Featured Post

A Chilling Warning...

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and stree...

Total Pageviews

Showing posts with label Second Amendment rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Second Amendment rights. Show all posts

Thursday, March 12, 2020

Bloomberg's "Gun Rationale"

I had this sent to me by a friend of mine (Thanks again Dan). It's a great, "telling" meme that shows how the pampered, the pompous politicos in our country believe they know better than us regarding our firearms, our Second Amendment rights. They're naive at best, totally ignorant and over the top conceited at least if they think they know how we should live our lives and raise our own children.


This Mikey BLOOMBERG idiot's truly a fool!

My brothers and I were raised around guns. Guns, firearms were tools to us. We'd hunt our game, we respect the power, the limits of our firearms and we managed their use, their care. The first pistol I ever fired was a model M1911, Dad's. I was a very young fellow, well before my teens when Dad took "us boys" to a local gravel pit to "shoot some guns". I remember Dad showing me how to grip the gun, putting my little hands in place the best he could and him standing behind me with his hand hovering over the pistol while allowing me to squeeze the trigger. I remember the feeling when the round discharged. Dad's hand kept the 1911 from knocking me senseless with its recoil. He said I "hit the target" (to this day I have to take his word for it) but either way it was a great education. We each had a shotgun and a long rifle of our own on or before we turned 13 years old. We were "plinking" with bb-guns and .22 rifles before we were given our "bigger" guns. According to Dad our 13th birthday was the day he'd hand us our first rifle. Mine was a Winchester '94. Later, when I was old enough my Dad took me to SeaMart and I paid for my first rifle myself, an old German 8mm Mauser with a shorter, smaller stock. That was my primary hunting rifle for quite some time.

A couple of years later, when I was a scant 18 years of age I was invited and did join the United States Army. In June, 1972, three days after I graduated from High School I was standing in some semblance of a formation at Ft. Polk, Louisiana. Lined up and ready to serve my country for the next three years, at least. Nah, I doubt Bloomberg ever took a step outside of his little, spoiled rich, spoon fed, silver lined life. But, I could be wrong... I doubt I am.

Bottom line, my father, brothers and I, my friends included... we all hunted and fished for a lot of our food throughout our lives and somehow we managed to make it well into our 60's and 70's without being shot by any errant rounds or accidents associated with the mishandling of firearms, guns.

Either way, Bloomberg needs to shut up and quit trying to force his pompous, silver spoon "values", "morals", "life" on the rest of us... IMHO.

MOLON LABE!

#

Monday, March 18, 2019

What Happens In New Zealand Won't Necessarily Stay In New Zealand...

If our guv’ment has their way…

In our country, the United States of America, as long as our government continues their move to the left our rights will continue to be scrutinized, targeted for change, diluted and subsequently destroyed. Leave it to the left, those who wish to disarm us to ride the tsunami of any global tragedy involving the use of firearms. The most recent? The Christchurch, NZ mosque shooting. An event perpetrated by a group of madmen! I’ve copied a url from a comment to the Kiwi Farms website (which, by the way has little, if anything to do with New Zealand other than the name of the site.) The New Zealand police sent a letter to the site's webmaster "Joshua Moon" thinking the site was somehow connected to New Zealand. It's included in a link below. Note the tone of the letter and the tone of Moon's curt but appropriate reply. There’s already rumblings within our borders for the separation of our fellow U.S. citizens and the rest of us from our rightful ownership and possession of firearms. Not to mention the wholesale dissolution of our right(s) to defend ourselves against aggression as a United States citizen in our grand United States of America.

As usual, the global elite, the global left (including members of our own government whose allegiance falls with the global elite) won’t "let a crisis go to waste” in the recent, horrible mass shooting at the mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand. The crisis in New Zealand hadn't ended before our Second Amendment rights were being attacked yet again by our politicos, the global elitists and those special interest groups within our borders who have so much to gain by separating us U.S. citizens from our right to possess and if need be use our personal firearms for self preservation.

New Zealand's government is seeking personal information from global internet sites regarding their citizens. That's troubling at best but it's certainly nothing new. Undoubtedly, all governments across the globe are doing this personal information mining regarding their respective citizens. It's a given, if we use the internet we're announcing our beliefs, our thoughts at the time to the whole world... or at least to those who wish to read them. As the sole "owner" of this particular site I will not knowingly nor willingly release any personal information to the government without just cause (i.e. court order, legal requirement).

