NEW NEWS: Harvard Students Are "LIBERAL"!!!!

It SOUNDS as if Harvard were contemplating the inclusion of Republicans on their staff.
But we know that's never going to happen.

Perhaps a couple of  Republican students may be admitted; but that would be just cruel in a student body where they're outnumbered 20,000 to one.

Harvard Student Paper Calls Out University's Liberal Bias, Pushes for Ideological Diversity on Campus | Fox News Insider:

Harvard University's student newspaper criticized the school's liberal bias and called for greater ideological diversity on campus. In an editorial, The Crimson argued that the conversation surrounding diversity and inclusion at Harvard has been dominated by issues of race and gender. "While we should always strive for more conversation that focuses on addressing the unquestionably salient issues of racial and gender identity, approaches seeking to foster diversity, inclusion, and belonging at Harvard should be more comprehensive," the editorial board wrote.

In reference to Conservative Students, would they refer to them using the N-word?

Tucker vs CA Dem on Gun Control Issue .... NOT a "Debate"

There's this thing about a "Debate" where each opponent is permitted to present his position without interruption.

That's how we (observers) get information we need to judge the relative merits of each side.

Unfortunately, Tucker Carlson's aggressive version of "Debate" only allows him to pontificate against his opponent ... which dis-allows the audience evaluate the relative merits of each side.

'You Wrote That': Tucker Battles CA Dem Calling for Federally Enforced Gun 'Buybacks' | Fox News Insider: Tucker Carlson debated a California Democrat who recently called for a law that would institute a government buyback program for "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons" and prosecute those who "defy" the policy by keeping those firearms. (video available at the link)

It seems counter-productive to have a debate where the "host" brow-beats the "guest"; but that's the way the Internet works.   In an interview with a 'hostile' guest (one who disagrees with the host),  it's all about the money ... websites won't abide a host who loses his debate.   And it's unlikely that Tucker Carlson is willing to undermine his "I'm Always Right!" position just to let a 'guest' get in a shot or two.  (Excuse the expression.)

Not that we all agree with Gun Control people, but they are entitled to have their opinion.  If we don't know what it is, how can we debate them?

The Fox News answer is .. we don't debate them.  We bully them, and don't let them talk.
 Piece of cake!

I expect better from people who speak for "my side".

How the assassinations of 1968 led the NRA to become the lobbying force it is today - The Washington Post

WAPO has an in-depth analysis of the rise of the NRA in the turbulent 1960's.

I urge you to read it, and pay attention to the key events which turned this nation inside out.

Also .. WAPO allows a limited number of 'reads' before they begin to charge you for access.  It may be worth it to you , to keep track of what "they" have to say about the issues of gun control and Constitutional Freedoms.

It may be worth it; they don't charge much, and they always have an interesting point of view, whether or not you agree with them.  See below.

How the assassinations of 1968 led the NRA to become the lobbying force it is today - The Washington Post:

The day after an assassin’s bullet crashed through Robert Kennedy’s skull, President Lyndon B. Johnson wrote a letter to Congress. “Let us now spell out our grief in constructive action,” the president urged in a message on June 6, 1968. Johnson decried the availability of arms to the mentally ill. And he lamented “mail-order murder,” which had allowed Lee Harvey Oswald five years earlier to purchase a $19.95 rifle from a Chicago store and train its sights on Robert Kennedy’s brother John as he rode through Dallas in his presidential motorcade:

for more ... follow the link.

YouTube new policy on Firearms Posting

You Tube is "cracking down" on content which features firearms!

 I don't know what the final version will look like, but I DO know that Youtube has  changed its role of providing a central point of reference for Second Amendment issues (and firearms in general) for many years.

Obviously, there's a new Niche market opening up, one which is not inclined to be critical about videos merely because they content provides valuable information about firearms and related topics.   

But you won't see it on YouTube.

