Saturday, November 25, 2017

A Horrifying Reminder That Church Shootings Don't Happen...

...only in the United States. What else but people armed with firearms could have stopped such a methodical and ruthless attack?

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Saturday, November 11, 2017

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.

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.