It appears there's at least one webmaster who has the same outlook.

Here’s a simple notice on what the police believed to be a New Zealand website that I read earlier today. It’s evident New Zealand’s parliament is ramping up for what appears to be a total gun confiscation and control effort. Expect a more urgent push by those on the left here in our United States of America and those representing the global elite for similar gun confiscation and/or control... in effect, a continuing effort to separate U.S. citizens from our Second Amendment rights at least. The rest will fall later.

Meanwhile, for my KIWI friends who do happen to drop by and read this from time to time. If you're New Zealand gun owners you need to Take Notice!!! And for those of us in our grand ol' U.S. of A??? well, you know what's most likely going to spin off of this tragedy here in our country... it's emboldened the left and their relentless attempts to separate U.S. citizens from our second amendment rights.

I’ve borrowed the link referred to above from the New Zealand Farms website. New Zealand? It's fairly evident judging from the information contained in the official letter to Joshua Moon by the NZ authorities that your government is tracking you. The government's letter to Moon regarding his particular website acknowledges you're being tracked. But, then again every other government in the world is most likely tracking their respective citizens, including ours here in America.

In the end much of this post is in response to gun control on a global scale. In particular, government mining of personal information from the internet much like New Zealand’s government requesting information from ISPs and others relating to New Zealanders use of the internet. The New Zealand guv’ment wants to track and monitor their citizens online activities subsequent to the Mosque shooting in New Zealand.

Why make that tracking any easier for them. Follow the advice give by "Joshua Moon" the New Zealand Farms webmaster.

Oh, and Moon's response was epic.

IMHO of course…

Bwa Ha
#

Friday, April 27, 2018

Black Men Are 14% More Likely To Die By "Firearm Homicide" Than White Men

...Or so the statistics show. So where does the real "gun problem" lie? Is it the gun? The bullets? The police? Hate crimes? Self inflicted gun deaths?

I'll argue it's the culture. As the linked article shows, relating to firearms "black men are more likely to die in homicides" while "white men are more likely to die in suicides". And oddly enough, the figures that established the white suicide rate suggests that 60 percent of all gun related suicides occur in "Western States". This information came from studies done via our government's "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research" database. You can find their link to the information in the article I linked to above as well.

I also believe this study suggests that if black homicides were eliminated from the whole equation our gun homicide rate would drop tremendously. Obviously, we can't exclude those figures from the calculations but I'd suggest some sort of effort be employed to dramatically reduce (in a perfect world, eliminate) all black on black homicides altogether. Though, given our the challenges our society faces today I'd argue that such a reduction would not be a realistic or practical suggestion. Call it what you want, paint any pretty picture of it that you might want to paint but the black on black homicides are not going to simply "go away" via a "gun ban".

If the person in possession of a gun is in possession of that gun to commit a criminal act then that person most likely won't care if the gun he or she is in possession of is "registered" or not. Nor will that person care if the gun is "banned". They're going to use it.

At least one reader of the article, Mike Watkins commented with: "Liberals love to tell you how we should emulate some gun-restricting country, like for instance Sweden, because “their low gun homicide rates prove gun control works.

Come back at them with this: if you remove young urban black male homicides by other young urban black males, from US statistics, our gun homicide rate is about the same as Sweden’s.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT GUNS, THE PROBLEM IS THE SUB-CULTURES WITHIN THE US THAT TEACH THE YOUTH THAT VIOLENCE IS PART OF BEING A MAN."


I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Watkins. One other suggestion that I think should be factored into the study would include those gun related homicides perpetrated by illegal immigrants including those MS-13, etc. folks. Let's factor those figures in and see how low we just might go beyond where the article has our nation at right now.

I'm convinced, given the statistics I've read while reviewing this information that guns are not the problem. Given the varied cultures we've brought into our nation, the wrong people in possession of firearms, their sole purpose of "ownership", their evident intent and their support networks and nefarious incentives suggests the problem lies somewhere other than the "gun" and "legitimate gun ownership". Until we get a grip on our criminal situation we'll continue experiencing this behavior. Homicides will continue to occur and will increase. We need to focus on a solution to the problem, not a politically correct excuse for the problem.

