Finger Pointing Is Punishable If The Thumb Is Cocked

Oh my!   If these New Rules were in effect when I was 12 years old, I'd still be in prison!

To summarize; a juvenile was handcuffed and "arrested" because he pointed the wrong fingers at a too-sensitive teacher.

When did elementary teachers become so "Politically Correct" that  pre-adolescent children need to be handcuffed and arrested?

12-year-old boy with autism arrested for brandishing imaginary rifle at Texas school | KUTV: (KUTV) — A 12-year-old autistic boy was placed in a Juvenile Detention Center on Monday after brandishing an imaginary rifle at his art teacher, FOX 26 reports. The 5th grade teacher reportedly felt threatened by the child, identified as David Sims, who was arrested by a school police officer. "She (the officer) just put handcuffs on me and told me I need to go with her," Sims said.

In TEXAS?

Nobody has yet reported whether his fingers were loaded, or whether they were loaded with "Hollow-Point" or "Armor Piercing" fingernails.

Gun Owners React Rudely to a proposal to "take their guns away"?

Besmirching the image of honest, law-abiding gun owners by conflating them with criminals and madmen is both dishonest and misleading.

We cannot tell the difference between a peaceful, law-abiding gun owner and a criminal or a madman, except for their record of arrests.   Smearing the peaceful with the tar of madmen and felons is Not Helpful ... it only flings another torch into the flames of ignorance and Constitutional apathy.
Too often, the authors of such screeds will include not-so-subtle hints that Americans With Guns feel that their masculinity is threatened when faced with a movement for total civilian disarmament.

No, we're only sad that you chose to have such a low opinion of America.

I am coming from a place of passion, but I am willing to compromise. Yes of course, in the churn of yet another school shooting, in the only country where this happens anywhere near as often as it does, I want to make the problem go away. In these all-too-common moments, my most special wish is to make all the guns disappear. I would also, while we’re at it, like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, and the song I would like to teach us all is “Jump! (For My Love)” by the Pointer Sisters.

"... I Am Willing To Compromise ... " 

"... my most special wish is to make all the guns disappear"

No.  Actually, you are willing to encourage the repeal of the Second Amendment for the purpose of advancing your career.   Millions of Americans own and use firearms legally and safely, and have done so for centuries.   You offer no plan for "compromise" ... which is good; because every "compromise" which anti-gun writers propose only compromises the rights of Americans to enjoy their Second Amendment rights.  When will a "compromise" act in favor of responsible gun owners?  

Never yet, so far.  

We have "compromised" our rights so often that it's a wonder that we have any rights at all ... and "you people" still ask for us to give you more.   There is never enough as long as anti-gun people define the word.

The suggestion that lawful gun-owners will over-react (and badly!) to the proposition that "now you want to take all the guns away" .... is another taunt.   Yes, he does want to take your guns away.

Or if he's just another media whore (one will write anything to elicit a response, and make him more marketable as an author) we must admit that he's very good at stirring up public opinion against defenders of the Second Amendment.

The only thing we know for sure, is that any group (including gun owners) will have "bad apples" who make the huge majority seem irresponsible.

I guess Opinion Writers have their bad apples, as well.

The Dangers of Writing About Gun Control in America:

When you write a piece about America’s unique and uniquely deadly gun problem, as I have done many times for Esquire, you expect a few things to happen: gun-control people will applaud, gun-rights advocates will get upset, and your Twitter mentions will be a mess for a few days. But when, in the face of another school shooting, you write an angry one about how you’ve finally had it and now you want to take all the guns away—even if that piece ends up being pretty moderate when you actually look at it—a whole new series of events will happen. In case you’re thinking about taking on such an endeavor, here are a few things to expect.   (See the original article for more.)

It’s the Guns! It's the Guns! (Oh, no ... it's the society!)

It’s the Guns - The Atlantic:

 Only 30 percent of Americans own guns. Thus far, that minority has sufficed to block substantial federal action on guns. But a one-third minority—and especially a nonurban one-third minority—may no longer suffice to shape American culture. 

Note: AND since much of East Coast America is Urban ... the whole problem with guns is that non-urban folks know better than you do. 

  Non-Urban (and some urbans)  have a strong survival instinct (gotta have their guns; but you think it's WRONG), and so people who want to defend themselves get all confused by your Urban Chic!

Ignore the problems with Chicago and Baltimore (non-West cost urban societies) ;

These East-Coast societies account for more than their share of gun-violence; the problem with URBAN CHIC Eastern people is that you have too few  people who have guns. (And you think you have too MANY people with guns?) 

Although they aren't typically shooting each other.  

And you can't figure out why an armed society is a polite society?

The outrage after Parkland looked less like a political movement, and more like the great waves of moral reform that have at intervals since the 1840s challenged the existing political order in the name of higher ethical ideals. The most important success of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, for example, was not to change laws (although they changed some), but to change hearts: to persuade Americans that drunk driving was not funny, not charming, and not acceptable. American gun culture in the 2010s is as blithely irresponsible as American alcohol culture in the 1960s. 

MADD is a *(successful)* aberration, not a sterling example by which we may all measure our societal value.

The majority of  gun-owners who are charged and convicted of murder are centered in Urban societies (Chicago, Des Moines, Baltimore, etc.)  where firearms ownership is typically illegal,

...and you don't see a connection between firearms violence and defining firearms ownership as an "aberration"?  Perhaps you are part of the problem, not part of the "solution".  Perhaps the "victims" should have been allowed to arm themselves, to defend themselves ....

