Tag: 2ndAmendment

Vote For Me, I Own A Gun!

With the midterm elections just 15 days away, candidates have been ramping up the rhetoric and political posturing like never before.  For those of us in the Second Amendment community, there are some tough choices to be made. When it comes to the Second Amendment, many gun control candidates are tempering their message so as to appeal to their pro-gun constituents. But let’s not forget what their real goal is… to take away your right to purchase, posses and carry firearms.

From my own local city council to the county, state and federal representatives around the country, I’ve seen and heard preposterous claims of support for the Second Amendment from absolutely hard-core gun control candidates. They make statements like ‘I’m a life long gun owner’, ‘I’m a hunter’ or ‘I grew up in a family of gun owners’. By trying to paint themselves as part of the firearm community they attempt to make themselves more attractive to firearm owners who are concerned about more irresponsible, ineffective and unconstitutional gun control laws.

Ever since the absolutely ridiculous picture of the 44thPresident of the United States shooting a shotgun, politicians have put out campaign ads to bolster their firearm credibility. We’ve seen them in hunting orange holding a rifle. You’ve seen them holding a handgun at a shooting range. You’ve seen them holding a shotgun in a picturesque wildlife habitat. Guess what, it’s all staged bullshit.

Off camera and away from their constituents scrutiny, these candidates continue to promise to take up the most stringent of gun control schemes in exchange for the financial support from the billionaire funded gun control organizations.  Hot mic captured comments often portray a very different view from the campaign promises. This is where you hear how the gun control organizations are coaching their candidates to keep their gun control plans to themselves during the elections in order to get elected.

And of course, there are the qualifiers to their support for the Second Amendment. They generally follow-up the “I support the Second Amendment” with statements like “but I also support reasonable, common sense gun safety measures”.  The Democratic candidate for governor in Alabama follows up his claim of being “pro-Second Amendment” with this:

“[L]et me make my position clear. I will never favor taking any existing constitutional right away from any American unless we, as a people, come to the conclusion that restraint of some rights helps ensure the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by all.”

Does this sound like someone who is going to be protecting your Second Amendment rights?

Whenever you hear the words “gun safety”, realize they are not talking about being safe with firearms; they are talking about imposing draconian legal restrictions on the lawful ownership of firearms. To the gun control zealots, there is no such thing as a ‘safe’ firearm in the hands of the civilian population. Their idea of “gun safety” is when legal ownership of firearms is abolished.  The end goal has always been to slowly and systematically eliminate the right of private citizens to purchase, posses and carry firearm and ammunition.

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

So, who are the real Second Amendment candidates? These are the men and women who have been involved in Second Amendment rights BEFORE they became a candidate for public office. They are the ones who’ve had a hunting license EVERY year, not just election years. They are the ones you’ve been seeing at the local range or gun shop for years, not just since they declared their candidacy. They are the ones who already knew the issues and challenges surrounding the Second Amendment community BEFORE they decided to run for public office.  They are the ones who can proudly say “I support the Second Amendment” with no qualifying statements after it.

At times I’ve been accused of being a one-issue voter, the issue being the Second Amendment. Quite honestly, I’m okay with that because without the basic rights and freedoms protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, nothing else is going to stand.

Every elected seat in every city, county, state and federal race is important for the protection of your Second Amendment rights. It doesn’t matter if you live in a constitutionally challenged area or free America, your vote matters.

The midterm elections are Tuesday, November 6, 2018. Choose wisely.

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #GunVote, #Vote, #2018Midterm, #GunRights, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

2nd Amendment: Not For Those Under 21

With a few strokes of his pen, California’s Governor decided the Second Amendment no longer applies to residents under the age of 21. With this, California becomes just the latest state to strip away rights from 18, 19 & 20 year olds that have never committed a crime or intended to do so.  How easily we forget the United States Constitution no longer applies here in Kalifornistan.

Following the lead of other states after the tragic shooting in Parkland, Florida, California has determined the only remedy (other than all the other ones they implemented for this purpose) that would have prevented the loss of life in Florida. Therefore, the risk of allowing 18, 19 & 20 year olds to have firearms is just too great and this ‘minor’ infringement is acceptable. Never mind the fact that anyone of ages 18, 19 & 20 is old enough to vote, get married, sign contracts or join the military. In California, they are now not old enough to own a firearm.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. The entire legal argument of restricting handgun purchases to those 21 and older is that this did not violate the Constitutional rights of anyone under 21 since they still could purchase, possess and use rifles, shotguns and ammunition. By now eliminating that right, as private companies, municipalities, states and the nation are now beginning to do, it is a clear-cut violation of the rights of 18, 19 & 20 year olds.