We need to put our "big boy pants" on and admit that our firearms are not the problem, those folks who should never be in possession of them are. We can't effectively "ban" firearms from everyone. We'll only be banning firearms from those who "legally" possess them.

Just sayin'

IMHO
#

Wednesday, April 04, 2018

Washington State's New Gun Law?!


  •  This new Washington State Gun Law is nothing more than a pre-cursor to wholesale gun seizure/forfeiture weeks, months years, decades down the road. We should have seen this coming from our legislators but hey, they got it in and made it happen.
    Rather than write it again I've simply posted one of my comments I left on the site and below...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
     
    "...allows local authorities to confiscate firearms from people believed to pose a threat to themselves or others."
    This is ambiguous as hell. What criteria is used to determine whether a person poses "a threat to themselves or others"? I'm pretty sure the politicos have their definitions laying around somewhere that would address my question but I've yet to see it. I have read several proposed legislation "options" over this past legislative session relating to our politicos providing our law enforcement the authority to confiscate firearms from those of us who have legally acquired them, legally care for them, safely store them and otherwise legally posses and carry them. Judging from what I've read none of those proposed legislative pieces took into account that there's already laws on the books adequately detailing and providing the legal confiscation of any firearm if/when necessary (in this state anyways) in conformance with our second amendment rights. i.e. If a firearm was used in the commission of a crime including crimes against persons or property, threats of personal harm, psychological review and subsequent intervention and more then there's provisions to secure the firearm and hold the firearm until a court order is issued to release the firearm back to the owner or alternatively, a court order is issued to destroy the seized firearm. Let's not get distracted by the "Red Flag" banner. It won't stop there. There's also proposed legislation that would afford our law enforcement to arbitrarily wander out to the neighborhoods, do a "knock and talk" on known gun owners homes and conduct an inspection of the gun owner's premises to ensure the firearms conform to the new "storage" requirements. If not then the suggested remedy would be for the officer(s) to secure those firearms and remove them from the possession of the law abiding gun owner, i.e. CITIZEN. This is absurd, at best. Further there's another tool called a Protection of Abuse order. Personally, I think it has some merit but it also has potential for abuse by the authorities. A "Protection of Abuse" order is a tool used by law enforcement personnel that can be ambiguous and suggests any lower court judge (most any judge for that matter, with some exceptions) can make a decision, issue an order that could proactively be served on a gun owner who's deemed by law enforcement to be a threat to himself/herself and/or others so as to prevent a potential assault on any given citizen. Unfortunately it could also be abused to effectively trump our second amendment rights regardless of what the constitution provides, depending on the intent of the government at the time. Don't tell me judicial overreach doesn't happen... it does. Don't suggest to me double jeopardy is a thing of the past... it isn't. Don't tell me abuse of authority isn't real... it can be and quite frankly it does happen. In the meantime our rights would have been violated, our home's would have been invaded, our property(ies) would have been confiscated in addition to the previous "convictions" and/or charges, whatever they might be. And in the end we've been charged with a myriad of other offenses relating to the alleged "improper" hence illegal possession and security of our firearms. By the time we've paid the big bucks to sue to get our guns back from those who violated our constitutional rights by seizing them we're broke and the guns have either been destroyed or rendered inoperable or retained and farmed out to other agencies via the local "law enforcement transfers" program or otherwise sold at a Law Enforcement auction. Nah, I have a problem with this legislation. I truly don't trust our politicos and I surely don't trust the judges that preside over issues on behalf of the state. Enforce the laws we already have on the books. Don't create new ones just to justify a politico's seat in the local government.
    IMHO of course.

    #

Sunday, March 25, 2018

The Government's Use Of Anti-Terrorism Laws...

They're in place for our protection. They're there for the protection of our republic, our very existence yet we find them being used more and more against those of us who might have differences of opinions with our government rather than harboring any terrorist inclinations whatsoever.

