So POTUS really does stand for "Professor of the United States"

For those who still have the stomach for it, here's the latest helping of "It's not me, it's you" from the POTUS.

Some gems:

U.S. President Barack Obama said his administration is open to some "legitimate criticism" for failing to adequately explain its strategy to counter Islamic State, though he chided Republican presidential candidates for criticizing his policy without offering an alternative.

So, it starts with the notion that someone else needs to handle the problem, that observing that what is being done (BTW, What IS being done?) is not working means you need to offer an alternate idea.  Not that I agree with any of them, but there are lots of people offering ideas, form banning Muslims entrance to the US, to carpet bombing, to boots on the ground.  The POTUS sees none of them as reasonable, hence what he wants is an alternative he agrees with.  Lots of luck!

Again, I may not agree with them and it is clear the POTUS does not, but they are being offered. Besides, it really is not anyone else's job to solve this issue - that is what you were elected for; the smart, intellectual, effete, lecturer is surely not asking others to solve issues for him.  It is more likely he is looking for arguments that can be used to deflect attention from the lack of effectiveness of whatever policy it is he is using.  For instance, extreme focus on Islamophobia helps keep people from noticing that POTUS has no plan for realistic and reliable vetting of those entering the country - while the FBI Director notes that Daesh is quite capable is creating fake passports.  Better to cry and point at how mean someone else is than acknowledge that one is incompetent.

Then he doubles down on the "messaging" notion.

"Now on our side, I think that there is a legitimate criticism of what I've been doing and our administration has been doing in the sense that we haven't ... on a regular basis ... described all the work that we've been doing for more than a year now to defeat ISIL," he said, using an acronym used to describe Islamic State.

This is, of course, the equivalent of those apologies that are not apologies.  You know, the type that do not say "I am sorry I did this" but say "I am sorry if anyone was offended by this".  The POTUS is saying here that he and his administration have not made any missteps in their policy toward Daesh - they simply have not told us the right story in the right way so that we would all believe that they are doing well.  Of course, this is complete BS - it is not the story they tell that is the issue, it is the observables that tell the tale.  Daesh continues to grow, continues to influence, continues to slaughter and our efforts are for naught.  There is an attack on Paris right after POTUS says they are on the run, an attack in San Bernardino that is met with cries for self-defense restriction and persecution of "hate speech".  When an administration says it is taking action, yet there is no objective change in the situation (in fact it gets worse), then it is not a messaging failure - it is a policy failure, a failure of leadership.

The task is to secure our nation and its citizens, not to find just the right way to explain the lack of action. The task is not to make enemies of your fellow citizens (e.g., gun owners and those who think slowing down the process of immigration until the vetting process catches up) but to find ways to protect all of your citizens, all Americans.

A national survey by the Pew Research Center found 37 percent of respondents approve of the way Obama is handling terrorism, while 57 percent disapprove, the lowest rating he has received on the issue.

That, Mr. POTUS, it not a messaging failure - it is your constituents telling you that they need you to step up and do something meaningful.  That something is not to use terrorism on the home front as a means to imposing the restrictions on firearm ownership that you have been pushing for year. that answer is not to try to get tough on Americans, to send out your Attorney general to threaten to prosecute hate speech while ignoring the issues.  The answer to that is not to spend your time trumpeting diversity, but unity.  Those numbers reflect the fact that what is being done is not working.

Now you can, as has been your approach, tell us why we are all wrong, that you are smarter than the rest of us, lecture us on what is important, on how our daily lives look to you.  You know, you can use that style of speaking you like that makes every sentence seem to begin with "How can I put this to you idiot rednecks?".  But listen up - some of us have more education than you and see right through that.  Some of us would like to see you do something other than talk about how smart you are all the time.

Obama also used the interview to criticize Republican frontrunner Donald Trump for exploiting the fear of blue-collar men who have had trouble adjusting to recent economic and demographic changes.

Obama said Trump is exploiting their "anger, frustration, fear."

"Some of it justified but just misdirected. I think somebody like Mr. Trump is taking advantage of that. That's what he's exploiting during the course of his campaign," Obama said.

Here again is where the lecturer shows that he can't see through his own facade, can't see how impressed he is with himself, that he is, in essence, wearing the emperor's new clothes, is clearly out of his depth, is a partisan and nothing more.  It's all "blue-collar men" - you know those dastardly white, confederate flag-waving, gun owning, racist, idiots folks.  You know, the same people he has spent the last 4 years blaming for everything that goes wrong.  But who's in charge? If there is fear, who caused it?

I am not a Trump fan, but yes, Trump is popular because he says out loud what others will not, can not, and have not. But he did not create this "anger, frustration, fear" - that one is on you and your desire to turn the country upside down, your having made enemies of many people by vilifying them and expecting them to just take it.  Trump is simply willing to express the anger when others have not.  It is a POTUS who is willing to divide by pointing at "blue-collar men" (code words - kind of like "thugs") who has created that situation, the fear, anger, frustration.  Your assertions about people who cling to "god and guns", comments about "If I had a son" when discussing a criminal who was killed by a Hispanic male defending himself, among many others, have been the source of those feelings.  Your willingness to set Americans against each other, to demonize large segments of the citizenry for political and social purposes has created this anger - on all sides - from blue-collar men, to Black Lives matter, to Caitlyn Jenner.

Yes, Trump is clearly the candidate of anger.  After 7 years of your social justice war where God-fearing, gun-owning, blue-collar men and women have been blamed for all our society's ills (even though they have been its bedrock for centuries), where they must watch their every word and speak the language of buzzwords and social justice or else Loretta Lynch will prosecute them.  After years of politicians of both parties lying to their faces, people are happy to see a candidate who will say the things they have wanted to but couldn't.

And finally; POTUS - this is from a white-collar, academic, professional, more-highly-educated-than-you, gun-owning, reformed Obama voter.  The fact that reality does not match how you describe it is not a failure of messaging - it is a failure of leadership.  You come across like so many other academicians I know - seeing as I work among them - overly impressed with yourself, condescending to others, totally disconnected from reality.

You have, as a community organizer (or agitator) done just what you set out to do - capitalize on the anger of a given segment of the population. Now you criticize someone else for doing the same thing.

So much wasted air!

So, President Obama talked more about terrorism and our resolve.

"President Barack Obama said on Thursday that U.S. intelligence professionals did not have any specific or credible information about a pending attack on the United States, but warned Americans to remain vigilant going into the holiday season."

Vigilant is good - but prepared to act is also good.  And remember that the Attorney General promises to prosecute anyone who says bad things about any minority.  Situational awareness is important - but sadly the vast majority of our citizenry, including our president, seem pretty clueless most of the time.

"Obama, speaking to reporters during a visit with advisers at the National Counterterrorism Center outside Washington, said the United States had prevailed over much greater threats and would prevail over this as well."

No clear plan here, just a feel good "We can do it".  That's a community organizer for you.  It's a "Trust us" message.  Of course, it is SNAFU.

""When terrorists pull off a despicable act like what happened in San Bernardino, it tears at our hearts, but it also stiffens our resolve to learn whatever lessons we can and to make any improvements that are needed," he said."

Seems to me the only lesson learned was that one should never let a good crisis, a tragic killing, go to waste in the service of their agenda.  The only lesson seemingly learned was "This gives us a chance to take the most effective means of protection away from law-abiding citizens."

There was a time when I was an Obama supporter - voted for him twice in fact.  There was a time when I thought he was intelligent enough to back up his oratory with sound and effective action.  All these years later I have had to admit that what others told me was true - this was a man who was not and is not ready for the task at hand.  He leads the country like a community organizer, divisive, polarizing, seeking to capitalize on the "anger of the oppressed", but with no real plan for dealing with the true challenges in the world today.  He sees our biggest problem as people might say mean things about other people.  He has not solutions or even creative things to try.

In over his head, he is.

They are all wetting the bed...

...over at Huffington Post over sheriffs around the country suggested that legally armed Americans be prepared to defend themselves.

First, this is not new - hopefully anyone who is permitted to legally carry a handgun is already carrying to defend themselves against crime - and murderous terrorism is certainly a crime.  Sheriffs, who are elected officials, have been suggesting this for some time and many are prominent opponents of gun confiscation measures.

As usual, the bed-wetters concerns have more to do with how this advice might affect the "innocent", while they seemingly do not care how the terrorists might affect the innocent, or how disarming their fellow citizens might affect the law-abiding.  Their answers always seem to assert that things are just fine, no need to be concerned about terrorists, because most Muslims are really good people. Well, all terrorists are not Muslims, nor are all criminals.

So while it may certainly be that Muslims are really good people, it is also true that the vast majority of people we encounter on a daily basis are not criminals.  That does not give me warm fuzzies or a good reason not to be ready for those who are, for those low base rate violent possibilities that are out there.  We do not and should not need to profile based on religion; we can profile based on behavior.