Hunting, self-defense, reloading,  care-and-maintenance, quality comparison between manufacturers of similar firearms ... you name it, I've always considered YouTube my first go-to source of information; both technical and entertainment.

Someone will have to step in to fill the gap, but it will be an uphill climb to achieve the familiarity that YouTube had already achieved.

Personally?   think that YouTube has caved into some pressure which hasn't been mentioned yet, let alone identified.  And I think that same agency, group, whatever will continue to hound the Gun Community and its online resources until there's no "There", there!

It's censorship, it's bowdlerization of America, and it's a not-so-subtle attack on our Second Amendment AND First Amendment rights.

The following page contain links from YouTube which provide specific references the above article:

FedEx v NRA Pricing Program Inclusion

FedEx has released a statement in reference to  doing business with the NRA.   *See below for text*

(Note: Hogg Grunts not addressed here.)

While FedEx "distances" itself from the NRA it continues to offer discounts for "american small businesses and consumers".

Apparently, the NRA falls within their business aperture.

It's impossible to criticize their determination to "...  protect schools and students from incidents such as the horrific tragedy in Florida on February 14th".   

In fact, nobody could ask more, or expect less, from a concerned business in America.

So while Fed-Ex isn't about to offer direct support to the goals and activities of the NRA (firearms safety training, safe gun handling, protection of the Second Amendment),  it is encouraging that FedEx hasn't been intimidated by anti-gun fanatics who would undermine our constitutional rights ... and paint law-abiding, safe firearms owners with the same brush of felons, fanatics and murderers.

Speaking as an individual safe firearm owner who has been hunting, plinking, competing for 60 years (as well as serving as an Infantry Platoon Sergeant in Viet Nam during 1969-1970), I applaud Fed-Ex not only for their rational, measured response, but also for not joining the clan of corporations which would tarnish my service by conflating me with illegal, irresponsible firearms users.

I have a couple of Competition Pistols which I have been planning to send to the manufacturer for Level 3 Maintenance and Repair; I believe I'll send them via Fed-Ex rather than "those other guys", and request return vie Fed-Ex as well.

Perhaps others of my friends and co-competitors will Take A Clue and be more particular about specifying Fed-Ex for their shipping needs, as well.

Firearms Owners need to support those agencies who support our sport.   It's not about the money; it's about the support.

Gun control activist David Hogg hints at Memphis protest versus FedEx:

* FedEx released a statement late Wednesday that didn't mention Hogg and repeated several points the company had made earlier this year during an earlier dispute over its discount program for NRA members. "The pricing program mentioned in some reports is not for the NRA itself – it is for American small businesses and consumers that are members of the association," the company said. The company also repeated earlier statements distancing itself from the NRA's positions: "FedEx opposes assault rifles being in the hands of civilians . . .-Most important, FedEx believes urgent action is required at the local, state, and Federal level to protect schools and students from incidents such as the horrific tragedy in Florida on February 14th." *

And yes, even those firearms which you consider to be "Assault Rifles" need maintenance.  My firearms are used for self-defense, competition and for putting meat on my table, not for hurting people.

Helpful Advice from the Theocratic Republic. of Iran

The Supreme Ruler says we need better gun control in America.

I'm touched that the leader of a Theocracy is willing to provide helpful advice to the infidels of America.   I'm only surprised that he hasn't been engaged in extended conversations with leaders of the Baptists, the Catholics, the Mormons, the Shakers, the Episcopalians and the Muslims who constitute only a few of the many, many religious denominations which comprise the religious leadership in my native country.

The experience might help him to understand why we so vigorously defend our freedoms.
But that's not going to happen, because the Ayatollah only recognizes his own religion.

(Well, that's his job.)

Ayatollah Khamenei Calls for Gun Control—in the U.S.: (CNSNews.com) -

Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has released a statement calling on the United Nations to “seriously” pursue seven “human rights” cases in the United States. One of these is what Khamenei perceives as the need for gun control. “Another case which the UN should definitely pursue is the freedom of selling guns in the US with which so many crimes are being committed,” Khamenei said in a statement published today.