18, 19 & 20 year old adults make up less than 8 percent of our population. And while many claim this age group is more involved in politics than ever, they also vote at the lowest rate of any age group. That makes them an easy segment of society to target.

But being California, there are exceptions – otherwise known as deferred bans – to this rule.  The exemptions are for law enforcement, the military and those with a valid hunting license.  The first two are easy to understand. Unless you carve out exemptions for law enforcement and military, you risk backlash for all your other so-called ‘public safety’ laws, which naturally also exempt law enforcement and military. But why then an exemption for those who have a hunting license?

The hunting license exemption serves a couple of purposes. First, it allows the State to claim there isn’t an all out ban on 18, 19 & 20 year olds owning firearms, thus satisfying the Constitutional requirement of not banning all firearm ownership. Second, and just as importantly, it helps to further the false narrative that the Second Amendment is about hunting.

Our last Presidential election was full of false claims of support for the Second Amendment. It was always ‘I support the Second Amendment but…. ‘ where the but was generally a call for infringing on that Second Amendment right with “reasonable, common sense” gun control measures. Then of course, there was the pledge of support for hunting. Even though most gun control elitists abhor hunting, they conceded that hunting is a long held tradition in our country and until they regulate it out of existence, they’ll support it as a valid reason to own a firearm under the Second Amendment.  Of course, self-defense will never be a valid reason to the gun control zealots.

The Second Amendment was never about protecting the rights of hunters or having a “valid reason” to own, posses or carry a firearm.  The Second Amendment was written to preserve the preexisting, inalienable right to possess and bear arms – period. It was written as a limitation on the government, not on the individual, hence the terminology used is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For those of you wondering why the fight for the latest appointment to the Supreme Court has been so important, I’ll remind you to take a look at laws like this. Denying an entire class of law-abiding people their Second Amendment rights because of the actions of a deranged individual – unless they have a hunting license – is not constitutionally valid.

The first of what I hope is many lawsuits against these unconstitutional laws have already started their way through the lower courts on their way to a Supreme Court who may now be receptive to hearing it. At the same time, lets also hope that every firearm and hunter education trainer out there is planning an expanded schedule to help our 18, 19 & 20 year olds obtain their hunting licenses so they can continue to exercise their right to bear arms while this is sorted out.

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #CaliforniaGunControlScheme, #HuntingLicense, #FirearmTraining, #HunterEducation, #YoungAdultRights, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Modern Jurisprudence – What’s At Stake?

I’ve purposely held off writing about the Supreme Court nominee hearings as it has been such a divisive spectacle and I thought it would be best to wait until the process had wound up.  With the 114th Justice of the Supreme Court now confirmed and sworn in by the Chief Justice, I want to say a few words about this process and why this seat has been so contentious.

To understand why this Supreme Court nomination was such a big deal; you have to look at who was being replaced.  Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy was often seen as the swing vote between the liberal and conservative justices on the bench.  He most often sided with the liberal justices, which skewed the court more to the left.

Of course, the whole idea of liberal and conservative justices on the Supreme Court is an abomination in the first place. There should be no political skew in either direction. There should be no other consideration at play other than the Constitution and the law.  By the time any case reaches the highest court in the land, politics and the justices’ personal views should be long gone and only the law should enter into their decisions.  Sadly, this is no longer the case and ‘legal’ decisions that should be 9-0 are now split along political lines.

With that in mind, you can see how any non-liberal appointee to the court would be a threat to the left. The ability of politicians to impose new and constitutionally ‘flexible’ laws would be dramatically curtailed with a Supreme Court that would apply proper Constitutional standards to the case, to say nothing of simply hearing them in the first place, something the Court has not been willing to do.

Stop and think about how many cases just related to the Second Amendment the Court has rejected because it didn’t have enough votes to hear it. This has resulted in conflicts between the Circuits and left standing abhorrent rulings from the runaway Ninth Circuit. With a Supreme Court unwilling to step in, the Circuit Courts have been ignoring legal procedure and precedent and unconstitutional laws have become the defacto law of the land.