Carry on!

CDC and research on "gun violence"

As the haggling over the budget begins, one point that will likely get further attention as a potential bargaining chip is the ban on government-funding for CDC research that will "advocate or promote gun control".  Of course, this ban is often bemoaned among progressives.

It is not at all clear why it is assumed that the CDC would be any better at doing such research than are the multiple private sector organizations who explore and exploit such issues.  The main problem from a research standpoint has been that a government agency is likely to come under the influence of administration policies and when you have a president who has admonished those who "cling to their God and guns" and who has repeatedly praised a prohibitionist model for gun control, you set the stage for such a "research" ban.  Findings are always a matter of what the question is and who is asking it.  You can't insist that your research will be fair and impartial (as science should be) and that "No one is coming for your guns" when you express admiration for the Australian model of gun confiscation.

First, we have to be clear that all scientists find that their work is subject to misuse by those who have an agenda, just like putting any two words together is likely to result in seeing a misquotation in print somewhere.  Hence, although one would hope that CDC scientists could focus on the "violence" element of "gun violence" it is just as likely that such research would be used to propose law and policy based on "gun restriction" as the major approach. [Fill in the blank] violence is still violence, firearms are tools, they are means, not causes.

Frankly, as clinical psychologist who works on suicide prevention, I will note that it is important to see the gun, car, drugs or other means as just that - means to do self-violence.  As a gun owner, I think it is equally important to see the gun part of "gun violence" as a means to an act, not as a cause of the act itself.  If CDC is to live up to its name, then violence is the disease to be controlled or prevented.  The problem is, in these times, there are few of us who believe that the agenda would be that straightforward.

The disarming of America is just what ISIS wants.

The disarming of America is just what ISIS wants.

Time and again - and certainly now that Trump has "trumped" everyone - we hear how any anti-Muslim sentiment that results from generalizing radical Islamic terrorism to all Muslims is just another way to support and strengthen ISIS.  I would not dispute that; in fact, as I have noted elsewhere, it is the goal of terrorism to sow the seeds of hatred and paranoia in the target population, to convince them to relinquish their values in a futile search for security.

But I fail to see how people can see this happening in relation to American Muslims and Muslim immigrants, yet cannot see how they are doing this to their own people as well.  It is also playing into to ISIS hands to hate our fellow citizens and to work to disarm them so as to make terrorists' jobs easier.

I have to ask the same questions I always ask:  Do people really think that if we outlaw certain firearms or make them exceedingly difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain that terrorism (and crime) will simply cease?  Do they really think that they can legislate firearms and hate out of existence?

The interesting thing is to see two different groups on two different sides, drawing opposite conclusions from the same data.

Yes, guns are a major tool in violence - it is not gun violence, it is violence using guns.  No one would claim otherwise.  But one group thinks that somehow violence would disappear if only firearms were banned - if they could effectively remove all firearms from the society. They honestly believe that they can do this (the relevance of the drug war and other such crimes is seemingly lost on them).  They seem to think gun owners who have thus far been law-abiding will cue up to turn in those weapons because they or their leaders say so.  These people often seem to relish the idea of the clash that will occur should they convince their government to try to do this.  They say "If we want to do so, how will you, with your "assault rifles" and handguns, stand against the US military?"  Well, lots of insurgents have done so lately.  These people assume that the military will do this, that millions will comply, and in turn they seem anxious to see bloodshed among their fellow Americans.  They seem absolutely bloodthirsty in this regard, willing to see tanks on their streets and military raids on their neighbors' homes in search of firearms. They do not seem to realize or care that it will take guns in order to take guns. So they are not anti-gun, they just want guns on he hands of government.

Face this with open eyes - a clash will occur, because the other side sees the same data and is certain that laws only work to keep lawful people lawful; they have no effect on those who would commit murder, whatever their goals in doing so.  These people believe that the right to defend one's self and family and any others who benefit from the effort is paramount and they know they cannot transfer that responsibility to a government.  They do not intend to be left helpless simply because some engage in fairy tale; they will fight for their right to live on their own terms.  They will not, especially in these times, willingly give up their means to protect themselves. This is where the phrase "From my cold dead hands" comes from and if those who would assault or disarm them choose this course, then they are willing to oblige with resistance.  They simply want to be left alone to exercise the right that the Constitution recognizes as long as they personally have done nothing to forfeit it.  This is not complicated.

Thus it is clear that those who would, in these times, suggest disarming the citizenry are also playing right into ISIS' hands.  ISIS not only wants to sow hate between Muslims and other religions in America and around the world - they want to sow hate between Americans and one can only imagine the smile on their face when they see the President or a candidate for president, denigrate a large percentage of our citizens and express the desire to create scores of defenseless victims.  But these people are not only insisting on creating large numbers of prey who will be incapable of resisting attacks like those in Paris and San Bernardino - they also seem intent on creating a civil war. What more could terrorists ask for than progressives to create easy victims while inciting a shooting war in their own country?

Hard times ahead.

Dear Hoplophobes - you are putting all of us in danger!

It may indeed be best for us if we do not allow our nation to succumb to fear in ways that are consistent with the goals of terror.

But it important to realize that ISIS's only goal is that we come to hate large groups of people.  It is also their goal - and one they and Al Qaeda have succeeded at - to turn us - Americans of all stripes - against each other in our fear, to see our fellow citizens as the enemy.  One issue where they have clearly succeeded in this is the gun control issue - it is one place that progressives are running headlong to hand them a great victory.

How else can one interpret the behavior of people who, after a violent rampage, turn immediately to blaming their fellow citizens rather than the perpetrators.  No, it is not that evil people did this thing, it is what they did it with that is important. No, we do not know what to do about the evil people who would harm us, so let's just do what we have always wanted to do anyway.

Some people want an excuse to hate others; the goal of terror is to give them someone to point that hate at.  Terror makes conscious our realization that we are, in the end, finite beings. In that state of vulnerability, we seek enemies, to assert our control over the uncontrollable, to blame someone or something.  So some people may become islamophobes, wanting to lash out to assert control over their destiny by inflicting hate upon others.  Some people turn their hate toward their fellow citizens, adopting the agendas they have long held.

So, yes - potentially - adopting an overly zealous approach toward the Muslim community may lead to increased radicalization in that community.  On the other hand, as the Professor of the United States (still POTUS) noted, it is not unfair to suggest that Muslims also stand against those who would hijack their faith and "If you see something, say something".

It is just as concerning that those who have wanted to disarm their fellows find cause to do so in the violent acts of others, that they allow their hoplophobia to put all of us in danger.

Actually, it is more likely YOU will than I

As usual, the mass shooting and gun control mantras are in full bloom.

1. "Statistically, you'd have to think that you or I is going to die in a mass shooting," Pally told host Alex Miranda. "That's really tough to take."

I suppose I am behind the times, because I do not know who Adam Pally is - or Alex Miranda - or why I should care what either of them think.  Must be my punishment for reading Huffington Post.  But this is such a foolish assertion I can't be bothered to rebut it.  Simply read some statistics instead of using the word "statistically" as if you have.

2. "Definitely we need to look at the Second Amendment and amend it and find a way to put in stronger background checks," Pally said. "I don't know who needs that type of artillery, and I certainly don't think that anyone does."

Who does need to be armed is the person who wants to defend themselves and since Adam Pally clearly does not, then he is right - he is more likely to die in a mass shooting.  I may die that way, too - but I would have a better chance of surviving or at least stopping the killing, because I would be armed and do more to defend myself, to equalize the disparity of force he would experience (having no force at all). Adam would cower, freeze, not being able to imagine this is happening.

Years of prohibition, be it illicit drugs or alcohol have proved fruitless.  France, Mexico and California (all somewhat foreign nations) all have restrictive firearm laws, yet France and California seem to be terrorist/mass shooter's preferable targets (and all gun-free zones).  And Mexico - well we know no one is ever shot there.

You can't keep people from streaming across the border (from Mexico, where no one is ever shot), yet you think you will keep firearms out of criminal and terrorist hands with more law.  Read the definition of criminal, of black market, of illicit.  Then you will see that the impotent hubris of such people is astounding.

3. "Eventually people are just going to say, 'Well, maybe we could stop having victims that we have to think and pray about so much if we looked at how that happened.' ... It feels a little hopeless today, but I feel like there's no reason to give up, and people have to fight for gun control," he said."