Get your own house in order, "grant" them the same freedoms as American .. and then we'll talk.

We are Americans ... all of us.

Even those of us who don't agree with everyone else.

Oh ... that's all of us.

Nobody Likes a Potty Mouth

The Democrat who said 'F**k The NRA' Is Dropping Out Of NM Congressional Race - Matt Vespa: Pat Davis is dropping out. The New Mexico Democrat who made headlines with his “f**k the NRA” ad has decided to back his challenger instead. He’s doing it to help shore up party unity in the race that’s considered a toss up.

Curiously, in a news release published yesterday, he claimed that his numbers were looking good and that he had received a lot of encouragement from his constituents.

His opponents (in New Mexico?) didn't necessarily disagree with his opinion:

Opponent Deb Haaland issued the following statement:
"The NRA and the arms industry are responsible for horrific preventable deaths all across America -- with communities of color hardest hit by this epidemic of violence. I fully understand the anger many people are expressing, and I share it -- even if I might use different words."
Damon Martinez's campaign declined to comment. KRQE News 13 did not hear back from Antoinette Lopez.

Well they're Democrats, trying to toe the party line (and privately grinning at the curiosity of an avid anti-gunner shooting himself in the foot).

Let's start a new totally unfounded rumor, shall we?

GEEK CENTRAL NEWS FLASH!

DAVIS TO CHANGE PARTY AFFILIATION

Claims He'll Feel More Comfortable as a Member of the "STUPID PARTY

(file under: "Accidental Discharge")

CNN and Broward County

The Gun Feed (thegunfeed.com) has a great picture on their website entry page today:

Parkland Students Continue To Be USED by Anti-gun Fascists

Someone  has proposed a bunch of  gun-control laws (as if we don't already have enough) to suit his vision of nirvana:
.
Parkland students: our manifesto to change America's gun laws | Editorial staff of the Eagle Eye | US news | The Guardian

That’s why the Eagle Eye has come together and proposed these following changes to gun policy. We believe federal and state governments must put these in place to ensure that mass shootings and gun violence cease to be a staple of American culture.

I believe that any effort put forth by our "government" is more likely to infringe upon our Constitutional rights than to support them.  And anyone who invites the Government into our privacy is an absolute dingbat clueless asshole.
Yeah ... I'm talking about You, Guardian!

Ban semi-automatic weapons that fire high-velocity rounds

Civilians shouldn’t have access to the same weapons that soldiers do. That’s a gross misuse of the second amendment.

These weapons were designed for dealing death: not to animals or targets, but to other human beings. The fact that they can be bought by the public does not promote domestic tranquility. Rather, their availability puts us into the kind of danger faced by men and women trapped in war zones

WHY shouldn't  Civilians have the same weapons (and ammunition) as soldiers do?  In America, we revolted against British Rule by arming ourselves with the same arms and ammunition as our oppressors used .. and we kicked their asses!

Sorry .. are you British?  Did I offend you?

Terms not defined.  And yes ... assuming that all semi-auto weapons fire "high velocity rounds",  this probably defines the weapons which people who are attacked would choose to defend themselves.  It's difficult do carry on a dialogue with someone who is entirely CLUELESS about the technicalities of the subject.

Moving on ....

This situation reflects a failure of our government. It must be corrected to ensure the safety of those guaranteed the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"Our Government" is rife with failures.  It sounds naive to expect Our Government to accept responsibility for our individual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The police are not responsible for our safety.  Look it up ... they just enforce the law, and clean up the mess "after".  They don't protect, whatever the chi-chi motto is painted on their patrol cars.

"Our Government" has chosen to NOT accept this responsibility. 