Yes, those "anti-terrorism laws" are on the books and are being used against us. It's a subtle use for now but things will most likely change given the nationwide push to restrict or even abolish our Second Amendment rights, at least. The push to seize our guns, to restrict our access to ammunition  and firearms components is a HUGE step towards complete control of us, the citizens and the proposed taxes. Given time, the implementation of those proposed additional fees on guns, components, licenses, ammunition, ammunition components will be instrumental in moving the gun "forfeiture" (seizure) effort forward to fruition. Oregon has once again tossed out Oregon Initiative 43, an initiative to the public calling for such a seizure. It's a "limited" seizure for now but it's still a seizure of firearms. When that occurs we'll be a conquered nation, conquered from within by those very people we elected into office who assured us they would protect our very liberties that they've targeted.

Our politicos are nothing more than pawns for their financiers and here's a hint, WE are not their financiers. They're not representing us, they're representing outside influences and their own personal greed.

IMHO
#



Friday, March 02, 2018

Take Our Guns First, Deal With Due Process Second!?

Mr. Trump! I have a problem with that statement you made! Take our guns first and deal with due process later!? I don't believe that's "constitutional"... yet.

But just to be clear Trump, you want to take our guns away first, you want to raise the age of gun ownership to 21 yrs. of age yet, you want our military to continue to recruit and/or draft (if necessary) 17 yrs. old able bodied citizens so they can go off to foreign lands and fight battles?! So what you're suggesting is it's okay for the government to arm those below your magical number of 21 years of age? Arm them and send them off to "fight and/or die" for our country... or someone else's country?

Mr. Trump! I was shooting guns before my age hit double digits. It can be argued at what age I was shooting them but from what I was told by my father I was around 4 or 5 years old. I learned one helluva lot about respect for guns, what they do, what they can do and what they can't do throughout my life. Guns, in one form or another, one caliber or another were and still are always a part of my adult (18 yrs. old, to date) employment. I owned my first long rifle when I reached the ripe age of 13 yrs. old. A Winchester model 94 30-30 lever action rifle. Before that gun I used my Dad's Model 98, 8 mm Mauser and an old reliable double barrel 16 gauge shotgun. I knew more about handling guns before I was 10 years old than most adults know today at 60 yrs. old.

And you want to screw with our second amendment rights, you want to deprive adult citizens their right to own and bear arms. You want to distort the legal age to fit your preferences.

Go to Hell Trump. Go to Hell! I see both sides of that mouth of yours working now and I'm not good to go with that b.s. We have no choice but to ride your term(s) out until we can find a real conservative who won't sell us out for a favor or whatever but hey, there's one out there somewhere. We'll find him or her.

In the meantime leave our Second Amendment rights alone! And also understand that a 18 yrs. old person is legally considered an Adult. Do the math, that's three years younger than your 21 year cut off... but that's still legally an adult. At that age (or actually 17 years old) they can die for us at our nation's whim.

Here's a bit more re: Trump's bad idea! It's what we, as citizens are constantly struggling with those on the left about... and now, it appears we have to struggle with Donald J. Trump over our rights too! I can only hope he was in one of his "flash in the pan" bad idea thoughts when he came up with those idiotic statements!

Either way, they're a bad idea Trump, a bad idea! Don't screw with our rights! They're not negotiable!

IMHO

#

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Some Eye Opening Gun Facts...

I was perusing some sites on the internet and came across this little gem. It's a bit dated but the facts and figures trend the same way, or so I've noticed. I thought I'd pass it along. If you want to do your own fact check/research there's plenty of sources listed in the information that follows. Just Google or otherwise review the information yourself. I've been doing my own review and though dated, all seems legit to me. It's just in need of some more current figures. 

Here's the info:

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict 
guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.

[1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
[2] * Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
[3] * As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
[4] * Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
[5] * Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).
[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."
[7] * Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.
[8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime * Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.

[9] * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed: * States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;
[10] and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.
[11] * Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."
[12] * Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.
[13] FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.
[14] * Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.
1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.
2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport. 
C. [15]Criminals avoid armed citizens * Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.
[16] * Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed. [17] * Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes: * Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and, * Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.
[18] Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection * Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.
[19] * Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.
[20] Justice Department study: * 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."
[21] * 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
[22] * 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
[23] [1] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164. Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology. Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188. Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls -- one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times -- that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997). As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate.
[2] According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.
[3]Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185.
[4]Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185.
[5]Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf on the internet.
The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms.

See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183. [6]Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148. [7]George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93. [8]Id. at 164, 185. [9]Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, "Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense," 


Thursday, February 22, 2018

Darned Guns!!!