 According to a Pew survey, only about one-quarter of gun owners think it essential to alert visitors with children that guns may be present in the home. (Twice as many non-gun-owners think so.) Only 66 percent of gun owners think it essential to keep guns locked up when not in use. (Ninety percent of non-gun-owners think so.)

NOTE: In Non-urban societies, visitors do not consider firearms to be a threat ... and so, they don't bother to inform visitors that there is "a gun in the home":  it's assumed, that they have a gun in their home.  And often, they have a gun on their person when they visit their neighbors.   When non-gun owners see a problem where pro-gun owners do not .... perhaps the people who own guns and are not afraid of them have something to teach the others.

 Only 45 percent of them actually do it. This carelessness and disregard is taking lives and breaking families. The first step toward correcting a social wrong is opening people’s eyes to see that wrong. America has now tallied still more victims and broken the hearts of still more mourners. It’s a horrible price to pay for a moral reckoning and awakening—but the history of the nation promises that while the awakening may often come tragically slow, it does come in time, with all the power of justice delayed but not denied.

This is not a symptom of "Carelessness and disregard", and it is not taking lives.Possessing and/or carrying a firearms is not a "Social Wrong"; it's a normal way of life for many Americans.  When you see normal firearms possession as "carelessness and disregard", you make firearms violence .... attractive.  

The "horrible price to pay" is  that when a sector of American society consider firearms possession a "SOCIAL WRONG", they are sometimes enchanted by the bizarreness of their action (carrying a firearms .. either lawfully or otherwise) and they cannot resist the temptation to  bring it out and shoot their friends.  You don't see this in the America where possession of a firearms is a normal and acceptable state.

You only see it in places where the Second Amendment is considered an aberration.
It's not our fault; it's your fault for defining possession of a firearms  to be a perversion.
You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves!

You brought it on your own heads.  Now you have to pay the price.  Y'all should just get over yourselves, and quit making the natural priority to defend yourself and your family seem like something wrong.

More Huffington Post Propaganda

An Open Letter From Hunters About Gun Reform | HuffPost:

We do not need AR-15s or any assault-style weapon to hunt game. That’s not to say some people won’t use them to hunt. But they are simply not necessary, and are actually not preferable for legitimate, fair-chase hunting. We believe that simple, responsible reforms in firearm policy are an urgent necessity. Hunting and hunters should not be seen, or used, as a shield against constructive bipartisan solutions. We see the need and opportunity to frame compromise between the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms and the Fifth Amendment’s right to life and liberty.

Actually, the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

Nobody who is legitimately advocating for Second Amendment Rights is using "Hunting" as a justification for the Second Amendment.   The argument presented here is not only facetious, but also misleading.

I have hunted, most of my life.  I have also fought a war, where I used weapons which are not available to me in private life.

This article is not about Second Amendment Rights; it's about infringing upon Second Amendment Rights.  The thrust of the article is that access to various ("non-sporting") types and models of firearms may not be "legitimate" because they are not commonly used in hunting.   And that's just bizarre, because the Second Amendment is constitutionally protected  to protect those Americans who may be called upon to defend their nation in time of war.   (Originally, it assumed that civilians would have the same or similar firearms which were available to members of the Army.)

Personally, I'm not terribly concerned about firearms which are only appropriate for "hunting" (although some of them are particularly appropriate for Snipers).

We need to accept and legitimize that some firearms are appropriate for "non-hunting" purposes.  For example, I have several pistols which are definitely not appropriate for hunting.  Would the author of this article argue that they are not "legitimate"?

"Self-defense" is a different issue; but still, no less legitimate.

Huffington Post: "Gun rights? We don' need no Steekin' Gun Rights!

(Huffington Post Article HERE)

There's a deep and surreptitious movement on the part of Liberal anti-gunners to encourage dramatic infringements on the Second Amendment rights of Americans for the purpose of ... er ... infringing on your Second Amendment Rights???

Outdoor writers' group responds to gun control op-ed from some senior members:
The letter by Ashe advanced an agenda to curb gun violence through regulations that included outlawing the sale of all semi-auto rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 cartridges, a ban on gun sales to those under age 21, and a “no-fly/no-buy” law that would bar those on terror watch lists or with a mental illness recognized by the Social Security Administration from buying guns. Other suggested measures included a ban on bump stocks, mandatory and universal background checks, the institution of gun violence restraining orders and increased federal gun research. “(I)n comparison to the 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who have been stripped of all of their rights, and of life and liberty, it is a small price to pay,” said Ashe in the piece, saying, “There are simple, responsible solutions. No one should use hunters and hunting as an excuse to avoid pursuing them.”

Let me see:

"No one should use hunters and hunting as an excuse to avoid pursuing them.”

This goes beyond the usual "anti-gun violence" rhetoric.

It exceeds all previous proposed restrictions on the Second Amendment. 

Yes, some of the proposals which have previously been proposed elsewhere, and some of the restrictions seem almost reasonable.
But the part about SSA defining "Mental Illness" has already been defined as excessive ... just because someone wants another party to help with Social Security form doesn't mean they are mentally deficient.

"Simple, responsible solutions"?
Neither Simple, nor Responsible.  Only burdensome to honest, law-abiding citizens.


"A Small Price to Pay"?
I think not!


The reference to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is excessive, bordering on Facetious.