Many of us have already said that; been saying it and have decided that there is a better way to achieve that end than disarming law-abiding people so that they can be slaughtered by criminals. I, too, think the candlelight vigils and prayers are foolish when people will not accept responsibility for their own safety, when they think the best way to be safe is close their eyes, cover their eyes, and yell loudly. I have always felt that God, such as he is, expects us to help ourselves. Prayers and candles make us feel better for having allowed ourselves to be helpless, nothing more.  They are "right of bang".  In fact, using such methods to decrease arousal is probably not a good thing - we need to be aroused, we need to use those concerns, we need to learn to reinterpret our fears into the survival-based signals they are.  Turning our safety over to God will not keep us safe.

What we need is better awareness to identify threats and the freedom to carry the tools needed to interdict them. People need to read "Left of Bang" to learn how to begin systematically use behavior profiling to identify anomalies in their environment, as well DeBecker's "Gift of Fear" and realize that if something feels wrong, it likely is - do not ignore it, explain it away, and move on. Assess, avoid, attack.

Adam - and Alex - seem invested in imagining a time and place where peaceful capitulation and singing Kumbaya will deter criminals and terrorists who want to butcher you will support survival, where unilateral disarmament will solve violence (that is what laws banning firearms would be - unilateral disarmament). I know that such butchers are cowards, that they seek victims like Adam who are not prepared to defend themselves, that they hunt for those victims in areas where even those with the courage to do so may be disarmed (the cherished gun-free zones). Terror - to strike fear - who better to do that with but those who are meek and helpless - by their own decision.  I know that these animals will not stand in the face of resistance.  I know that, as has been shown before, while they may not surrender and if well-prepared may be hard to out down, when challenged they will self-terminate in some way that can stop the killing and dying.  Better yet, with awareness, preparedness and will, we can prevent such tragedy - but not Adam.

Adam is not prepared for the world he lives in, the world as it has become.  He knows nothing but silly fantasies - he likely will die from some form of violence that he refuses to acknowledge, unless someone braver, smarter and more aware and prepared happens to save him. His belief will be his undoing, just as he predicts.

So many errors it is frightening

Having decided to torture myself by looking at some "progressive" news sources this morning, I found this article on Think Progress - people do love to preach to the choir..

The illogic and ignorance of it is somewhat remarkable if totally fathomable given the source.  A smattering of the folly:

1.  "In a time where it is virtually impossible to keep track of all of the gun deaths, story after story about these incidents notes that nothing is likely to change and that action on gun violence is almost impossible."

The problem is that everything that is regularly discussed by "progressive" media or the president is not really intended to address "gun violence" but gun ownership, gun possession. Their intention is that such restrictions should be codified in law. Yet, violence is not lawful, yet occurs.

There are guns and there is violence.  At times they intersect, but more often than not guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will never be fired in anger or even self-defense, will never be used as tools of violence.  I know this is sacrilege to progressives, who believe that all gun owners are evil and potential murderers, but it is nonetheless true.  If efforts to address violence were evident in these "actions" - efforts that were not intended to restrict law-abiding legal access to firearms - perhaps something could be done.  But as long as guns and violence are purposely conflated and violence is used as a means to a long-time progressive agenda, then one can only hope such progressive totalitarian changes will forever be resisted.

2.  "The same is not true for firearm ownership. Over the same period, Gallup polling shows American gun ownership rates have remained largely unchanged and even a modest gun bill in 2013 fell well short of passage. The threat posed by unfettered access to firearms has never been clearer, so why has the gun lobby and industry in America flourished as the tobacco industry became a pariah?"

"Unfettered"?  News flash - Over 180,000 NICS checks were done on Black Friday.  This shows that not only are more and more law-abiding people interested in legally obtaining firearms they have a right to own (most likely motivated by progressive attempts to "fetter" their access), but also that one does not legally obtain access to a firearm "unfettered".  To call that "unfettered" access is to suggest that acts, like access to prescription medication via legal channels, is "unfettered".  Do these "fetters" mean that people do not use these drugs illegally and come to have them via non-legal means?  No. Unfettered access to both scheduled drugs and firearms is illegal already.

As an aside:  The process of buying a firearms is no more "unfettered" than is access of migrants to the US - according to progressive media reports on vetting of migrants.  If such checks are good enough to allow migrants into the US, then they should be good enough to allow legal purchase of firearms.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH - more whining - cut to the chase:

The author's point, much like one Hilary Clinton has made, is that firearms makers should be held liable for the consequences of their product just as cigarette makes have. Again, this kind of logic can only make sense to a person who wants to ban firearms.

Cigarettes are dangerous, potentially lethal in the long-term, no matter how one uses them (unless they never smoke them). There is no safe way to use them.  Research on their health risks that was detrimental to their sales was covered up. Now, if one is a staunch and uninformed proponent of gun confiscation, then they will will believe this about firearms as well. They will believe that every gun owner is evil and there is no way a gun can be used safely even thought he sheer numbers of owners puts the lie to the notion.  And there is no cover-up - everyone knows that a firearm is potentially lethal - anyone who has watched a western, a war movie, or seen media reports knows this.  The difference is how the user uses it.

Guns are not cigarettes.  They can be and are used safely by the vast majority of users - especially those users who have been vetted repeatedly as part of their "fettered" access.  they can be put to many uses that are not lethal. the right to their possession is enshrined in the Constitution.  The problem with their use is criminal use, is criminal violence in which criminals use them as tools. No one has ever denied that they can be lethal, can be misused. So can knives, cars, fertilizer, boards, fists, and so on.  If we do not hold manufacturers of those products liable for the violence that some choose to commit using those tools - tools that can also be used safely - then the author's logic falls apart.

Hillary, Guns, and So What?

So, Hillary is "going big" on guns (so says Huffpost).

But, as we always ask, is anything she is proposing going to address the issues?  Is there any data that show that active shooting events are happening because of the infamous "gun show loophole" or "internet sales".  Simply look at most recent events and you will see that the perpetrators obtained firearms via legal channels. So, in truth, the only way she or any of her kind intend to address such issues is to limit legal accessibility.  Be honest and say so.

Beyond such active killing events, how do criminals get their weapons?

1.  Some get them via theft.  No, that does not mean they personally steal it (although that happens) - it means that there is a black market of guns on the street that are stolen goods.  A number of such firearms may also end up in criminal hands (meaning hands that could not legally obtain a firearm) via illegal straw purchases.

2.  Notice anything there?  Theft is already illegal.  Straw purchases (that is, for those who do not know, purchases of a firearm by someone who can legally do so for the purpose of then transferring it to someone who cannot legally obtain it) are also illegal.  Surprisingly, criminals do illegal things.

As someone who has bought guns at gun shows and from online retailers, I have never obtained a firearm without having to go through a background check.  And, in the case of mass shootings/killings, most have obtained their weapons legally (Columbine being a notable exception, with Sandy Hook presenting a slightly different scenario).  Why is it that everyone, every liberal, from the president on down, prefers to actively deny that what is at stake here is the nature of the culture?  Why won't people take a good close look in the mirror at what is leading to this kind of violence?  Millions of people own firearms, yet the violence is committed among a small percentage (and as ownership rates have increased, violent crime has decreased).  Firearms have always been part of this society.  What has changed during this president's tenure? Why the rage?  Don't blame it on race, because the shooters come in all colors. I leave that as an issue to ponder.

Business as usual. Nothing to see here.

Not all stereotypes are bad!

I just love stereotypes of men, don't you!

Donald Trump - yes, he's a jackass - gets a hard time for calling Hillary Clinton "shrill" but saying MEN don't like Rousey or Williams because they are intimidated is just OK.

But what if it had been...?

So strange - so much energy dedicated to the terror of active shootings and other assaults in schools - more often than not committed by students themselves - and yet, when suspicions lead to the arrest of a young man for bringing a clock that was mistaken for a bomb, all the usual suspects freak out.

But, what if it had been a bomb and no one paid attention.

Let's face it - you can't count on anything you do begin okay with some folks these days.

Pull up those pants!

This sounds like a great idea to me 'God Would Not Go Around With Pants Down'.

Not so sure I care whether God would want it or not, but there is no rational reason I should have to be seeing people walking around with their pants down around their ass, with their underwear showing.  It is a matter of respect or lack of respect for everything from societal convention to the rights of those to whom you are "showing your ass".

It cannot be comfortable and clearly is not functional.  I always smile when I think of one of the real or wannabe gang-bangers running from the scene of the crime holding his pants up with one hand, with the crotch so low between his knees that his steps are 6 inches long, or else simply floundering on the ground with this pants around his ankles. ]Ranks right up there with having that ear or nose ring I can grab and rip off your ear or nose when you try to assault me.]

Yep - you wonder what's wrong today, why so much crime, killing and so on.  Yep, must be the guns, can't be the fact that we now have a society that is all about what "I" want, even if what I want is to walk around with my ass hanging out.

Yep, there it is: "Weaponized Empathy"

I have pondered for a long time the use of emotional images and the reliance on our better nature to try to shame people into doing the liberal left's bidding. Weaponized Empathy.