Mike Brown calls out his guns and they failed to respond! I guess he trained them well or he bought lazy ones. What can I say, it's a gun control experiment.

Thanks Mike! Great video! It's spot on.

If you're interested in more of Instructor Mike's videos and common sense approach to things hop on over to his Facebook page. Either way this is the same stuff we've been saying all along about those nasty guns. Though Instructor Mike takes it to the next level.

IMHO

#


Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Fellow Washingtonians! WAKE UP!!!

Our Second Amendment rights are being trampled by our state legislators, if we let them get away with these latest laws that they're proposing. I once thought these were all "dead" but somehow they've been "resurrected". I was told most didn't pass committee. Evidently there's been some exception made for them to be reconsidered or not...

My whole problem with the first bill that made it past "muster" so far is not so much about the "inclusion of a charge on a list" as it is the definitions used in the particular charge that they're proposing to be included on the list of charges prohibiting firearms ownership. I served as a law enforcement officer in the state of Washington for decades and I know full well how the definition of "domestic violence" can be so fluidly interpreted and subsequently applied by the court, depending upon jurisdiction and "familiarity" with the "suspect" and/or the "victim".

Senate Bill 6298-2017-18 Adds Domestic Violence to the long list of charges that would prohibit firearms ownership. First, in this state "domestic violence" is very loosely interpreted by the respctive county judges even though there's somewhat fluid legal definitions of the "violation". And the reading and inclusion of the word "harassment" into the state's legal definition of "domestic violence" is troublesome, at best. This first bill up really bothers me because our rights are decided based upon independent judges' own personal interpretations of the word "harassment" and its application to the offense of "domestic violence".  Even though there's a legal definition provided we all know those legal definitions are subject to "interpretation" and are far too often determined to be poorly interpreted by the presiding judge.

Sooo- we need to get in contact with your local state senators and representatives and put an end to this bill. It's poorly written and I'm very nervous about the way it tends to partially hinge on the word... "harassment" and all variations of it.

Senate Bill 5992-2017-18 Concerning Trigger Modification Devices prohibits the modification of triggers in firearms, to include bump stocks. In my opinion it's poorly written and shouldn't be considered at this time, if at all. Personally, I have no need nor do I have any desire to modify any of my firearms triggers but then again I don't compete in shooting events, etc. I'm not going to waste my time posting anything more relating to or following this particular bill.

House Bill 2519 allows active duty military members and honorably discharged veterans that are at least 18 years of age to possess pistols and obtain a concealed weapons license in contrast to the current law that prohibits anyone between the ages of 18 and 21 to carry a concealed weapon outside of their residence. It's a good change in the law in my humble opinion.

Three other bills previously mentioned on this blog were defeated.

They included Substitute House Bill 1122 which was a horrible idea that required all firearms be kept in a safe or otherwise locked up and rendered inaccessible when not in use, House Bill 1483 which allowed for firearms confiscated by or forfeited to the Washington State Patrol to be destroyed. Currently they may be sold by law enforcement and finally, Senate Bill 5441 that would have required a "waiting period" for the return to the owner, any firearms  forfeited or otherwise confiscated by the state under the "Involuntary Treatement Act".

We're definitely not done here in Washington State but the defeat of these three bills helped. However Senate Bill  6298 and Senate Bill 5992 should be defeated as written. Both are poorly written and though I understand the intent of each they're not necessary. We have other laws in the Revised Codes of Washington (RCW) and the Washington Administrative Codes (WAC) that address most, if not all of the concerns so poorly illustrated in the two bill proposals.

Let's enforce the laws we already have on the books! There's no need for the creation of new ones.

Fellow Washington State Citizens determine your legislative district if you don't already know it and  contact your respective legislators and let them know your concerns. After all, they work for us therefore they should be representing us, as a majority. Here's their emails...

A shout out to the National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action for the timely and constant update on these bill proposals affecting our national and my Washington State's constitutional rights! 

IMHO

#



Friday, December 08, 2017

National Concealed Carry. Will It Happen?

Legally I mean.

Although it's a Second Amendment Right some states believe it's their right to deny us our right to carry a firearm concealed while others refuse to recognize any concealed firearm carry permit that's not issued by their state.