EVERYTHING they propose is overly simplistic and arbitrary, designed only to  undermine the Second amendment rights of Americans.

We are not amused.

The Offensive NRA vs "Cave-in-itis"

Americans not only have the right to keep and bear arms, but we have the obligation.

Folks are getting worried that the tide of Public Opinion is turning against the NRA and the Second amendment.  *(See below from Gunmart.blog)*

This makes it hard for us to find the courage to stand up for our constitutional rights.
I have no doubt that our Founding Fathers found it equally contentious to defend their rights; are we not as faithful Americans as they were?

I think that the NRA and its members need to stand firm with their conviction that the Second Amendment  is the codification of a basic human right.

There are a lot of Americans who have no use for their civil rights; but just because they do not value their freedoms, that's no reason why those freedoms shouldn't be defended by those of us who do not kneel to public opinion.  These  people are comfortable where they are, and because they do not USE some of their civil rights, they do not VALUE them.

I went to war ... unwillingly ... because my nation called upon me to perform my civil duty.

Now my nation (in the persons of weak-willy folks who are challenged with cave-in-itis) wonder whether there is an American Majority who thinks that the Second Amendment is passe'  .... whether we should just do away with it and give in to the "popular opinion" that the right to defend our home and family is just a passing illusion.

My ancestors came to this country a century ago (often less) from England, Ireland, Scotland and Germany, seeking to be free.   They were not hoping to defend their right to "Keep and Bear Arms"; they just wanted to live in a land where they had RIGHTS, rather than OBLIGATIONS.

Now it is up to me, and my cousins, to defend those rights.

If we yield to "Popular Opinion", we are no better than serfs;  allowing other people who believe in State-ism to determine how we live, what rights we may enjoy.

You may not agree, but *_I_* believe that the Constitution is the living will of our ancestors, and if we fail to defend it then we again doom our children to serfdom.

The question of whether we fight for our rights, for our Second Amendment rights specifically, seems to be a contentious question this year.   Too many Americans are too ready to give up their rights, because they don't exercise those rights ... and so, it's not an important issue to them.

Don't listen to them.

They don't care about their rights, they just want to be left alone in their servitude to people too fearful that their "permissions" are too difficult a responsibility.  Many Americans don't trust themselves with the responsibility to judiciously "Keep and Bear Arms", and so they don't trust the rest of us with that RIGHT.

The Second Amendment was not acknowledged by the Constitution so we could hunt; it was acknowledged (not granted!) so that we could defend ourselves against a government which had become too burdensome, too arbitrary, to allow us our RIGHT to become Citizens ... not "Subjects".

America was founded in Rebellion to a British King.

In the words an A-rated movie: "I don't  have to show you no stinkin' badges!"

 Neither do you.

We're Americans.

The NRA better go on the offensive, and they better do it now! - Gunmart Blog:

I think this is also going to be the moment where we see what the NRA is truly made of. Are they willing to throw anything else under the bus to passify short term manufactured outrage like they did with bump stocks? Or will they give the gun grabbers the middle finger and say ‘come and take it’ like they did after newtown. Politicians are watching. Make no mistake, EVERY politician in Washington wants America disarmed. They are just waiting for the NRA to signal that they will protect them during re-election before they sign that bill. Now we are going to find out if the NRA itself is the slippery slope that we are so worried about.

"Shotgun Less Lethal Than an AR15"?

Note:  This article is written in terms of "home defense".  The criteria varies for street defense (concealed carry) and for any other defense situation.

I've got a problem when challenged to compare "Lethality"  of one gun type as compared to another gun type;   we're talking rifles, pistols and shotguns as the basic comparison,  and in the rifle class ... specifically the AR15.

USA TODAY Calls Shotgun Less Lethal Than an AR15 - Omaha Outdoors:

In an article titled initially “Guns used in Texas killings were less lethal than in other mass shootings,” USA TODAY meanders from error to error in describing rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Though the title has since been changed to “Texas shooter used shotgun, pistol in deadly assault,” the rest of the errors in the article remain unchanged.

I'd like to talk about that for a bit.

Definition of terms: for the sake of this discussion, we assume that "Lethality" refers to the likely "One Shot Kill" .. whether a person or an animal.

The lethality for animals is dependent on body size and weight.   If the 'animal' is a home-intruder, assume a healthy male of around 180 pounds, and someone who is determined to do you harm.

The variance between firearms type is dependent on bullet size, bullet weight, bullet design; and also the caliber, the powder charge, velocity, and (in practical terms) the number of rounds available to the shooter.

Since we've defined "One-Shot Kills" (or "Stoppage") is the criteria for LETHALITY,  let's ignore how many rounds the gun can fire in x-number of seconds.   Magazine capacity may be mentioned, but it is not the defining criteria.

The advantage of a pistol is that it is easily portable and concealable, and thus more likely to be available in a self-defense situation.   Generally speaking a "big gun" (eg: .44 magnum revolver) is inconvenient to carry ... but much more lethal.    As a "home defense weapon", a pistol offers the advantages of convenient storage, concealability, and ease of engaging a target with little warning.   Pistols (and revolvers) typically allow at lest six shots before a "mandatory reload", and magazines/speed loaders can easily reload in the dark with practice and experience.

Single-action revolvers are not ideal for home defense; the reload speed is unacceptable.