Along comes Huffpost and gives what could not be a better example.  Sad and tragic pictures of refugees escaping the mess that their own countries, governments and religion have made and we  - whoever we are - are supposed to willingly invite them into our world where they can make a mess once more.

"How could you turn people who are in such suffering away?"

The left always assumes that gays, minorities, women, and children are downtrodden and thus uses them to gt what they want.  Of course, they are not above killing if the victim is right, but their weapon of choice is to point out Syrian refugees or gay couples being refused marriage licenses as ways to condemn those they do not like.  It is how we have gotten into such a mess already.

How about another? Another?

And this whole damned "However we misbehave it is your fault" is old, too.

"Gun Guy" or "Brain Dead Guy"

End of the day and feeling the need for an emotional kick, so I go to Huffpost.  I always say to myself (Why do I read this - it is such BS".  But is is always good motivation to write something!

So there's Whats-his-name, the Huffpost "gun guy" with another unintelligible something that makes no sense.  Why does Huffpost keep this guy around, except for the fact that he is trying to pass himself off as a gun guy? Obviously on a liberal website, the bar is set pretty low for any knowledge of firearms - I am sure his qualifications are mostly that he is willing to write dumb shit that meets their POV.

well, I'm going to try to write about some of it without blowing chunks, but to be honest, when I got to the end I was not sure what he was trying to say (apparently he wasn't sure either).  In the end, it didn't really matter since, even if written intelligibly, it was ignorant.  It was the typical liberal approach to an issue - make a lot of assumptions (e.g., your opinion is the only valid one), consider them as evidence, ignore shit that doesn't fit and be absolutely certain you are right. Never question your perspective.

His point - at least the one he seems to want to make although he never really gets there - is that governors in states where there are cities with high murder rates are making it happen by expanding gun rights (see - he's not really a gun guy.  But I suppose when white folks can decide they are African-American, anything is possible).  But what about the administrations in those cities?  What about the falling murder rates in many places, perhaps even within those same states?  What about states with similar laws?  Can you demonstrate a causal link?

Case in point, he notes that in Ohio (where Cleveland has a 14/100K murder rate):

"In 2011 Kasich signed a bill that allows Ohioans to bring concealed weapons into establishments that served liquor, including nightclubs, restaurants, stadiums, malls and, of course, restaurants. He really believes in the 2nd Amendment."

But, Brain Dead Guy, did the murder rate go up after that?  Did you look to see what the historical trajectory looks like?  Do you have any evidence, other than you own incredulity, which is not evidence at all, that one causes the other?

Or, let's look at Florida - a state Gun Boy didn't mention - In Florida we have been legally able, for many years, to carry concealed in places that serve alcohol - by law we can't sit in the "bar area" but we can sit in the restaurant and it is not against the law to consume alcohol while carrying (something that is not a good idea - and, oh hell, there will be nightmares and bedwetting from Gun Boy now). Yet somehow we did not get singled out for the honor of space in his incoherent mental meanderings. Why?  Our murder rate in 2014 was about 5 per 100K (which is down significantly in the last two decades, despite increases in concealed carry permits). But how can any of that be?

So, of course, Gun Boy has to end with the usual unsubstantiated snark: "When it comes to your 2A rights, you'll have nothing to fear from Kasich, Walker or Chris. As for the cities with gun violence rates through the roof, let's not worry about a few bodies here and there when the Constitution will be defended by all those armed citizens and their guns right to tell a lie protected by the 1st Amendment's defense of free speech."

Can anyone tell me what that last sentence says? This, in both concept and construction, would be a prodigious accomplishment for a second-grader, but in an adult it is simply unintelligible and whiny.  What lies?  Does he mean the lies he is telling, the less-than-half truths and unsupported impressions?

As with most unsophisticated and biased thinkers, he can only see in one direction - the one that allows him to score what he considers "points".  Most such thinkers emerge in this debate but fail miserably by relying on impressions, anecdotal evidence and, at best, correlation to try to prove causal relationships.  Without a more in-depth analysis, the "points" the "Gun Guy" makes would get him a failing grade in any of my freshman level courses.  It is the type of reasoning that leads to superstitions, false inferences of causality based on illusory correlation.

There has to be a way

There has to be a way to talk about how potential rape victims can mitigate their risk.

No - the use of the world "fault" is not a good thing - it implies blame, which is also not a good thing. No one wants to be raped.  But answers to such questions that say "How about teaching men not to rape, telling them it is not okay" are so far off in fantasy land that they are even less helpful.  Would that we lived in a world where all we have to do is tell people to stop doing something and it would be so. Of course, rape, murder, assault are all already against the law and I cannot imagine that there is any one who does not know that and that they are wrong.  Still, all of those crimes persist.

Is it blaming to victim to tell women (and men) how they can mitigate their risk of assault, sexual or otherwise?  While Ms. Hynde chose the wrong words to convey it (fault), is it blaming the victim to say it is not wise to walk around inebriated, in a state where one increases the probability of being a victim?  As an instructor in personal protection, I would advise anyone I am training to not go where trouble is likely if you do not have to go there.  If you have to go, then go there sober, do not flash money, do not stand out, keep your head on a swivel, do not relax, do not increase your potential victim status.

I am not blaming any victim of crime for their misfortune and would not be if I told any women I knew not to engage in behaviors that enhance their likelihood of being victimized.  It is little consolation, I would think, to be able to assert, after the fact, that one should be able to do and go wherever they want without being victimized.  I would think we should prefer being safe to being righteous.  Let's lower the rape rate in effective ways  - think about your own safety - for now and deal with the cultural and crime issues as we can.

You are not responsible for a rapist's behavior, but it is your job to keep yourself safe.

Do not leave that to others.

Please STFU

Please would all these people (meaning "celebrities" or "entertainers" or "stars" - regardless of their race/ethnicity) just shut up.

You wonder what is wrong with our culture these days, why things are crazy.  Well, there's your role models folks!  Entitled, self-indulgent, opinionated, ignorant...just what we should all aspire to be. Who can be the most obnoxious, more insane?  How about some "reasonable" and "sensible" approaches to entertainment?

What do they want?

They don't know.  They are grief-stricken and rightly so - some madman has killed their child.  What they want, I guess, is their child back.  What they want, I guess, is someone or something to blame for it.  What they are not is a source of reasonable information that should affect the rest of us.

But they say things like "I'm for the Second Amendment, but there has to be a way to force politicians that are cowards and in the pockets of the NRA to come to grips and make sense -- have sensible laws so that crazy people can't get guns. It can't be that hard".  But what does that mean?  How do they propose we do that?  How do you, would you, keep crazy people from getting guns, any more than we can keep them from a lot of other things.

See, they say this - they always say they are "for the second amendment" but the things they will ultimately propose, the real things they want, the things that are hidden under code words like "reasonable" or "sensible" are not consistent with the second amendment.

Of course, he also says: "And I know that the NRA, their position is going to be -- I can hear it now. They're going to say, 'Oh gee, well, if they were carrying, this never would have happened'".  No, that would be true if we were talking about many active shooter events.  But in this case, it probably would not have made any difference (but let's be honest - it would not have hurt).

That does not mean we need "sensible" gun laws.  He's right on one thing - no one could have seen this coming.  So, how would someone create a sensible, reasonable law that would have seen it coming?  How do you make sensible and reasonable law to prevent something you cannot see coming?  No matter the things they try, humans will be humans, shit will happen, and at some point it will be clear that the answer these folks want is that no one should have a firearm. That won't work either, but that is where they will want to take us - and when it fails there will be no turning back.

A much better position is that this was murder.  Murder is a crime committed by a person, not a thing, not a tool.  It is a crime that has happened for centuries.  There is, sadly, no way to guarantee that criminals will not commit crimes, that murderers will not murder, and that people who once appeared sane will not become "crazy".  As he noted, no one could see this coming.  And since we can't, we have to disarm everyone.

Perhaps people need to read this madman's screed (reviewed here) and then take a little time looking for what was behind the eyes of this killer, not what was in his hand.  Perhaps, if people want to find a cause for this kind of thing, they should look at the killer and the culture that made him, perhaps at the fact that, in his manifesto, he admitted to being "somewhat racist against whites, blacks and Latinos." Perhaps explore his expressed admiration for the Virginia Tech mass murderer, how he implies this was revenge for the Charleston shooting?  Do those concern people at all or is it easier to pretend it is the gun - does it take our mind off of the mess we have become?  Just keep making excuses for people, keep blaming things, whistling along, thinking it would all be okay if you could just repeal the second amendment, just take away the guns.

I'm glad you're frustrated

So, in the wake of the Virginia shootings, Obama is frustrated that he has failed to pass gun control legislation?  well, I have to admit I am glad about that.