High-capacity magazines played a huge role in the shooting at our school. In only 10 minutes, 17 people were killed, and 17 others were injured. This is unacceptable.
That’s why we believe that bump stocks, high-capacity magazines and similar accessories that simulate the effect of military-grade automatic weapons should be banned.

If you were attacked by a number of people and weren't very good at shooting .. wouldn't you want a lot of ammunition to defend yourself?

This is a "Second Amendment" nation.  We hold these truths to be self-evident .. unlike the British whose truths are all wrapped up in gauze and tape.  

Establish a database of gun sales and universal background checks

We believe that there should be a database recording which guns are sold in the United States, to whom, and of what caliber and capacity they are.

That makes it very easy for the government which you don't expect to protect you  to take your guns away from you.  Are you SURE this is what you want?

You offer no reason why you would want your government to have such a Draconian control over you.  You sound like a person who trusts anonymous elected officials to be more caring about your health than you are.  Don't you think you are the best person to decide how you should be protected?

Just as the department of Just as the department of motor vehicles has a database of license plates and car owners, the Department of Defense should have a database of 
















gun serial numbers and gun owners. This data should be paired with infractions of gun laws, past criminal offenses and the status of the gun owner’s mental health and physical capability.Together with universal background checks, this system would help law enforcement stop a potentially dangerous person before they commit a gun crime.the Department of Defense should have a database of gun serial numbers and gun owners. This data should be paired with infractions of gun laws, past criminal offenses and the status of the gun owner’s mental health and physical capability.Change privacy laws to allow mental healthcare providers to communicate with law enforcementUm ... this is just ignorance on your part.
As seen in the tragedy at our school, poor communication between mental healthcare providers and law enforcement may have contributed to a disturbed person with murderous tendencies and intentions entering a school and gunning down 17 people in cold blood.We must improve this channel of communication. To do so, privacy laws should be amended. That will allow us to prevent people who are a danger to themselves or to others from purchasing firearms. That could help prevent tragedies such as the Parkland massacre.Close gun show and secondhand sales loopholes

Why in the WORLD would you want that?
The Government already knows more about you that you would wish ... the only reason for "them" knowing all that crap is so that they can violate your civil rights arbitrarily.


Together with universal background checks, this system would help law enforcement stop a potentially dangerous person before they commit a gun crime.

Thanks to loopholes, people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to buy firearms are able to purchase them at gun shows and secondhand sales. The existence of these loopholes reflects the ineptitude of state and federal legislators.
If we are serious about preventing people from purchasing deadly weapons, we must monitor sales that take place at gun shows and on secondhand markets. This is especially urgent given the danger posed by mentally unstable and violent individuals armed with firearms.

There is no "Gun Show Loophole".
What there IS, is the ability for two people to make a private transaction of any commodity without involving the Federal Government.

Which suits me just FINE.

Allow the CDC to make recommendations for gun reform

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should be allowed to conduct research on the dangers of gun violence. The fact that they are currently prohibited from doing so undermines the first amendment. It also violates the rights of the American people.

The CDC has been restricted in its reportage ... not its research.  The reason is that the CDC allowed it's anti-gun agenda to negatively influence its reportage because they emphasized  gun attacks, and never mentioned defensive use of guns (which saved lives).

Their support has NOT been cut off;  several other sources (such as Harvard University) have come forward to provide funding.  But our tax dollars no longer are arbitrarily used to support a political position which some of us do not espouse.

Personally, I'm grateful.  I hate the thought that my tax dollars would be wasted on a governmental department dedicated to undermining my Second Amendment Freedoms!

Raise the firearm purchase age to 21

If you;'re old enough to serve in the army, you're ole enough to pack a gun.

Dedicate more funds to mental health research and professionals

bunch of crap; the researchers and professinals are more often as bug-house nuts and their patients.

Increase funding for school security

Our children are our future.  They should be protected against any threat.
No effort is too expensive, no defense is too radical.  

Fear Mongers R (not) US!