The Disadvantage of a pistol is that most are designed to be 'conveniently' fired from one hand, so it's difficult to have sufficient mass times velocity to equate to a relatively large power factor.  Even the .45ACP with a standard bullet weight of 230 grains is not propelled with sufficient power to maintain a flat trajectory for long.   Fortunately, this is not a disadvantage in the even of a home invasion ... go the range often and practice with the gun you chose for home defense. Shoot until the target is down.

In a home invasion scenario, "point shooting" will probably be the only available option.  Pistols with their short sight radius make it more likely to hit a surprise target at the three-to-five yard distance which is common in home invasions.



The advantage of a rifle is that is designed to fire a relatively lighter (usually) bullet at a higher velocity (usually) than a pistol.   The long sight radius increases accuracy, and also rifles which are magazine fed often provide more shots before reloading that many pistols ... and all revolvers.

The disadvantage of a rifle is the very length which provides an accuracy advantage; it's virtually impossible to conceal, cumbersome to get into action, and unlike a pistol it is very difficult to "point and shoot" with the same chance of getting a hit as is a pistol at its normal range of use.

The advantage of a shotgun is that it combines the advantages of the rifle and the pistol, considering that the shot spreads wider as the distance from the gun to the target increases; that allows the multiple-pellets (sometimes the same or greater diameter as many pistol bullets) to provide a greater  chance that one or more pellets to hit the target ... at distances intermediate between the best range of a pistol v. that of a rifle.  (The effectiveness of a rifle pellet depends on the ammunition chosen:  00 buckshot is "size per-pellet" often comparable to either  pistol or rifle bullets; however, as distance to target increases, the efficacy of a shotgun blast diminishes because fewer pellets are likely to hit the target.

The disadvantage of a shotgun is that for concealment; shotguns are as inefficient as rifles; for long range accuracy, shotguns are as inefficient as pistols.   The advantage of a shotgun is that

NOTES:

Whatever gun you use, practice with it often.  Rotate your ammunition.  If you use a semi-automatic, have several magazines and always keep one magazine "resting" (unloaded) so the spring does not weaken due to remaining loaded for months at a time. (Do NOT keep that empty magazine in your "reload supply"!)  Rotate your magazines .. weekly ..  so you can "rest" the magazine spring in between practice sessions.

Santa Fe, Texas: Resource Officer John Barnes!

The reason for "Resource Officers" (eg: "Guards") in schools is to protect the innocents.

It sounds as if there are still "Resource Officers" who know their duty, and they do it.

Absolute accolades to men who are willing to put their lives on the line.  Hope Officer John Barnes gets a great big BONUS with his next paycheck ... but I suspect that knowing he saved dozens of innocent lives will be sufficient reward to such a stalwart man!

Amid the chaos in Santa Fe, teachers' yells sent students scrambling for safety:

 One of the wounded in Friday’s shooting was Santa Fe school district police officer John Barnes, who was in critical but stable condition late Saturday, officials said. The police chief said two officers "engaged him right away," referring to the suspected shooter. "Our officers went in there and did what they could," Santa Fe ISD Police Chief Walter Braun said. For four hours Saturday, school buses with a police escort shuttled students and staff from the junior high school to the high school to retrieve their belongings.

Step #1: "Have A Plan"

if someone wants to get into a school to create havoc, they can do it.”

During the last part of my tour in Viet Nam, I was "in the Rear Echelons" (assigned to a base camp) where we paid regular visits to orphanages and Childrens' Hospitals.  I met kids as young as 7 or 8 years old who had been "injured".  Land mines (ours, theirs, whatever) took a terrible toll on children who would pick up a toy, only to have it blow up on them.  I met children missing arms, legs ... and parents.

It didn't matter whether the land mine which had taken their limbs were set by our side or the other side ... usually, the children of Viet Nam were delighted to see us because we brought them  food, fruits, candies and other treats.  It was hard to accept that we were sent on these visitation to "win the hearts and minds" of children who were missing body parts,  and who had terrible battle scars much worse than our friends in the company had suffered from similar war wounds

A seven year old girl with burn scars over her chest from Napalm, but still smiled at us, is enough to make a grown man cry.  And we did ... but not until we left their "safe" compoind.

I've been around the world and I've Seen The Elephant, but after all these years I've not seen worse than this.

I was lucky; I never saw children die. And I hope I never will.

Now ... today ... we have American children suffering the same kind of wounds.

But we have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.

Santa Fe school had a shooting plan, armed officers, and practice. And still 10 people died. – The Denver Post:

They thought they were a hardened target, part of what’s expected today of the American public high school in an age when school shootings occur with alarming frequency. And so a death toll of 10 was a tragic sign of failure and needing to do more, but also a sign, to some, that it could have been much worse. “My first indication is that our policies and procedures worked,” J.R. “Rusty” Norman, president of the school district’s board of trustees, said Saturday, standing exhausted at his front door. “Having said that, the way things are, if someone wants to get into a school to create havoc, they can do it.” 

Is This The New "American Angst"?

Have we become a colony of lab-rats who are so insular that we begin to feed upon our own?

Did we sink so far that we have evolved a National Paranoia which inevitably requires us to self-destruct?

I know that any society has its portion of insane people who are so far out of sync with 'normality' that they are not bothered by enjoy wreaking havoc on their neighbors.  Call them Schizophrenic, call them paranoidal, call them crazy ... they exist in any societal group sufficiently large to support  non-productive members.