You know what I'm frustrated about?

1.  If this had been a white shooter and a black TV crew, the focus would be on racism and the rantings of the madman. It would have been another "black lives matter" moment.

2.  Here we have a black shooter who left behind a long race-based rant about why these people deserved to be shot.  Most of that race-based rationalization can be traced right back to the race-baiting approach of this administration, the fact that Obama has decided that it makes political sense for him and his party, to ally themselves with one side of the racial divide they have created.  the reasons this madman cites are no more valid than were those of Dylan Roof.

3.  Have we yet heard about hos this person obtained this firearm?  Is it another failure of the NICS system or is it a case where no reasonable restrictions can stop a person who is committed to killing?

Be frustrated Mr. President - be very frustrated.  Because you have decided to use such crises to pursue an agenda instead of trying to fix the real problems that exist, some that you yourself have exacerbated via your rhetoric. Keep thinking there is a magic and simple cure for the ills of this nation.

Background checks?

Somebody tell me who obtains a gun legally and does not undergo a background check?

After the tragic murders in Virginia this morning, on Huffington Post Terry McAuliffe notes:

""Everyone who purchases a gun in the Commonwealth of Virginia should have to go through a background check," McAuliffe said. "You go into the store, you hand your license over. It doesn't take ... but three, four, maybe five minutes maximum."

Who obtains a firearm legally without doing this?  Someone tell me.  I have purchased several firearms - in stores, at gun shows, and even online - and I have never failed to have a background check where the call is made and an "All clear" is given.

It never fails that decisions are made without data, that opinions are expressed without the facts.

So what is it the governor is seeking? Do we know yet how the alleged shooter obtained his firearm?  Do we know if he was subjected to a background check?  Or are we, as usual, jumping to conclusions, offering suggestions that are already in place and would not have made a difference? Why?  Because they want a law, any law, as a starting point.

A couple pf points on the Sam Dubose killing

As one might expect, there is a rush to justice in the killing of Sam Dubose.  That does not mean that a miscarriage of justice will result, it simply means that "guilty until proven innocent" (or perhaps "guilty without a trial") is the new modus operandi.

So - two form Huffington Post:

1.  HP notes that the "Cop plead not guilty" to the killing.  SOmehow, I doubt he plead not guilty to the killing - it is on video, his hand, his gun, the shot fired, the sad death. For the sake of accuracy, it is more likely he plead not guilty to first-degree murder and will mount a defense based on self-defense.  I will not say what his chances are, but let's at least be accurate - he did not say he did not kill him, he is arguing the details of the event.  Doesn't look good for him.

2.  HP notes that some other LEOs have been quick to condemn this officer and others no so much.  What they seem to be saying is "If you are not willing to immediately, on only the evidence you currently have, reflexively condemn this person, then you are evil". I think they prefer the Prosecuting Attorney's approach to making really definitive, pejorative, and premature statements.

I do have to say that I disagree with the Prosecuting Attorney who noted ""I think [Tensing] lost his temper because Mr. DuBose wouldn't get out of his car."

There is no indication that he lost his temper; in fact, he seemed most patient with Mr. Dubose who seemed incoherent, evasive and largely unresponsive to lawful questions. Why and when he would have drawn his gun is another issue.  As some commenters online have noted, this was not a dangerous felon and if Dubose had driven away he was not going to get far. As others have noted, there was no apparent lethal threat here (but again, why jump to conclusions); there was an evasive, apparently intoxicated suspect and seeing this form another angle would be useful.  The officer was cordial, courteous, and very patient for much longer than many would have been, he behaved in a respectful and reasonable manner until he made the potential mistake of deploying his weapon.

The problem here is that Mr. Dubose's innocence is being assumed, while the officer's guilt is likewise.

Okay - let's see...

So, Los Angeles has decided to control crime by instituting a ban on standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Seems we need to look more closely at whether this will work.

1.  So, possessing a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds will be a misdemeanor.  As the story notes, the NRA is likely to file suit against the ordinance; as with most such laws, they contend it is likely to affect those who follow the law as opposed to those who a committed to breaking it.

2.  In truth, the NRA is correct.  Especially given it is a misdemeanor. Let's say you are a criminal (as far as I know you may be), intent on committing armed robbery, assault, or even murder.  This law assumes you will go ahead with your plan, but because you might be found guilty of a misdemeanor, you will do so with magazines that can hold no more than 10 rounds.  Catch that - you are a mass killer and this will keep your body count down because, although you are about to commit felony murder, you will be forced to carry downloaded magazines due to a potential misdemeanor charge. Right!

3.  Still trying to figure out what it means to say, "cities like San Francisco, Sunnyvale and now Los Angeles have taken the issue into their own hands, passing bans on high capacity weapons."  What is a high capacity weapon? I suspect this is a reflection of ignorance about what it being discussed.

Bottom line here - let's take the recent LA theater shooter as an example.  Imagine he is planning to commit this crime.  He surveyed the theater, knew it was a gun-free zone, is confident he will confront no resistance, makes his plan to come into the theater. He has his pistol, a .40 cal S&W with a 13 rounds magazine.  Looks down and notes "Oh well, can't carry that into the theater - this magazine holds more than 10 rounds and I might be charged with a misdemeanor".

That is how these people think.

"Face the animal on its own terms..."

Sad case being talked about of an American dentist who killed a famed lion for sport.

Given some of the explicit and implied reactions on social media, it does make me feel the necessity of ensuring that folks out there realize that not all gun owners are hunters nor would we all support such an act.  I personally find this act appalling and unnecessary.  I am not a hunter.  I tend more in favor of a quote from the movie Beastmaster:

"Face the animal on its own terms and you will find you are not so very strong."

I am sure there are those who cannot cognitively parse these ideas - that is, that a pro-gun, pro-self-defense person might be largely anti-hunter.  It is really not that complicated and any confusion is ample evidence that they simply do not understand the issues involved for those, like me, who a staunch supporters of the right to self-defense.

1.  First, in general, hunting is no longer needed for subsistence.  That is not to say that some hunters do not hunt for food as opposed to hunting solely to kill and, in some instances, it seems logical that hunting serves a purpose by controlling animal populations.  I cannot claim expertise in such matters, but I am not a hunter.

2. However, in the case of this dentist, this was hunting to kill, ego hunting, trophy hunting of an animal that was not a threat to life, limb, or the eco-system.  This animal had to be lured away from safety to be killed for this person's gratification.

3. Perhaps the most difficult part of this for some people to understand is that, as a 2A supporter, my motivation is specifically to "Face the animal on its own terms".  The animal I am referring to is the human predator who, like this hunter, will take every unfair advantage to ensure that the disparity of force tips in his favor. So, from my perspective, the 2A is about meeting force with equal force, which is completely compatible with existing self-defense law; deadly force is used only in the face of deadly force.

4.  In the end, this "too-wealthy-and-stupid-for-his-own-good" dentist was not a representative of hunters and certainly not gun owners in general.  He was actually much more like the active shooters in Louisiana or Colorado, in that he went looking for a victim, capitalized on a situation where his prey was defenseless, and was able to create an environment where he had overwhelming superiority of force, to commit a heinous and barbaric act.

One can only imagine how this story would be presented differently had he been forced to "meet the animal on its own terms" just as each of us who go armed for self-protection would hope to do in a darkened theater or school hallway. I imagine the reaction would have been one of horror that he was killed by this vicious animal, sad interviews with his spouse and children, friends and colleagues, much like gun control enthusiasts react when a law-abiding person successfully defends herself against such predators - proclaiming loudly how unfair it is to the predator.

Huffpost and Rick Perry's comment on carry and shootings

For once, a fairly benign observation by Huffington Post on Rick Perry's comments about how concealed carry might help prevent shootings in "gun-free zones" like the one in LA.  Fairly benign, if still somewhat off-base.

One comment:  "Houser legally purchased the gun used Thursday at a pawn shop in Alabama last year, according to law enforcement officials. He had previously been denied a pistol due to a prior arrest and reports of domestic violence."

If one follows the link to ABC News, it does not say that Houser bought the pistol legally:

"The gun that was used to kill two people and wound nine others in the horrific movie theater shooting in Louisiana was purchased legally in Alabama, police said Friday."  Further down the page it says' "Police did not immediately say who made the purchase."

If he had previously been denied, then it is not likely he bought it legally, but that someone else bought it for him to circumvent the law.  That is illegal - known as a "straw purchase". So the purchase was not legal if that is the case. UPDATE:  Apparently it is now being confirmed that he purchased the firearm.  Of course, if he had been denied previously then he should have been denied again - especially after an involuntary commitment.  Clearly a failure in the NICS system.  So we don't need more background checks - we need accurate reliable ones.