Yet it's a Second Amendment Right.

So, will this most recent National Concealed Carry legislation make it through all of the legislature hurdles to finally allow us this one right, at least? I'm sure we can discuss all of the "but", "if", "you don't understand", "it's our right" interpretations, etc "but" IT IS OUR RIGHT and I will CONTINUE TO CARRY CONCEALED wherever I go within personal reason.

So, hopefully the Senate of this Mighty Fine United States Of America will finally do its job in relatively short time and vote to approve this legislation.

Until then? I'm a criminal.

IMHO
#

“There are more than 16 million concealed carry permit holders in America,” explained Gahanna, Ohio Police Chief Dennis Murphy. “That number has surged in the last decade, and at the same time, violent crime has declined nearly in half. Law-abiding gun owners are not to be feared or mistrusted. We should focus our attention on those who commit offenses against others, not those who simply wish to protect themselves.”


Friday, November 10, 2017

PROTECT OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!

Protect our rights to carry! Congress needs to hear from us and we need to tell them we're going to continue exercising our constitutional rights! Including our Second Amendment rights!

The National Rifle Association is a huge part of the tip of the spear defending us against those politicos who wish to strip us of our liberties. Sign the petition here. Let our politicos know how you feel!

As mentioned, us Americans, in particular those of us who are law abiding gun owners are under assault by those politicos who wish to strip us of our guns. This is America and our Constitution is still in effect!

We need to put an end to this seemingly endless assault on our liberties!

IMHO

Saturday, November 04, 2017

Washington State Citizens BEWARE!!! Our Second Amendment Rights Are On The Table...

...again!

Much thanks to the National Rifle Association for their previous support and this "heads up" report for us Washingtonians who care about our rights.

Washington State's Attorney General Bob Ferguson, a democrat is pushing to restrict our United States Constitutional rights in 2018. In particular, our Second Amendment rights.

He's jumped onto the gun ban "bandwagon" (or should I say "ban-wagon") again and is pushing hard for a gun ban! From what I've read and heard he's also seriously considering making a run for the Washington State Governor's position in the next election.

We don't need his and Jay Inslee's type or style of "leadership" anymore in this state. It's time to get the government focused back on those subjects that make a difference to us here regionally, not New York or Illinois or even California. We need our state government's focus to return to the governing of our state, those issues and challenges that of concern to our state, our region our economy.

Here's another article on the same topic they tried to push through last year.

It's not about safety, it's about their agenda and the fact that they (the left, the liberals, the demoncrats) seriously believe they can't be told what to do by us, their constituents. They'll keep trying to ram gun control in this state through legislator until they get their way or until we soundly defeat them at the polls!

IMHO


Monday, October 30, 2017

How about a bit of political humor?!

More from my friend, Dan...

Your failed POS exPOTUS barry pinning medals on his four favorite buds. All of them accused at one time or another of sexual deviancy, sex abuse, etc.

I guess this is a whole new level for what to expect from the left.

                                                                 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Just sayin'. I mean, I have a right per both of thse amendments... ALL of the amendments and I'm good to go with exercising them. Oh, I'll also be good to do with a musket and an ink well and a quill pen if it goes there but it won't happen.

                                                          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Being as how things are shaking out re: the most current investigation of Russian meddling, etc. I'm thinking this little meme can go several different ways. Anti-Left, Anti-Right... but either way we need to get back on track, back in focus and if relevant, charge and prosecute ALL of those who sold our country out or otherwise compromised our national integrity, security to ANY foreign government! If the shoe fits, wear it.
How Darned Timely these all are!


Friday, October 06, 2017

Keith Olbermann VS the National Rifle Association...

...and the rest of us.

Just what the heck does this keith olbermann thing think he is? I mean, no one seems to really listen to him anymore do they? I wouldn't know. I really have nothing to do with the fool. Is he still trying to be a comedian? If so, he's failed at that too. He's a horrible comedian and a failed "talk show" host. I don't think he does the news anymore does he? Did he ever have anything to do with the news?

So who the hell cares what he has to say about anything?! I don't but I thought I'd share some of his gibberish with you. Just so you know, here's his latest lunacy...  "the NRA is a terrorist organization"! 