All I know is that we have an emerging sub-class of people who feel no obligation to support the well-being of Society,  and they are running wild in America.    Their politics don't matter; whether or not they support the Second Amendment doesn't matter.  They will use any weapon, any societal meme, any trick of rhetoric to undermine American society/values/peace.

They have always been here, but today they are given free reign to use our "Acceptance" to attack the  rest of the rats.

We are the rats, and we are under attack.

What are we going to do about it?

At Last, an "Honest" Gun Grabber!.

For those of you who believe Democrats when they protest that they "... don't want to take your guns away ..."


NRA-ILA | Anti-Gun Democrat Proposes Banning Semi-Autos and Going After "Resisters":

The headline of the USA Today op-ed said it all. Anti-gun Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) last week advocated for legislation to ban an as-yet undetermined class of semi-automatic firearms and to “go after resisters” who refuse to relinquish their lawfully-acquired firearms. Lest anyone mistake his intentions, Swalwell followed up with a lengthy NBC News interview this week in which he made clear that his own proposal is a departure from prior gun bans that allowed those who obtained the firearms when they were lawful to keep them. Swalwell said that after thinking “about the different ways to address it … I concluded the only way to do this is to get those weapons out of our communities.”

The Australian Solution (clipped from the above article):

... the government instituted “amnesty” periods, which allowed those who had previously acquired the newly-banned firearms lawfully to surrender them to the government for a fixed and nonnegotiable rate of compensation. Third, and most importantly, anyone who refused to relinquish their formerly lawful property was to be treated as an armed criminal, with all the physical jeopardy and legal consequences that entails. The Australian government also uses a “may-issue” licensing scheme for firearm acquisition, which among other things requires an applicant to show a “genuine reason” for needing the gun. Self-defense – which the U.S. Supreme Court considers the “central component” of America’s right to keep and bear arms – is not recognized under Australian law as a permissible reason for the acquisition, ownership, or use of a firearm.

Chilling thoughts, to citizens of a Constitutional Nation
(oh, did I mention that Australian Constitution doesn't include a right to keep and bear arms??)

How Many Locks Are "Enough"?

Oregon's Initiative Petition 44  demands that all firearms must be kept locked, or locked up.   If your firearms are stolen, you are liable for all injuries (etc).

All of my firearms are locked up.  The locks are on the doors and windows of my home.   I never go farther than the corner mailbox without locking up.   Any more stringent lock-up measures would inhibit my ability to defend myself in my home

Yes, some firearms are locked in safes; others remain available (although not in "plain sight").   Ammunition is typically stored out of plain sight, but not locked up.

Now, the new Oregon Firearms Initiative suggests that if someone breaks into my home and steals my firearm(s), I'm criminally liable for any harm that criminal causes using my stolen firearm.

Where's the justice when the victim becomes the criminal, and the criminal's subsequent crimes are shared by the victim?

SECTION 2. (1) A person who transfers a firearm must transfer the firearm with a trigger or cable lock engaged or in a locked container equipped with a tamper-resistant lock.

Continuing the Bizarre ... a firearms "transferer" can't "transfer" firearm gun without a trigger lock?
How goofy is that?  When you sell a gun, you're not responsible for the actions of the buyer (except that you can't sell a gun to a felon, madman, etc.)   If HE needs a trigger lock, let him buy his own damn trigger lock!

I live alone; I don't need no stinking Trigger Lock!

COULD a minor gain access to a firearm I sell?  (There are no minors in my home; but that doesn't seem to matter.)  Who knows the age of the burglar who breaks into his home during his absence?  There are many flaws in this bill;  there is no allowance for "Reasonable Precautions", because it's purpose is not to provide safety but to intimidate legal firearms owners.

Requiring me to hobble my guns because a minor MIGHT invade my home?   That's madness!


There ought to be a law saying that an intruder is singularly responsible for his own actions.

There use to be; where did it go?

Michael Voigt

I note the recent passing of Michael Voigt, past president of USPSA.

I knew Mr. Voigt  well enough to say hello, in passing.  I saw him in several Major Matches over the years, but rarely had a speaking acquaintance with him.

Perhaps it sounds petty to mention that he never did me a wrong, but he served USPSA well as a President, and I cannot say as much for some other past presidents.  He was an excellent competitive shooter, and I was incidentally squaded with him at a couple of major matches over the years.

Watching him shoot was like watching a butterfly in field of nectar; he floated from one target to the next, and on stages which caused me problems he set the example.  Everyone who ever squaded with Mr. Voigt  wanted to be Just Like Him ... so we shot too fast, and never minded that we didn't get the A-zone hits as regularly as he did;  he Set The Bar higher than we could ever hope to match.




A Gentleman, he would chat with a lowly C-class shooter as readily as the Grand-Masters with whom he was accustomed to meet in his squad.

The competitive shooting world has diminished a bit with his passing.

There's a problem with Gun Control Movements: they don't work!

Honest people with the best of intent have causee more havoc than the most avaricious warlords.

I’ve spent 18 years fighting for gun control. Here’s how we win: 

Eighteen years ago I applied for a permit to march on Washington, called it the “Million Mom March,” and scheduled the protest for Mother’s Day 2000. More than 750,000 protestors turned out on the National Mall. Another 250,000 poured into sister marches across the country. This spring, the March for Our Lives surpassed those numbers. It was a promising sign that the gun control movement is finally regaining momentum after failing miserably to keep Americans safe.