None of that changes the fact that, although what he is saying is blasphemy to the gun control advocates, Perry is correct.  There is a reason all of these shootings happen in gun-free zones - it is not random coincidence.  Be it Lanza, Holmes, Columbine, Alexis, Hassan, or whoever wherever, those who want to kill as many people as possible choose areas where they can expect the least resistance.

Liberalism - sadly - has become a confused ideology living in a fairy land.

I start this by reminding the reader that I was accused of being a liberal throughout the terms of George W. Bush.  I voted for Barack Obama twice.  I never voted for George W. Bush.  I have no party affiliation.  Of course, for the last 8 years I have been called a conservative because I openly criticize Obama.  I have not changed.

I believed in the promise of Obama, the notion that he would be different, his promise to be the most transparent president ever. I believed, even as others protested otherwise, that he was prepared for the task and would govern all people.  It is clear to anyone who reads this (probably only me) that I was wrong, that the illusion was sufficient to hide the nature of the man. His idea of transparency has been to periodically take to social media to answer stupid questions and post videos of himself walking the dog just like ordinary folks. In truth his administration has been one of deception, manipulation, obfuscation, and corruption.

As revelations have shown over his terms - Edward Snowden as both evidence and an example - not only has spying on the American people continued and expanded, but the penalties for being a whistle-blower have become even more severe.  After all of it, a picture of Obama emerges as an egotistical man who believes so strongly in the rectitude of his own ideology (adequately described by himself and his history as a community organizer), his own vision of the future, that anyone who does not hold that view is considered evil, is worthy of punishment, of belittling, of whatever consequences can be levied.  As a consequence of that approach, the country has been greatly divided along many lines.  He envisions this as a war and has, thus created one.  As stridently as he avoids confrontation overseas, he seemingly relishes it at home.  The most obvious examples of how the country might divide began to manifest as early as election night in 2008, when African-Americans celebrated in the streets, some proclaiming that the white folks would pay now that there was a black president. He eventually took on that role.

As a Bush critic, I always noted that he survived by telling Americans who to fear among their fellow citizens (for us or against us). To his credit this was never along racial lines and upon his election, I saw no whites in the street hailing the coming revenge on some other group (What I did see is some throwing eggs at his motorcade).  Bush got his way on many issues by alluding to a cosmic fight between good and evil.  Most often, evil was an outside influence, not within our borders. That part of this puzzle has changed with Obama.

Obama has made this into an art-form, but used it to foment change within our own borders. We no longer have disagreements that lead to discussion, we see a belittling, demonization, and delegitimization of disagreement.  One might even characterize the response to dissent as "prissy" and "how dare you" (another attitude echoed by his followers). But what is even more troubling is the double-standard we see when it comes to public statements about dissent.

White cop, black youth.  Quite frankly, kill or be killed.  Ferguson, protests, riots, looting, arson. Rightly, the president and others note that not all protesters are violent, not all are looting and burning, so we cannot generalize to the whole group.  Let's be clear, the group was black.  That means nothing to me except when we compare it to the response to an all-white group of protesters. 

So, when one lone psychopathic white boy commits a tragic heinous murder, a white boy who happened to wear or display a confederate flag (the US flag too, BTW), it means all displays of the flag and all who display the flag are racist in nature and probably potential killers.  That flag means nothing to me.  Next step, when a group of whites protest the (black) president by flying the confederate battle flag, it means they are racists.  I already know the answer to this, but will ask it anyway - if our president was white and attempted to take away this symbol after the Charleston massacre, then the same group held the same protest, would it be racist [I know the liberals are saying yes because they have to].  Point is, their message is "You want this? Well, here it is, come and take it!" - no matter who you are.  But it is convenient for the president and liberals to demonize any resistance to Obama and his ideas as racism because that invalidates the criticism in their eyes and the eyes of many Americans.

I will go out on a very long limb and predict something else that demonstrates this double standard.  Although the evil that is Dylan Roof and what he did has been transferred to the shoulder of every southern white male gun owner, I will bet that the evil that is the Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez will not be laid upon Kuwaitis or  Muslims (gun owners probably).  And it should not be, but neither should it have been with Roof.  Still, there is a vision of the world, an agenda designed to fit that vision and a narrative designed to fit that agenda. And that narrative needs to vilify some people and exonerate others to serve the agenda and vision. Therein lies the divisive nature of this administration. In order to continue to build the world its leader considers right and true  - even if many Americans do not - he must create existential enemies of the disbelievers among his own populace, set them one against the other. Why are white killers devils and Muslim killers unfortunate? (Andrea Mitchell made sure to ask one of Abdulazeez's former classmates today if he had been into guns in school and if he had ever suffered discrimination, clearly trying to find something or someone to blame for his heinous act).

Sadly, Obama's followers revel in this and join him in it enthusiastically, much as some Bush followers did, but only as a prelude to the master.  They seem to take great glee in the fact that they can now think of themselves as "in charge" and consider how to punish those they have seen as their overlords.  Of course, if there were overlords who wronged people of color, female gender, or differing sexual orientations, we also have to generalize those "isms" to all white, male, heterosexuals. All deserve to be punished, oft-times if only for the sins of ancestors, sins they themselves may not have committed.  Balance can only be sought in retribution (which breeds retribution).

What is missed by these people and their idols is the fact that when you make enemies of people to shun them, to bolster yourself within your group, they will, of necessity, have to consider you an enemy as well. So the cycle of retribution continues.  Some liberals seem to take great pleasure in their sense that they have the upper hand, in the possibility that those they have objectified as objects of evil, of their hate, might be imprisoned, killed, subjected to other humiliation and, in a figurative sense, neutered and subjugated, made to heel. I have seen many comments on the grand, faceless, and anonymous world of social media where some have drooled at the prospect of exacting their "revenge" for all the slights they feel they have suffered - because it is always someone else's fault even when it is not.

There's a glitch with this that they do not seem able to process.  That is, when you make enemies you become an enemy. Some folks don't heel.  Those protesting Obama with Confederate battle flags - they are not necessarily racists, but they come from the oppositional stock that founded this country and seceded from the Union when they felt abused (perhaps read some history?).  They do not like to be told what to do, that's why their historical ancestors fought a war of independence against the largest and best equipped army of its day.  They are waving that flag, not because the president is black, but because he and his followers think that they can simply wipe away the rights that others cherish. waving that flag is their way of saying "This will not do. We will not comply. If you want respect, give respect." As I saw one commenter say, it may have been better if they had simply given him the finger, but either way they are saying "F*** you!".  Guess what - it is their right, just as expressing your outrage is yours.

So they think they can take away people's thoughts and feelings by stripping them of symbols they do not like.  They think that they are the only ones for whom those symbols have meaning.  They think people will be cowed into submission by such harassment, by belittling, by bullying (its okay to bully if liberals do it).  They think if they could somehow pass gun laws that mirror those in the countries they hold up as shining examples, Australia or Great Britain, by magically rewriting the constitution that the rest of populace will comply. Kind of like "Well, because we said so!"  Perhaps they hope their "enemies" won't comply so they can watch Police and Military forces invade homes and take away flags, guns, ammunition, and their owners (I have seen some say this on social media). They think they are ready for a fight, for the bloodshed such an event might bring. They think that, somehow, they will be immune to it, that it will not have a wider effect. Yes, they actually believe this and are willing to court such chaos to prove themselves right.  Such proof was never the point of this nation.

Yes, Liberal-land is indeed fairy land, a place where they envision their power as absolute, their wishes as commands and their fellows as willing to be subjugated to their demands.

I fear this does not end well.

Seven Companies That Invite Criminals Into Their Stores

Ah, sometimes I wonder why I read Huffington Post! I suppose for the same reason that many of my FB contacts (not all of them friends) are anti-gun liberals and I continue to read their drivel and shake my head. I prefer to hone my thoughts and thinking skills by reading contrary points of view.  That in itself sets me apart from those liberals.

But I felt I had to mock Huffington's title for this article ("7 Companies That Don't Want Guns In Their Stores").

Let's see:

Tragedy number 1 on today's list - 4 marines killed by a shooter in Tennessee (at this point, no need to note his apparent cultural/religious affiliation).  Take a good look at the picture of the front door of the recruiting station that he shot-up.  See the "No Guns Allowed" sign?  You can't shoot at that!  Venue 2, where the tragic killings took place - you do know that military personnel (other than military police) are prohibited from carry on military installations, right?  Good enough to carry and kill in foreign lands, our "heroes", yet not trustworthy at home. But that didn't stop Nidal Hasan or Aaron Alexis did it? How can that be?

Recent tragedy number 2:  Charleston - 9 parishioners murdered by a young psychopath who was only armed because the liberal-cherished NICS failed.  The pastor an anti-gun activist in a state where church carry is illegal without pastor permission.  No, that does not mean they or anyone deserved to die.  But that didn't stop Dylan Roof did it?

