Sunday, January 22, 2017

A Movement, or a Feel-Good Moment of Navel Gazing?

Now that the "Nasty Women" have had their march to protest Trump's presidency, it is time to reflect. What could have been accomplished by this stunt, other than helping the ladies feel empowered?  Is it the beginning of a movement, or just a fleeting moment of feel-good navel gazing?

Time will tell, but the recent past is not an encouraging sign. The Occupy "movement" has dried up and blown away on the populist winds, and BLM is in the process of descending into idiocy.

An looking at some of the signs carried by the marchers, does anyone think that these will change the minds of the millions of women who voted for Trump?   Movements convince people to take up their cause, and I have yet to see any proof that the match was anything more than an outing of a Progressive club.

Saturday, January 7, 2017

Misleading Article About Stand Your Ground Law

The article in question is here.  In the article a study is described which blames Florida's stand your ground law with an increase in homicides.  I'll leave the validity of the study for other to comment about. I want to focus on this passage:

"Florida's Stand Your Ground law allows people to stand and fight, including fire a gun, if they feel threatened, without having to be attacked first."

This comment is incorrect and misleading.  To explain why, I must explain the five elements that must be present for one to legally claim self defense, weather deadly force is used or not.  These elements are:

1. Imminence. The threat must be immediate and proximate to your person.
2. Innocence. One must not have initiated the incident.
3. Proportionality. One must respond with similar levels of force with which one is confronted.
4. Reasonableness. One actions must be those that a reasonable person perform.
5. Avoidance. In some states, one must make an attempt to retreat or avoid the incident.

All stand your ground laws do is remove the requirement to retreat.  All four of the other elements must be present for a person to claim self defense in an incident.  It is not enough to "feel threatened" to justify using a firearm to defend oneself.  Doing so would likely land one in prison.

I hate the fact that so many journalists are so ignorant of the law.

Sunday, August 7, 2016

Armed School Faculty in The United States

Some people think that guns have no business in schools. Most of the time I would agree. But what happens once a killer has introduced a gun into a school environment with intent to kill as many people as possible? The Sandy Hook shootings give one example: police did not arrive for four minutes, and did not enter the school until 14 minutes after the shooting started. By then, it was all over, the killer having done all the damage he could, shot himself 5 minutes after the shooting started.

The faculty and staff at Sandy Hook were incredibly courageous. The principal ran toward the sound of gunfire, assessed the situation, and gave verbal warning to saved other lives, before she was killed. The schools janitor ran through the school, warning of the active shooter, which allowed teachers to barricade themselves and students inside closets an bathrooms, saving many lives. Some teachers were found dead with their bodies covering those of children they tried to save.

Five minutes, 26 dead, one person killed every 11.5 seconds.  Here is the ugly lesson of Sandy Hook: police cannot help you. The only help one will have in a mass shooting incident will be the resources that are already on site when the incident happens. How might the terrible incident have turned out if Principal Dawn Hochsprung had something more effective than a piece of chalk to confront the killer?

In Ohio people have come together to provide a solution to mass shootings in schools.  The F.A.S.T.E.R. (Faculty/Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response) program, as described in this article, attempts to provide the training necessary to survive an active shooter incident, and protect children's lives. This is being done now in schools in Ohio and Kentucky, and i have heard of similar training programs in Missouri. It is time for American to stop deluding themselves. Being unprepared is a dereliction of our duty to protect school children.


Saturday, July 2, 2016

Jerry Brown Screws California Gun Owners

I'm sorry Californians, but you been royally screwed once again by your ever so
helpful state government.

Jerry Brown signed six gun control bills that take the states gun laws to a new
level of insanity. Here are the new bills, and a short description of what they
would do, starting January 1, 2017.


This bill redefines "assault weapon" to include firearms that are equipped with
a bullet button. All such rifles must now be registered as assault weapons, and
the future possession and transfer of such weapons is now a felony. Law
enforcement officers are exempted, as is usually the case in California.

Missouri residents: do NOT visit California with your AR-15 and similar rifles.
These are "assault weapons", possession of such is a felony in California.


This bill outlaws the load of a firearm to any person who is not related to the
owner in the following: spouse, registered domestic partner, child, sibling,
grandparent, or grandchild.

If you loan the firearm to your buddy at the range, you're guilty of a felony.


This bill expands the 10 year firearm prohibition to a new midemeanor: making a
false report of losst or stolen firearm.  This is obviously aimed at straw


Senate version of AB1135.


Well, they finally got it: background checks for ammunition purchases.
Note that in California, "ammunition" includes magazines.

This bill requires ammunition vendors to obtain a license, and for ammunition
purchasers to obtain authorization to purchase. There would be a NICS-like
check at time of purchase to ensure that the purchaser was not prohibited. It
seems that potential purchasers must apply to he state to be placed in the
ammunition purchase authorization database, with required $50 fee.

This bill also outlaws mail order and Internet ammunition sales would be
prohibited. Visitors from out of state would be unable to purchase


Here is another one that the gun-grabbers have wanted for years: prohibit
possession of magazines greater than 10 rounds capacity.  No grandfathering, no

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

This is huge: Assault Weapon Ban is Not Favored in TWO Polls.

Read the article here, but this is a HUGE development.  The demon black rifle is no longer universally vilified.  This is a big cultural shift, and is a reflection of ever wider gun ownership and acceptance.  The modern sporting rifle has crossed the divide, and i do believe that the recent efforts of the gun grabbers will be for naught.

Here is the thrust of the Democratic Party: "We want to take your guns, and admit tens of thousands of potential terrorists into the country!" I wonder how down-ticket Democratic candidates feel about that.

The new emphasis on gun control by the Democrats is a confirmation that the party has turned their back on white working class voters.  I hope the Democrats get totally punished at the polls.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Is The Cultural Narrative Changing?

Could it be that the cultural narrative is changing? Look at this article.

"What’s actually been leaving the store, though, are NRA members, specifically new ones. A couple of months ago, at the fall NRA board meeting, the owners of Chuck’s were invited. The reason was simple; Chuck’s gun shop was the Top NRA recruiter in the nation in 2014. Stop for a minute and let that sink in. A gun store in a black neighborhood on Chicago’s south side was the NRA’s top recruiter. They sold more NRA memberships than any other store in the country."

This is in Illinois, folks, just south of Chicago's South Side.  Home of the Gun-grabber in Chief. Things are changing. This is what winning looks like.

Sunday, December 13, 2015

Never Believe That They Don't Want to Take Your Guns - Part 3

This article is a little older, but it is still a call to repeal the 2nd Amendment, or modify it in such a way as to allow State and Federal government to legislate away the right.