Honest, well-intentioned people have worked for decades to eliminate gun-predation on innocent civilians, and their efforts have proved to be ineffective.  (See Below)

Why don't these heart-felt pleas failed to accomplish their goals?

Because the only tools in their box is to either:

(A) take away guns from EVERYONE, or;
(B) conflate honest, law-abiding gun owners with criminals.

(These attitudes are interchangeable; you can't have one without the other.)

These noble goals are not undermined by the criminals in our society, who are their legitimate target: they are defeated by the law-abiding among us.

And "the solution" as you have suggested is doomed to fail, because just saying "NO" has no effect on either the Criminal Class, or the citizens whose (Second Amendment) constitutional rights are zealously defended by citizens who are as honest and caring as you are.

Here are the only two things you can do to get all guns off the streets of America::

(1) Delete the Second Amendment rights for honest citizens to defend themselves, their property, their homes, their families and their country
(2) Initiate a nation-wide program where police will invade every home in America with the goal of searching out, and confiscating, every firearm they can find.

You will have to perform both miracles simultaneously, of course.
                                One is no good without the other.

The abrogation of a constitutional "RIGHT" will be politically unpopular; any federal lawmaker who voted for such a bill would never spend another day in office, after his current turn ran out.  Of course, if it is "the right thing to do", they would obviously sacrifice their political future to bring about the the measure you favor.
(NOT!)

And how many Americans are willing to go from door to door, merrily confiscating firearms from Second Amendment advocates?    Will YOU?

Criminals will not give up your guns; nor will honest citizens who expect their government to protect their Constitutional Rights.   Have you even read the Second Amendment?

The World is over-endowed with Unicorns who expect to solve complex issues with simplistic solutions; this is just one of many "Dreamer" solutions which are probably not expected to be enacted. but are only proposed as "talking points".

Here's the talk which your proposition generates:

Are you trying to start another Civil War?  Making felons of law-abiding citizens is a great start.

It may have worked in Australia  (with notable exceptions) but Australia was started as a nation penal colony of convicted felons who were sent there as penalty for violating British Law.

America is a nation which started (and won!) a war with Great Britain because they  (the British) tried to confiscate our firearms .. among other grievances.
You may march for any purpose you wish, and nobody will seriously object.  Because America marched for the greatest cause .. the right to Keep and Bear Arms.

We are ANTIFA because we're against people who aren't ANTIFA

The most interesting thing about ANTIFA Liberals is that they are not only rabidly anti-fascist, but they are able to to explain their political opinions so succinctly.

Usually, they define their political stance as either "Uh......"  or "I don't know".

It don't get more "succinct" than that!



(One gets the vague impression that they are against Conservative Thought, which they consider to be Fascist.  One is tempted to define this offshoot of the Liberal as "extremist"  But I wouldn't say that.   THEY might say that, but when they're asked the question they don't always remember the EXACT verbiage which they are being fed from Liberal websites.   Not that they don't BELIEVE it ... they just haven't done their homework.)


It's interesting to compare ANTIFA with the John Birch Society.


See also a less forgiving view of ANTIFA.


(I love my job!)

Can an Elite Education allow you to objectively evaluate Gun Violence?

Harvard's "The Crimson" demonstrates that even the most literate of our Young Americans cannot resist the lure of biased reportage when addressing the twin issues of Gun violence and Gun Control.

After recounting the shock of discovering that his Harvard classmates have become victims of gun violence, the author (ANDREW W. AOYAMA Apr 26, 2018) sinks to the same level of reaction as did the CDC decades ago.   He reports only one side of the issue:

Can an Elite Education Protect You from Gun Violence? | Magazine | The Harvard Crimson:

Hemenway cites the Dickey Amendment as a major hurdle in the path towards a realistic conversation about gun violence. The amendment, a 1996 congressional provision, effectively prohibits the Centers for Disease Control from using public funds to research gun violence. “The gun lobby didn’t like the results of early research funded by the CDC that found that having a gun in the house increases, not decreases, one’s risk of death,”  Hemenway says, referencing a landmark 1993 study that challenged the narrative often repeated by the National Rifle Association: that gun ownership allowed individuals to better protect their families.

Had Aoyama done his homework ... a concept which is apparently no longer taught at Harvard ... he would have discovered that the CDC had been found to be highly biased in reporting the findings of their research on Gun Violence.

Specifically, he would have learned that the reason  that CONGRESS pulled the reins on CDC reportage was that the federally funded research center reported on gun violence without balancing their reports with information about personal firearms which were used to protect citizens against gun violence.   This information had been casually gathered by CDC, but either not as thoroughly researched or else deliberately not reported.

Things Liberals Want You To Know About NRA President Lt. Col. Oliver North

Oliver North is a worthy successor to previous leaders of the National Rifle Association.  He represents the patriots of the Revolutionary War ... those who saw their duty, and did it.

Fortune Magazine recently published a very demure, quite civilized hit piece on Oliver North ... the new NRA president. Here are the Not-So-Fortunate slams:

1:  Iran-Contra scandal 

2: Iran-Contra scandle (conviction ... later over turned

3: long-standing NRA member (Fortune Mag considers this A Bad Thing?)

4: Ran for Senate a couple of decades ago and lost (1994)5: "His Election Baffled Gun-Control Advocates (!!!!!)