The guy's so far in the cellar that he has to resort to sensationalizing a tragedy and dragging in the National Rifle Association in a very failed attempt to prove his point. Note the idiot's skewed view of the intent of our Second Amendment to the constitution in his "discussion" about it.

I take it back, he can be a comedian at times. Only he doesn't know it. He's trying to be serious.

What a pathetic excuse for a human being, this olbermann thing.

IMHO

Thanks to Guns America and in particular S.H. Blannelberry for sharing the article referred to above.

Tuesday, October 03, 2017

Gun Control Is Not The Answer

POTUS Donald J. Trump, heed the warning of Steve Bannon. You selected him for a reason. He IS your voice of reason. In light of the recent mass murder in our country.

But gun control is not the answer! after a lunatic, Stephen Paddock shot at and killed at least 59 persons and wounded at least 500 others at Route 91 Harvest country music festival, a recent country western music concert featuring Jason Aldean in Las Vegas, Nevada yesterday, October 2, 2017.

It's a sad time for all. May we keep the families of those who have perished and those who were injured and are trying to recover from their wounds in our prayers!

But gun control is not the answer!

As shown globally... even with "gun control" these mass murders will happen. And they'll be far more damaging, far more intense!

The left are all over ensuring this particular incident become the "poster child" for the left's push to strip us from yet another Constitutional Right... the Second Amendment!

If that happens I'll be an outlaw. IMHO

Pray for those who perished, who are injured and those families who are affected. Pray for our collective souls.



Friday, September 29, 2017

Gun Arrests Increase

Those of us who are illegally in possession of firearms are being arrested. As it should be!

The arrests of those who have illegally acquired a firearm and/or are otherwise in possession of a firearm when they're not legally allowed to be has increased by 23% thanks to Attorney General Jeff Sessions latest orders to those federal agencies and agents enforcing our laws.

This should help remove those of us who are allowed by the second amendment to possess and carry firearms from the scrutiny of the liberal gun hounds and their handlers. At least for the time being.

The bottom line, if you've sacrificed your Second Amendment right to possess, carry a firearm then you may be on Jeff Session's  hit list.

I'm not on the hit list. Not anymore. I never legally was on the guv'ment's hit list. The liberals have left the building.

At least for now.

Thanks for sharing this Dan! It's good info.

IMHO

Sunday, July 09, 2017

This Noise Suppressor On Firearms Makes Total Sense To Me...

 I've been shooting guns since the Good Lord know when. I've been wearing inadequate ear protection over the same period of time. Noise suppressors on guns would have prevented the bulk of my hearing loss over time. Granted some of the gun noises couldn't be all that well planned in advance, hence... no ear protection but when we've been shooting all of our lives those ears, that hearing is going to dim over the years.

But suppressors? Yeah. They'd have made a difference for sure.

My good friend Dan from Montana sent me this link. I've been following proposed legislation throughout the United States regarding suppressors on firearms and am wholly in favor of using them (suppressors AND firearms).

It's just common sense to suppress the noise.

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that suppressed firearms are more dangerous or nefarious than non suppressed firearms. Nothing at all. 

Sunday, June 18, 2017

The "Hearing Protection Act" and our firearms!

Thanks to Dan Thares for sharing this information with me. You can find Dan on Facebook if you're one of those who use Facebook. Hit him up with a friend's request and go from there. Dan and I used to share a lot of comments, articles and information on Facebook when I was there. Today we do it via email.

Here's what he sent me...

The "Hearing Protection Act" provision was added to the much larger Natural Resources Bill on June 14th.

We need to ensure this gets through congress with an approval. It addresses the protection and preservation of hearing for those of us who have some semblance of hearing left and those generations who follow ours. Suppressors suppress sound. If I had access to suppressors when I was younger I'd have used them personally and throughout my career.

If I did I'd still have most, if not all of my hearing to this day.

The article in The Truth About Guns discusses some topics very near and dear to those of us who believe in preserving what's left of our hearing, our ability to hear AND our gun rights. If you're a gun owner, understand our Second Amendment rights (at least), believe in our country and want to protect, preserve it AND your hearing while exercising your second amendment rights then you'll know what we're talking about.

Also, while you're over at the Truth About Guns site give it a good read and sign on if you get the urge. It's good information. Great folks!

IMHO