The Limeys have their knickers in a knot because Americans are being terrorized by the National Rifle Association.

'The NRA are fearmongers': students excoriate gun group and politicians' lack of action | US news | The Guardian: Students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school accused the National Rifle Association on Sunday of exploiting people’s fears to sell weapons and criticized the Trump administration for its stuttering response to last month’s gun rampage in Florida, which left 14 of their peers and three teachers dead.

Actually, the NRA doesn't sell weapons.

Those who libel shooters are generally timid folks.  They see danger in situations which have nothing to do with them, except in their own minds.   They live in protected environments, stay in their high-rise apartments, and email to their publishers opinions on subjects which they are poorly qualified to evaluate.

In my PERSONAL opinion, a bunch of teenagers who have recently been traumatized by a terrible act of violence are inclined to react emotionally, given the slightest bit of encouragement from Liberal News Networks. 

I don't criticize the teenagers who have reacted emotionally to a horrible experience. 

But I DO blame the Liberal Press for taking advantage of a malleable group of victims to buoy the Liberal Anti-gun agenda.

Parkland Students; Manifesto: My response:

Parkland students: our manifesto to change America's gun laws | Editorial staff of the Eagle Eye | US news | The Guardian: After the massacre at our high school, our lives have changed forever – so we’re proposing these changes to halt mass shootings March for Our Lives – live updates by Editorial staff of the Eagle Eye

I very much understand your fear and your concerns ... which are, here, one and the same.

I don't doubt that your concern about private firearms ownership is based upon your horrible experience, and I have no way to respond to those fears ... except to yield my own right to defend myself against similar attacks.   And I am not prepared to yield that right.

You are all very young.  You are not familiar with firearms, and you have been taught to fear them.  And your recent experiences have taught you that this fear is justified.   I share your dismay.

I am not prepared to yield my right to keep and bear arms, because of your fears.  I have my own fears, but they are based on the concern that I may be attacked ... and not "allowed" to defend myself.

I am very old.  I  have been shot at (a LOT!) and it was never my choice.

I was drafted into the army as a young man, not much older than yourselves  I was given a gun (and minimal training)  and sent to a foreign country to fight a war I didn't believe in for causes I did not understand.   A lot of us went  to Viet Nam, a lot of my friends died there, and I died a little bit there, too.

People who randomly attack peaceful citizens are just ... wrong.

I think we will agree with that; it's only common sense.

Well .. not obvious to everyone:
Personal Experience are a powerful testimony, even if their experiences are not universal:

We have a unique platform not only as student journalists, but also as survivors of a mass shooting. We are firsthand witnesses to the kind of devastation that gross incompetence and political inaction can produce. We cannot stand idly by as the country continues to be infected by a plague of gun violence that seeps into community after community, and does irreparable damage to the hearts and minds of the American people.

The Constitution of the United States has wisely acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms is not something that it can 'give' to us, but rather one which is intrinsic in all free people.  So it is with all of the "rights" enumerated in the Constitution, including the First Amendment Right to speak our thoughts without governmental interference.

And not "everybody" who owns a gun is a monster: the paint splatters widely and taints not only the Bad Guys With A Gun. but the rest of us ... who never pointed a gun at a person and would not do so other than exceptional circumstances ( to wit: protection of our selves or our family).

Unfortunately, too many Americans (and people all over the world) have abused that Right, and so we have to deal with the recurring theme of MONSTERS who use firearms to predate upon their fellow men and woman.

I applaud your determination to keep firearms away from those who would do us harm, or whose intention may someday do us harm.  Unfortunately, it's difficult (if not impossible) to predict just which villain may choose on the spur of the moment to use a firearm to attack us.

Or to drive his car into a crowded sidewalk.

Or to throw a gallon of gas into a disco dance floor, and light it.

Or to fly a hijacked airplane into a metropolitan skyscraper or two.