The central issues of North's career is that he negotiated a gun deal with Iran (which was not a political issue during the 1980's) which provided funding for the  anti-communist "Freedom Fighters" in Nicaragua ... who were battling to keep their country free from Communist Insurgents by using the funds to purchase arms

When charges were made against North, President Reagan interceded on North's behalf, under the defense that North was acting under the orders of his commander in chief.

That is, he (North) was acting as an agent of then-president Ronald Reagan (who was at the top of the American Military hierarchy.

I don't know if Reagan or North were justified in acting under the auspices of The Monroe Doctrine, but that american National Policy had been in place since 1983 and never rescinded. 

 North was NOT disobeying a direct command of his ultimate superior.   He was not "operating" as an independent agent; he was operating as an agent of the President.

Later, when Liberals grilled President Reagan in Iran-Contra hearings, Reagan accepted full responsibility for North's actions.

It is unfair for critics to insinuate that Oliver North is not a patriot, or a good soldier, because he became embroiled in a complicate military/political situation which was not of his making.  It's also unfair and petty of today's Liberals to denigrate the NRA because they have chosen a decorated soldier who has performed his duties to the best of his abilities ... with honor, and without apology.

Oliver North is a worthy successor to previous leaders of the National Rifle Association.  He represents the patriots of the Revolutionary War ... those who saw their duty, and did it.

And the fact that North ran for high public office and was defeated?  That' America, Baby! 

5 Things to Know About the NRA's New President Oliver North | Fortune:

The National Rifle Association has named Oliver North, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel known for his role in the Reagan Administration-era Iran-Contra scandal, as its new president. He will replace Pete Brownell, CEO of firearms accessory maker Brownells, leading the pro-gun organization in a few weeks. North has already stepped down from his contributor role at Fox News.

Remington Won't Sell Guns to ... who? Anyone with money? Get Outta Here!

Bank of America's loan to Remington tests its firearms pledge | Reuters:

“It’s perfectly reasonable for them (BOA) to say to any borrower, ‘We’re happy to lend to you if you don’t make military-style assault weapons,’” said Ted Gavin of the Gavin/Solmonese LLC restructuring advisory firm. “The lender has all the power.”

But if the lender is too picky about their customers .. they don't have any customers.
And there are plenty of other customers who really really want to upgrade their  product line with another Major Customer!!!!

(Watch for the "Cave-in" on this perfectly reasonable statement.)

Remington Firearms are perfectly legal.   When the "lender" has sufficiently milked the political  issue, the corporate position will shift just enough to accept perfectly legal firearms as a perfectly legal manufacturer's product.

And Remington Firearms can't stay in business if they don't sell guns.  

What other product do they have?  Popcorn?

Because   $$$,$$$,$$$

And banks don't loan money to companies which don't sell product.

Broad Statements Made to Prove a Political Point

Says "The Grime Report"  (sic)

Gun violence has overtaken motor vehicle accidents as a leading killer of young people in the US—second only to drug overdoses, says the Center for American Progress. 

There's no reason to doubt the statistics (which are only broadly stated), but there is reason to doubt the universal validity of the raw statistics cited by the Center for American Progress ... a liberal ("Progressive") website which is quick to blame the Second Amendment Rights of Americans for the tragic and all-too-pervasive slaughter wrought of American Youths.

The Report (see below) is quick to blame the "ready" availability of firearms for the high murder rates of young people on other young people.

Drill down the statistics, and you will see that the victims AND the victimizers are teen-age males residing in cities with an already too-high crime rate.

It's not the guns ... it's the society that is responsible for these high rates of gun violence.

If they weren't using guns (which are already illegal to possess by teenagers in all 50 states, without severe restrictions), they would be using knives.

(Search the crime rates by firearms in England, where possession of most guns are already either highly restricted, or completely forbidden; kids there are slaughtering each other using knives, and the anti-knife laws are as all-encompassing as are the anti-gun laws in, say, Chicago.)

The problem isn't guns, or knives; it's Society!

Young people who grow up in neighborhoods where opportunities for jobs, training and education are often limited because of the already prevalent reliance upon Cops rather that Jobs to keep the peace ... they don't have money, they can't support their families (parents without jobs; crime is too often the best way to support your family) ... and so they turn to crime.

These People who point the finger at "guns" as the source of societal ills, are using these teenagers as decoys.  The community is so busy fighting "crime" that they have neither the resources nor the impetus to recognize and address the economic causes of teen-age gun crimes.

THEY find it easier to look good on the Six o'clock News, making palatable quotes, than to make the really tough decisions about jobs opportunities, psychological support, ans spending more money on job opportunities than on buying Assault Vehicles.

Guns Kill More Young People Than Road Accidents: Study | The Crime ReportThe Crime Report:

See Original Quote below The Fold

Nurses Call for CONSTITUTIONAL Ban On Gunsl

Simplistic, emotional calls for a universal BAN ON FIREARMS are not a solution to the "Gun Violence" problem.

A (group?  consortium?) of professional nurses have made such a call, and while I understand and appreciate their angst, I do not agree that this Draconian measure will resolve the gun violence problem with which they are so personally all to familiar.

Gun rights — Constitution needs to be amended to protect the lives of our patients | TheHill:

We need to recognize that the Constitution needs to be at the center of our conversations surrounding gun violence. Organizations such as The American Academy of Nursing, The American Nurse Association, The American Psychiatric Nurses Association, and the American Public Health Association, have rightly called for a ban on firearms. Moving forward these conversations need to be rooted in the context of the Constitution. Unless we can frame our argument in the context of the Constitution, then we are fighting a battle that is already lost. So, let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work fighting for the right to life for our patients by amending the constitution.

