

Well, hell, every body who know me knows that I'm a easy-going kind of guy.  I don't mind giving out more information about my personal identity than would ordinarily seem to be reasonable just to justify the fact that I have an opinion.

(Sorry,  urping all over my keyboard here ... they need my WEBSITE to justify my comment?)

Personally, I think it's bizarre that some folks are so hoity-toity that they need to be assured their commenters have an actual WEBSITE (read: blog?) before they will accept a comment.

Why would my opinion be more legitimate if I have a website, than if I did not?

Oh, just TRY to enter a comment on these websites if you don't have a BLOG!
The curious thing is ... I only bump into this certification process when my comment is going to be  something like:  "Hey, wait a minute now, this is all bullshit!"

In other words, I encounter this strict requirement to identify my websites where I strongly disagree with their printed opinions; which is to say, "Liberal" websites.   "Conservative" websites don't seem to impose this "tracking" requirement nearly as frequently.

Conservative websites don't seem to give a shit who you are or where you are coming from.  They just take whomever you are at face value.   Are they less fearful

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed this bizarre requirement from Liber websites?

Wishful Thinking? ("Too Much Ordnance in One County"?)

Slate questions whether the Government can bypass the Second Amendment by abrogating the right of law-abiding vendors to sell firearms.

The cited 9th Circuit Court decision that a local ordinance which prohibits "too many gun stores in one municipal locality" (not a direct quote) is a legitimate restriction on the single product which is protected by the Constitution.

The question is whether the 2nd Amendment allows a 2nd gun store to establish itself in the same community where another gun store already exists.

California has decided that ... no, you cannot.

The 9th circuit court has decided that local zoning rules allow a municipality to limit the number of gun stores in a given area does not violate the Second Amendment: hey, you already have one gun store in this county ... we've done our part!

OPINION:

If these were two shoe stores opening in the same county, the local government would not impose an ordnance restricting freedom of trade; But because their product is firearms (protected by the 2nd Amendment, which shoes are not) the locals feel free to impose an ordnance proscribing "too many gun stores" in one county.

Whatever happened to Free Trade in America?  Oh, it's all politics.

9th Circuit rules there’s no Second Amendment right to sell firearms.:

Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to sell firearms to the public? No, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday in Teixeira v. County of Alameda, a landmark decision affirming the government’s constitutional authority to strictly regulate gun shops. The 9–2 ruling is a victory for gun safety advocates who feared judicial aggrandizement of the right to bear arms could invalidate myriad laws governing firearm commerce. The decision may be imperiled, however, if the plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court, where conservative justices are increasingly eager to expand the scope of the Second Amendment.

So ... if the 2nd Amendment acknowledges our right to purchase firearms, can a local ordnance legitimately prevent us from choosing between twocompeting  purveyors of firearms?   Whatever happened to the American right to buy the best product at the best price?

Oh .. it's not constitutionally protected.  And besides, they don't like guns.

Okay, I get it.

Someone put a few dollars in their pocket.  It's all about graft, and not about freedom.

But ... oh hell, isn't their a law against bribery?   And aren't elected officials above all that?

Wishful Thinking!

NOTE: Just a casual set of meandering thoughts; it was NEVER my intention to suggest that local officials have been influenced in their decision!

Appeals Court Ruling:

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a swipe at 2nd Amendment absolutists by ruling that, however one interprets the Constitution’s guarantee of a right to “keep and bear arms,” it doesn’t mean that gun shops have an absolute right to locate themselves anywhere they wish.

(You have a right too keep and bear arms, but that doesn't mean you have a right to BUY arms!)

PS: I hope that the local folks who have decided that the 2nd Amendment is not an imposition on firearms dealers don't think that I'm at all denigrating their high moral position.

NRA, Republican Politicians, White Blood Guilt and Letters to the Editor of the SLC Tribune

Letter: Even with sensible gun laws, it would take centuries to undo the crazy - The Salt Lake Tribune:

For over a decade now the NRA and Republicans who are financially obligated to them have waged a campaign of aggressive pro-gun activism. They have convinced the public that gun ownership is essential to survival. These Republican policies have come to fruition. The chest-thumping, white Americans proclaiming the most important thing to them is their gun have set the new norm of our Republican-run America, a mass shooting every month. The NRA, Republican politicians and all those white voters will have to own this bloodshed.