Or to place an explosive pressure cooker along the finish like of the Boston Marathon.

My point is that we cannot reasonably apply laws against gasoline, airplanes or pressure cookers because ... there are too many ways for men of ill will to predate against a sane society.

But there is ONE way which we can use to, perhaps, minimize the effect of "men of ill will" when they attack us; and that is to allow each of us who are armed, trained and prepared to defend the rest of us in times of great distress.

IT IS NOW LEGAL and permissible for men and women of good character (dependent upon a "background check" by civil authorities) to apply for, and be rewarded, a license to keep and bear concealed weapons in defense of themselves ant others.

(There was a time when it wasn't necessary to undergo Special Training and federal approval for an honest man to carry a gun ... but too many Bad Men have appeared in our society, and I guess it's not enough to have lived a frugal life to be commonly known as a "Responsible Gun Owner");

The police cannot be 'everywhere' ... but Concealed Handgun Licensees (CHLs) may be almost anywhere; and you will not know them until they are called upon to defend you and/or themselves. in the event that a random attack may occur.  The police cannot be 'everywhere", but the CHL may.

This is why I caution us to be concerned about comments like this:

We have a unique platform not only as student journalists, but also as survivors of a mass shooting. We are firsthand witnesses to the kind of devastation that gross incompetence and political inaction can produce. We cannot stand idly by as the country continues to be infected by a plague of gun violence that seeps into community after community, and does irreparable damage to the hearts and minds of the American people.

I understand that "mass shootings" are increasingly prevalent, and wee need to address the issue.

(Hey, I've owned guns for 60! years and I have yet to shoot up a university community, even though I live in a College Town and the "kids" in my neighborhood party until down!)

I would not argue against the concern about gross incompetence and political inaction  .. I only wonder what alternative  actions the authors might suggest.

Sadly, they have nothing to offer other than a squeal for action ... which they themselves are unable to propose.

There are three possible methods to address this very real and immediate "problem".

• Nobody has a gun
• Everybody has a gun
• Gun?  What's that?

If nobody has a gun, nobody has the means to defend herself': only criminals are armed.
If everybody has a gun, at least the proposed victim has the means to defend herself
If we just ignore the problem, it will never go away

Today, we are stuck in the fourth situation ... we are afraid to take action, we would prefer to write a law (which will not be obeyed), and we won't even question our options because it's just too difficult to decide what's right.  We can't even talk about it without slings and arrows flying every which way.

We know there are enough guns in America to arm every man and woman and child.

IN THE 1930's We banned fully automatic weapons (machine guns) because ... Capone.

In the 1090's we banned a lot of in-common-usage firearms because it was "politically expedient" to do so.  That went away, because the Assault Weapons Ban didn't do anything to reduce "Firearms Violence".

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was .. controversial at best; not distinctively helpful, at worst.

Today, our legislators are trying to decide what other guns they syhould ban, to reduce "firearms violence".  That has gone nowhere because after you "highly regulate full-automatic guns" all the guns left are "In Common Usage" .. except for this-and-that.


It seems obvious to me that gun-bans are nothing more than wishful thinking, imposed upon the  law-abiding citizens for the political purpose of folks who want to be elected to public office.

It may take a while, but I look forward to the day when gun bans are minuscule and rare because there are no political points to be made by office-seekers who know nothing about the firearms they choose to vilify in the current election cycle.

In the meantime, it seems obvious that any laws which are intended to reduce the proliferation of firearms in the America community will only affect the law-abiding.  Criminals, crooks and various neer-do-wells will ignore the laws, with the resultant effect that only law-abiding citizens whi wish to protect their homes and familislies with rapid-firing, high-velocity firearms with a quick reload option will be banned.  This will inconvenience (disarm) law-abiding home-owners, but the criminals the home invaders, and the bank robbers will not even momentarily be inconvenienced.

I think that I should have the same rights as bank robbers.  What do YOU think?

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?