Recent News:  Aurora shooter found guilty!  Theater banned guns.  Didn't stop James Holmes, did it?

Common elements in target selection? Do I need to explain it?

Okay then - but first, to some of the mistaken details in the Huffpost article:

1.  Whataburger did not ban guns in their restaurants - they banned open carry.  So that is lie number one.  they banned the open display because they felt it might hurt the delicate sensibilities of their customers. They're probably wrong, but their right. But, as the article notes, they "asked people not to open carry".  That falls far short of saying they "don't want guns in their stores."  If I were them I would correct Huffington's mistaken report, before it hurts their business with concealed carriers - especially in Southern States (well, hell, I am probably the only one of us reading HP anyway).

2.  Chipotle:  As Huffpost itself noted, Chipotle said "The display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers."  Not all guns - open display.  Lie number 2.

Skip to 5, since Panera and Sonic both seemingly ask customers not to bring any guns to their stores.

5.  Chili's:  "We recognize that the open carry of firearms creates an uncomfortable atmosphere and is not permitted under many local liquor laws. So, we kindly ask that guests refrain from openly carrying firearms into our restaurants and we will continue to follow state and local laws on this issue.”  So, they ask customers not to open carry - not to refrain from bringing guns, but open display of them.  More misdirection.

So, blah, blah, blah, 3 of the seven listed specifically mention open carry, not simply "guns".  And what they are also saying is that they don't want gun owners business. But all of this, while it demonstrates Huffington's tendency toward misdirection and hyperbole, misses the critical point.

Inconvenient Truth 1. Huffington and other anti-gun folks, including these businesses, do not realize that, as noted above, such requests affect only those who are not criminals, who have no criminal intent, people who "follow rules".  How many times must it be said - a criminal bent on armed robbery or worse will not be deterred by a law, a sign, or a corporate request that his gun be left outside. Criminals, by definition, do not follow rules (DUH!).

Inconvenient Truth 2.  Anti-gun folks also deny what has been shown time and again - that the greater the number of lawful carriers of firearms in a locale, the less violent crime - even more convincingly, longitudinally.  Concealed carry has grown over the last 8 years (especially in recent years as the current administration has threatened to curtail 2A rights) , while violent crime has declined (of course, they will not tell you that, preferring to focus on individual tragedies committed by the mentally unwell). Criminals are brazen, but not brave and not stupid.  They prefer to ply their illegal trade with as little risk as possible - for the most part, more benefit for as little cost as possible (although more and more of them will kill for no reason, whether appeased or not).  That is why your grandma walking the street is a higher probability target than a six foot 250 pound man (unless he is a member of an opposing gang). Wonder why police in uniform are rarely assaulted except when trying to effect arrest, why most criminals run from them if they can; Hint - they are clearly armed and prepared - a criminal knows he may get shot. Criminals seek a disparity of force in their favor, as do all predators, and they work to get it by being callous, cold and uncaring (lots of things we could say about a culture that breeds them) and having increased numbers, larger size or carrying weapons - especially in an area where no law-abiding person will be carrying them.

Inconvenient Corollary 3.  Hence, businesses that advertise to criminals that "good law-abiding folks will not be able to defend themselves here" are sending out invitations to them to commit crime.  Be it Aurora CO, Newtown CT, Chattanooga TN, Columbine, Ft. Hood, Charleston, Washington Naval Yard, and so on, it is clear that those who want to kill choose to hunt where they are assured disparity of force (firepower) and violence (against helpless unprepared victims).  And with the shooting in Tennessee, it also seems clear that it is not only criminals but terrorists who are aware that they can successfully kill with impunity and die a martyr by choosing such areas.  For the terrorist, the only measures of success are body count and dying a glorious death in achieving it.  Their only fear is dying a failure. What better hunting ground than one where resistance will be minimal.

The Silly Answer: Of course, liberal anti-gun folks will say that if we ban all guns, then the bad guys would not have them to do their dirty work.  The short answer to that is the drug war.  Years of trying to enforce prohibition of drug use has lead only to capitulation on some fronts (e.g., marijuana) and moves to reduce penalties since it is clear that use will continue despite them.  If we, as a nation, cannot stem the tide of illegal drugs into this country then it is foolish to think we could possibly prevent a black market for firearms coming across the borders.  So only those who live in that criminal subculture or are willing to do business in it (e.g., terrorists) will have guns.  I cannot see how that fixes the problem.  Paris has strict gun laws that did not protect those at Charlie Hebdo.  Norway has strict gun laws, yet Anders Breivek succeeded in his large-scale massacre.

It is time to give up fantasy solutions and rose-colored glasses about singing kumbaya as a way to wish away the cruel realities of our current world. Be prepared - or not.

"Unarmed man"?

When are people going to get the idea that when several LEO have their guns trained on you and are commanding you to put your hands up, that is the time to put your hands up (Story here).

That is not the time to be explaining, to be nonchalant in your actions and certainly not to make sudden moves that might include reaching for your belt line.  LEO have no intention of being shot if they can help it.

Now let's be honest, this man did not need to be shot.  A well-trained (assumption) officer could have been prepared to move off line if a gun had appeared and taken his shot when he saw it.  LEO should be well-trained and do need to accept that there is some risk inherent in their job.

But folks - now that you see this - if they have their guns trained on you and are giving verbal commands, follow them!

And Jim Jeffries is wrong, too (no surprise)

Not so very long ago - an hour or so - I noted that Huffpost was giving Jim Jeffries, a little known and deservedly-so, unfunny Australian comedian, a big sloppy kiss, thinking he was somehow mister clever.  It was noted that he said:

""Really? Is that why they are called assault rifles? Is it? I have never heard of these fucking protection rifles you speak of.""

I already noted how he uses his own neologism to make his point, taking a name made up by liberals then using it to attack others.  No surprise there.

But, just for the hell of it, suppose that a long rifle of the type that numb nuts is calling an "assault rifle" were to be used in defense of self and family?

Well perhaps, if dumbass can read, he would read about this event that just happened two days ago (Las Vegas Man Uses Iconic Rifle To Successfully Defend Family During Home Invasion).

Excerpts:

"Las Vegas Metropolitan Police were called to the scene of a home invasion Tuesday morning, only to discover that a 23-year-old resident armed with a semi-automatic AKM had already driven off both home invaders, saving the lives of his mother and three siblings."

Just so clueless knows, a semi-automatic AKM is what he and his idiot brethren call an "assault rifle".

Next:

"Despite cries from gun control supporters, agenda-driven politicians, and a smug-but-ignorant media that intermediate caliber, semi-automatic carbines are “weapons of war” with “no legitimate civilian use,” firearms such as the AKM and the ubiquitous AR-15 are in fact excellent home defense firearms, and are the preferred home defense firearm of many tactical firearm trainers and expert shooters."

So jerk-off - your joke is only funny because you are stupid.  Some folks are not willing to sit by naked and st there"...staring at the window waiting for machetes to come through" and assault them and threaten to rape their friends. Some folks prefer to stand up to such people.  It is up to you if you want to be helpless - it is not up to you to decide that for me.

That is why you will always be a target and prey. If they come through my window, they may win, they may not, but I will be on my feet, while while you go down on your knees.

Say what? Jim Jeffries is a moron

So Huffpost is reveling in what they consider a takedown of arguments in support of gun rights by some Australian (now there's someone to critique our gun laws) comedian I have never heard of. I am purposely not going to link it here because it is so stupid and only a fervently anti-gun media source could consider it either effective or newsworthy. If you really want to read it, you can find it. I started to skip it because I knew what I would find.

But to share just one of the "gems":

"Jim Jeffries' comedy act does something dry statistics can't. "The main one is that I need it for protection. I need it to protect me. I need to protect my family," said Jeffries. "Really? Is that why they are called assault rifles? Is it? I have never heard of these fucking protection rifles you speak of.""

This is a lot like the old Dick Cheney approach that folks like Huffpost hated only a few years ago.  You know, Dick (or a crony) would say something in one media source and then cite it in another as if that meant it was reasonable and had broad support from other sources.  Classic misdirection.

Well, whoever the hell Jim Jeffries is uses his own sleight of hand here - as only good liberal anti-gun folk can do.  How?  They are the ones who coined the term "assault rifles".  And having created and clung to that moniker, he now suggests that it is part of the firearms community's lexicon.  We do not call them that, he does (they do). He might as well do a bit on life insurance; it doesn't insure your life, it pays people after you die.  Perhaps it should be death insurance (someone probably already did that one).

