They Really Do Want To Take Your Guns Away, Part 2

One of the favorite words the gun grabbers like to use is "compromise".  This is what one grabber calls a compromis:

"I’d love a compromise, where no one had (or felt they needed) handguns, and hunters and recreational shooters got to enjoy their registered and safely stored shotguns and old-fashioned repeating rifles."

So, ban handguns, ban semi-automatic rifles, register everything else, and that is a compromise? Wow.  And that is not even the most radical thing the author proposes.

Yes, they really do want to take your guns.

NJ Legislators are Douchebags

They are proposing a bill to exempt themselves from the "justifiable need" requirement, making concealed carry permits shall-issue to state legislators.

What douchebags!

     This bill provides that legislators, judges of the Superior Court, and municipal court judges will be issued permits to carry handguns in certain circumstances.

     Under current law, in order to be granted a permit to carry a handgun, an applicant is required to demonstrate “justifiable need.” Justifiable need is defined in the regulations, at N.J.A.C.13:54-2.4, as, “the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun.”

     This bill exempts legislators, judges of the Superior Court, and municipal court judges from the “justifiable need requirement.” Under the bill’s provisions, the permit to carry will be issued as long as the applicant is not subject to any disabilities set forth in current law and presents evidence of successful completion of at least eight hours of firearm safety training.

They Really Do Want To Take Your Guns Away, Part 1

Yes, they actually do want to confiscate your guns:


Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.

Feinstein Introduces a New Assault Weapon Ban

Will Feinsteins bill pass? No. At least not in this Congress, and Feinstein knows this. Here are few facts:

Republicans control the Senate.

Republicans control the House.

President Trump sits in the Oval Office.

This bill may pass one house in Congress, probably the Senate because the Republican'ts are getting squishy, but that will be its high water mark. There are some other facts to consider:

5,000,000: the number of AR-15 owners (estimated). Source:

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/13/owned-by-5-million-americans-ar-15-under-renewed-fire-after-orlando-massacre.html

14,500,000: the number of concealed carry permits in the United States (estimated). Source:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/22/demand-soars-for-concealed-carry-permits-data-shows.html

5,000,000: the number of NRA members (estimated) Source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/15/most-gun-owners-dont-belong-to-the-nra-and-they-dont-agree-with-it-either/?utm_term=.ba91758437aa

81,000,000: the number of gun owners in the United States (estimated).

Granted, there is a lot of overlap between these sets of people, but my point is that there are a lot of people that do not want an entire class of rifles, shotguns, and pistols banned. Why does a smart legislator like Feinstein think it can pass? My guess is that she thinks it cannot, but she is going to use this as a campaign tactic to beat Republican'ts over the head during the mid-term elections.

So sad, but I think she will be disappointed, I do not think that this will be effective as a campaign issue. The numbers are bad for the Democrats on this issue. And I will do everything in my power to ensure that happens.

The members of the NRA, GOA, JPFO, and Second Amendment Foundation will be the tip of the spear, but this bill is the hill that we are going to die on, legislatively.

IT. WILL. NOT. PASS.

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.

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.

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.