I hope that readers understand that if a ban on firearms should be (unconstitutionally) imposed on Americans, the consequence would be that only police officers and military would be allowed to carry arms.  So much for the rights of The People to protect self, home and family.   We're looking at madness here, where The People have no rights at all when their right to support the Constitution no longer exists.  Welcome to Venezuela (the least democratic state in South America)!


In 1994, America imposed similar extreme measures.    It was an imposition on the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, but Congress agreed to ... "give it a shot" so to speak.
 No, it was not a universal ban on all firearms, but it came very close.  After the ten-year "experiment" concluded, it was determined that limiting access to firearms played no significant difference in the murder rate in America.

The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.

Would a TOTAL BAN ON ALL GUNS be more effective?

There are at least THREE ... and probably more ... problems involved on a "TOTAL BAN":

The first problem is that there are more firearms than Americans in America!

Very few firearms (relative to the total number) are "Registered", because American gun owners are generally disinclined to register their guns regardless of what the local laws may require.   These laws may have made felons of otherwise extremely law-abiding American .. who resent incursions on their civil rights.  They *(we)* believe that our Constitution does not "allow" us to be armed; it only acknowledges a "God Given Right" to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and our property.

We do NOT believe that our civil rights are "given", or even "guaranteed" by the Constitution.
The Constitution merely "acknowledges" our God-give rights, and those rights may not be ignored, abrogated, mitigated  amended or ignored by Politicians.  Our rights cannot, should not, and WILL NOT be undermined by pettifoggers.

The Second problem is that ... when you make felons of armed Americans ... somebody has to go take those guns away from them.

Nobody expects nurses to go door-to-door citing Nancy Pelosi: "Mister and Mrs America, TurnThem All In!".

(She couldn't get the votes, and neither shall you.)

You cannot confiscate all of the guns in America,.  You can't take them all away ... no matter how many U.S. Marshalls are willing to risk their lives many times a day in an attempt to implement your unilateral opinion. 

 Oh, and by the way?  Many American Law Officers support the Second Amendment.

Even those who would support this proposition realize that confiscation would be a life-threatening project.  Not all are willing to make that effort.

The implementation of this plan would be an exercise of "Excessive Force" ... also not a favorite activity of most law-abiding law officers who hope to go home to their families at the end of the day.

And the third problem is that the Majority of Americans are  NOT eager to tamper with the Constitution of the United States.

Even those who find the Constitution "inconvenient" understand that it requires a clear majority of the states to amend the Constitution, even to make a relatively "minor" change of the text ... let alone delete an entire Amendment!

What does it take to amend the Constitution?

The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.

Unfortunately, a "Constitutional Convention" is rarely a popular action, not the least because if you evoke a Convention, then the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is subjected to being re-evaluated.  It may occur that portions of the constitution with which you DO agree may be discussed ... and are subject to changes which you do NOT wish to happen.   It's like herding cats: you may be able to get them moving, but you have little or no control over the direction(s) they choose to take.

I Do Not Think That Word You Use Means What You Think It Means!

Ultimately, this well-intended, pie-in-the-sky proposal has a very good chance of bringing the entire pile-of-bricks which is the U.S. Constitution come tumbling down.    It may introduce a Constitutional Crisis which makes the already complex issue even more caustic

It's probably going to be a rough ride.

I sincerely hope you never who hope and pray for a total firearms ban never get your wish;
I can almost guarantee that you never get your wish ... and if you do, you will regret the can of worms you have opened. Not because of anything *-I-* may do or say, but because Americans are historically very jealous of their rights ... which no other nation has the courage to demand.

This is why we live in America: very few Americans migrate to states where their rights are not acknowledged.

Which is perhaps why so many of those states are Kleptocracies.

What Gun Owners Don't Like About "Universal Background Checks"

UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION!

The thing that ticks me off about Background Checks is that the purpose is suppose to ensure that an individual who buys a gun is checked to insure that he's not a felon, or a crazy, etc. ... but what actually happens is that it turns into de facto registration of the firearm.

(Note that if someone is trying to privately sell an illegal firearm, he's sure not going to do a background check on YOU!)

The folks who respond to your background check swear upon the life of their sainted mother that they are not after your guns, so they don't keep permanent records of the transaction.

So why do they need the make, model and SERIAL NUMBER of the gun?   Their sole purpose is to validate YOUR right to legally own a firearm.

Do YOU believe they don't keep a permanent database?  Oh, perhaps not ALL of the data is permanently reserved .... but your name (etc) and the serial number (etc) are data items they will delete? 

The  Feds are like old ladies who cannot bear to throw away something they might need some day?
And do you believe them when they say:

"We are the United States of America ... why would we lie to you?"

(Notice they don't say they are NOT lying to you.)

And by the way, why do we have to go through a licensed gun dealer to sell a private firearm?  Why can't we do our own background check?  Invasion of privacy issues?   As if the feds aren't already invading our privacy.

NJT got it right:

New Jovian Thunderbolt: Grow the Second Amendment:

How bout getting rid of backdoor registration? Tie gun ownership to gun owners, rather than to guns.  You NICS check a person, not a purchase.  And gun owner they check should be people that are about to own a gun, or might want to in the future.  Does this 'gun owner' have a gun or is about to?  Maybe yes, maybe no.