Well - Just to share one more tidbit before I leave this to the dustbin of bullshit:

""I had a break in in Manchester, England where I was tied up. I had my head cut. They threatened to rape my girlfriend. They came through the window with a machete and hammer. Americans always go, Imagine if you had a gun. Alright, I was naked at the time. I wasn't wearing my holster. I was staring at the window waiting for machetes to come through. What world do you live in where you are waiting constantly fuckin' ready?""

So, since he was/is unprepared - no alarm system, no hardened perimeter, no 911 call, no available defensive possibilities (not even a "protection rifle" - smart ass), that means the rest of us are just as stupid, useless, helpless, and worthless as he is. Your girlfriend should kick you ass to the curb for failing to protect her.  What world?  I live in a world where assholes with machetes or worse might come through at any minute - so do you, you just choose to ignore it.  I am not living in your fairy world where you think magical pixie dust will protect you, where bad shit doesn't happen.  So, you were better off delusional and unprepared?  Even if being armed would rarely help (which I would not concede), was it better to be unarmed and helpless?  Dickhead!  They came through the window and you watched them, you let them - you seem to think you had no choice.  That's what living in Manchester is all about, I suppose - helplessness.  I read this, consider what I would do if it happened (most of us envision these scenarios all the time because we live in the real world) and watching and doing nothing is not among those options.  I guess we should all aspire to be a helpless POS like you so we can whine later about those who prefer not to be sheep.

Why am I not surprised that Huffpost would celebrate this neutered moron.

Yea, that helps!

It is so helpful when those who decry hatred and division find great humor in being hateful, mocking, and divisive.

Raw Story revels in such strategies (e.g., Jon Stewart roasts Southerners...).  But other than getting some good yucks, how exactly does this forward the cause of getting beyond the divide we suffer in this country, how does it bridge racial and partisan enmity?  It doesn't.  Those who say we need a open and honest discussion of such differences, really don't think that at all.  They use that as a vehicle to ridicule and try to delegitimize those who disagree.

I don't care about Southerners, don't care about flags.  But the whining and crying about how people treat each other, followed by intolerance and treating people like idiots is simply disingenuous and galling - and it does little except increase division and distrust - and hostility. As I have noted before, Jon Stewart was once a voice of reason, an equal opportunity critic, who has now become a partisan accomplice.

Brave comments

A rapper (A$AP Rocky? Never heard of him) - showed some real courage in his statements as posted in an article on Huffpost:

"Why are we exploiting the beef between the urban community and the police force when 60 people got shot on a Friday and Saturday [on July holiday weekend in 2014] in Chicago in black-on-black crime? So one cop shoots a black person... that kind of shit is inevitable. Not to glorify it, but that's nothing new. Let's talk about the black-on-black crime. If you're not gonna talk about the main topic, then don't talk about it all."

Of course this created a great deal of angst and drew the ire of a lot of people, because it is clear that black lives only matter when they are ended by a law enforcement officer or white person.

But let's be honest - if lives matter all lives matter and the problem is bigger than slogans.  Just as with the knee-jerk reactions about confederate flags and gun control - they are ways people can avoid addressing the real problems.  It is so much easier to point fingers at "oppressors" like LEO or another race than it is to look at yourself and say "Damn, we're pretty fucked up".  It is comfortable to see the problem in someone else's backyard, to see it as something they need to fix, than it is to figure out what we can do.

That is why there will not be any real meaningful change form any of this - people will work to curtail the rights of others they blame and the same old will go on.

Yep!

That's what happens when people get all hyped up and act before they know the facts.

Can't say for sure I believe him or not - but that is not my point.  Whether it is a president who misleads on so many issues in his reflexive agenda-driven statements or it is the larger liberal community (with its banner-carrier Huffpost), there can never be quite enough jumping to conclusions and stifling speech - even if they don't know what was said or why it was said!

Pondering our state of affairs

In the aftermath of the tragedy in Charleston and after spending the morning hearing about how the US is a racist nation (and by default that means white racism against black citizens), there are lots of things that need to be said.

1.  This act was an individual act of racial terrorism. Given the shooter's statements (both during and prior to the shooting), the photographs including the patches on his shirt, that much is a given.  But what I am trying to wrap my brain around is why his act is taken as defining a nation or a race and why this is being done by groups who, in other cases of terrorism, go out of their way to absolve larger groups of the misdeeds of a few crazy people.  Specifically, we are always told that acts by Islamic extremists are not indicative of the attitudes of the larger Muslim population.  In fact, as a general rule, we are told that stereotyping/profiling are discriminatory acts - especially when they include racial or religious characteristics.  Still, when one crazy white male does something like this, it is followed by discussion in which pundits and public figures tell us how little we (white people) have changed and that we (white Americans) are a racist nation and when one gun owner does something like this all are tarred with a common brush. Be honest; you will never eliminate individual racism, black or white. There will always be racist individuals.

So, a Muslin convert (who is, by the way, African-American) beheads a white woman and attempts to do so to another; a pair of Muslim terrorists assault a publisher's office in Paris and kill multiple people, two Muslim brothers blow up the Boston Marathon, 9/11, and so on, and in each case we are told "The XXXXX are really good people and this is the act of an extreme minority."  Why is that kind of dispensation given in those cases and not one where  the shooter is white?  Yes, racism still exists and, to be honest and clear, it always will in some quarters.  It exists in both white and black America.  So does religious hatred and intolerance. And telling us that one group is a perpetrator of it and the other a victim does little but perpetuate it.  There are those whose life's work is to accentuate or even create division.

2.  Bad people, racists of all colors, do bad things (like see here), but it takes a white crazy person killing black people or children to get the kind of attention we are seeing now.  They will use the same tools that good people use to do bad things, from cars, to knives, to guns, to fertilizer.  We have tried prohibitions in this country before and have seen how badly they fail and also the unintended consequences of them. Still, that seems to only approach some are willing to consider in this regard.  Alcohol prohibition led, in large part, to a burgeoning organized crime industry that we still see flourishing today in the context of drug prohibition.  Supply and demand rules the day as long as supply can be found and transported.  If demand is there, someone will risk supplying it.  Unfortunately for prohibition efforts, there are industrious people both within and without our borders who have been eager and willing to risk incarceration for profit in providing supply - and the odds are clearly in their favor.  It is unclear why any rational person would believe that a blanket prohibition on the right to keep and bear arms (let's be honest, that is what many people want, not "common sense gun laws" - to them "common sense" would be that all firearms were under control of the government) would be any more likely to succeed.

First, all those illusions and delusions about "other advanced countries" are both mistaken and misguided.  Take France, for instance, and what happened there (as noted above).  Let's not cherry-pick our data.  Even the data for island nations with strict anti-gun laws, such as Great Britain and Australia, do not bear strict scrutiny with regard to their success in violence prevention (see here).  And we cannot forget that we are not an island nation, but share land borders with two nations, one of which is already a pathway through which large amounts of contraband and numbers of illegal immigrants reach this nation (and which suffers its own high level of violence).  The other (Canada) is a long, desolate border across which it is suggested threats easily transgress.

3.  In the face of such armed aggression, there are those who will say the answer is disarmament. There are those who insist that an armed citizen could not have stopped such acts.  Clearly there is evidence to the contrary. Clearly the vast majority of such tragedies occur in places where guns are either prohibited or frowned upon.  Places like schools or churches where some delusion makes people think they are safe.  We cannot deny reality and it is clear that those wishing to kill others without interference choose places where they are less likely to meet resistance, especially armed resistance.  Columbine, VT, Sandy Hook, DC Naval Yards, Mother Emmanuel, and so on.

I know, there are those who will take this as a critique of the victims, as if it is blaming them for their death.  That is not the point.  The point is when do we face reality, when do we learn the lesson and start to do something about it?  You may choose to go through life unarmed and vulnerable.  Others will not. You may say, as the Violence Policy Center does, that good guys with guns don't stop bad guys with guns.  Of course it is false and their reasoning is shoddy. They determined this by looking tat justified homicides v. other homicides.  But thankfully many defensive uses of firearms don't end in the perpetrator's death - in fact if they did, then the VPC would be complaining about that.  Data suggest that firearms are used millions of times in self-defense, most often without being fired.  But that statistic does not fit the narrative, so it is not cited.  If every one of those defensive uses were to end in a death, then the VPC would be all over it.  So, for them with their bias, there is no way gun owners win.  The good guy notion is a myth because there are so few justifiable homicides; but if there were more, they would call it a "stand-your-ground slaughterhouse".

There is no way that guns will be eliminated from our nation.  A full prohibition on firearm ownership will only disarm those who will obey it. The rest will be criminals; either those who were always committed to carrying/owning firearms illegally in the service of committing crimes or those who were legal, law-abiding owners who became criminals solely by refusing to capitulate to such a mandate.

One of those groups will prey on those who do disarm themselves, much as they have always done.  The other, in order to avoid persecution and prosecution, will watch in silence but defend themselves when necessary.