Actually, the Republicans are not all that "financially obligated" to the NRA.

Washington Examiner: (December 05, 2015) *

... an examination of the NRA's actual lobbying and political contributions reveals it is a relatively light spender compared to other corporations, interest groups and industries.

Which seems as if the NRA is not the big-spender that you seem to think it is.  Look up the stats on the NRA vs  .... oh, say ... the dairy industry.  You know ... cows?  Milk?  *sic

For example, the NRA spent roughly half of what the dairy industry spent last year on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Don't take my word for it; go look it up!

And by the way, where does all that money come from, which " ... financially (obligates) ... the evil REPUBLICANS to the whims of the even-more-evil NRA?

Some of it comes from the $50 a year membership fees for the (reportedly) five million members of the association.

But some of it comes from corporate sponsors:

Cheaper Than Dirt: (March 28, 2013)

Companies often donate money to the NRA to protect our RTKBA. But is the NRA just taking orders from all gun companies? No, the NRA takes orders from the members of the association; the guys and gals who love guns and want to keep their rights. If any group is a “shill” for the firearm and ammunition companies, it would the NSSF, but even that is a stretch. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade organization that represents all of the companies that make up the shooting sports. Their job is to protect and defend shooting industry companies and rights. However, in this industry, the views of the NRA and the NSSF almost always are directly tied if not the same. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” the old saying goes, and what is good for the gun owner is good for the gun industry.

Of course, none of this information will ever filter back to the writer of the letter to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune. ( Theresa Roberts), but that doesn't matter.  Even if she got the information, she wouldn't believe it. Her mind is made up, and she cares not for the facts.

Because Theresa is a bigot.    She knows what she knows, and she doesn't like what she doesn't like. 
Facts are something of a stumbling block for her, so she not only ignores them, she doesn't even bother to do the five minutes of online research it took me to find these references (although I'm not sure she wouldn't take a glance at the Washington Examiner article).
Oh, and here's another factoid which you can take for a lie:

www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-powerful-is-the-gun-lobby/article/2577699

Dec 5, 2015 - "Just what will it take for Congress to overcome the intimidation of the gun lobby and do something as sensible as making sure people on the terrorist watch ... Blue Cross Blue Shield, a major health insurance company, poured more than six times as much money into lobbying as did the NRA last year by ... (see below the fold)

Liberator resistance pistol

I'm appalled to learn that a WWII "Liberator" pistol was "surrendered" in England.

[H/T: Guns.com]

During WWII, thousands of these pistols were air-dropped in England and Nazi-occupied Europe, where the citizens were helpless to resist the German invaders.

There was also a program in which Americans voluntarily donated their private firearms to be sent to England, to help the Brits resist the expected Nazi invasion.  (Never got any of them back, either!)

The Brits wouldn't surrender in 1939-1945, and we admired their pluck.

Once, Winston Churchill declared "We will fight them on the beaches ..."

Once, the Brits proudly proclaimed that "The Sun Never sets on the British Empire!"

Today there is no British Empire and no British "pluck".    The sun has set.

It's sad, but perhaps inevitable, that men get old and "can't get it up anymore". 
It's even worse when an entire culture deteriorates so pitifully.

Liberator resistance pistol pops up during British gun amnesty (PHOTOS):

The first national firearms surrender in England and Wales in years has produced a treasure trove of antique weapons to include a famous WWII-era “gun to get a gun.”
 The two-week amnesty, coordinated by the National Ballistics Intelligence Service, allowed gun owners to turn in firearms, ammunition and gun-like items to police without fear of penalties or punishment. One of the more interesting items coughed up was an FP-45 Liberator pistol handed in at the Folkestone police station last week as reported by Kent Police.

The jobs that Americans won't do ....

I did harvest "stoop labor" during the summers while I was in high school.  These were the only jobs I could get.

Buddy ... this is not really something I want to do.


Immigrants: You Want Our Jobs, Take Em' - YouTube:

Some people are claiming illegal immigrants are stealing the jobs from Americans. But Alyona asks, during this recession when unemployment is high, would Americans really want to do those jobs? RT Producer Ramon Galindo explains if Americans would want to do these jobs and says that only three people took the offer from 'Take Our Jobs Campaign.'