Given the politics involved, you can see why the thought of a more conservative justice, or simply one who deeply respects the Constitution and the rule of law would be a threat to a particular agenda. The stage was therefore set for the media spectacle that followed.

Even before the nominee’s name was announced, opposition statements were crafted, speeches were written, signs made up and counter arguments against the nominee’s record created – all with a blank spot left for the name to be filled in.  It didn’t matter who the nominee was, it only mattered that the nominee wasn’t someone they approved of. Once the name was announced, dire predictions that his confirmation would kill millions of Americans, implement Sharia law, ban contraception, reduce wages and destroy voting rights were spread.

The meetings and hearings that followed were filled with arguments against the nominee’s record and views. Opposition Senators called for a delay until after the mid-term elections with the hopes they would be able to take back control of the Senate and block the nominee. They staged highly coordinated and choreographed interruptions and protests to delay the confirmation hearings beyond the start of the Supreme Court opening and the end of the Senate calendar.

Then, with all written questions answered, individual meetings with all of the Senators conducted, the public and private hearings concluded and all of the delay tactics failed, and only then – did allegation of sexual assault emerge through leaks to the media of an allegation known long in advance of any of the Senate hearings.

What followed was a media fueled mass hysteria and more ‘spontaneous’ allegations of far fetched, unprovable and eventually discredited misconduct. The nominee had to prove his innocence because his past judicial opinions were enough to strip him of his Constitutional rights and presumption of innocence. If you supported the nominee, you hated all women and supported rape. Yet the objective of this tactic was the same – to add more hurdles to delay the confirmation.

With no substantiations to the allegations found in the supplemental background investigation, the investigation itself became the target as the strategy now shifted to the nominee’s ‘stability’ from his last testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. Now with the confirmation concluded, the strategy has once again shifted to impeachment proceedings as soon as the Democratic Party wins a majority in the House of Representatives.

If you would like to see an excellent speech on the nominee and what transpired through the Senate hearings, I suggest the floor speech of Maine Senator Susan Collins.  I’m normally not a fan of Senator Collins and I more often than not disagree with her politics and tactics, however her speech was probably the most well reasoned and articulated I heard throughout this whole debacle. The speech is 45 minutes long, but it is well worth the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXzzmjgyO9k

While the politically staged national outrage of a new Associate Supreme Court Justice who is still accused of being a “serial rapist” continues to be fed by the political puppet masters and media outlets, where are the Senators who championed these protests? Are they advocating for the voices and rights of victims of sexual assaults? Hell no! They’ve moved their mock protests onto their own reelection or pre-Presidential campaigns. Instead of asking for donations to the organizations that aid survivors of sexual assault, exploitation and domestic violence, they are using these allegations to fill the coffers of their own campaign accounts.

Despite what the media has been feeding to millions of impassioned and impressionable Americans, this whole farce of our political and judicial appointment process was never about women’s rights or believing the victims of sexual assault. It was simply a political strategy to discredit a nominee and delay his confirmation until after the Mid-Term elections.

Sadly, the unintended consequences from this disgusting display of partisan politics will haunt us for years. Sexual assault victims may be less likely to come forward knowing they may be judged in the context of the accusers from the Supreme Court nominee’s hearings. Highly qualified judges and others in the political arena may also be less likely to seek public office knowing the potential of having to prove their innocence against anonymous and unsubstantiated allegations about their distant past.

For all those who have protested against politicians, judges and anyone else who doesn’t support their view of this issue, what have you done to help? Here’s a hint, screaming in someone’s face at the top of your lungs isn’t helping; it just makes you look like a kook.

Instead, how about doing something positive? How about donating your time or money to your local rape crisis center? How about sponsoring self-defense classes for women? How about helping provide positive alternative activities to teen drinking parties? How about helping parents be positive, respectful role models to their families? How about teaching your own children to respect women so rape and violence can be a thing of the past.

Among the most telling arguments was that this nominee would threaten our nation’s modern jurisprudence. In other words, it would inhibit the unchecked ability of judges to legislate from the bench while ignoring legal precedent, judicial procedure and the Constitution. I certainly hope that is true.

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControl, #SCOTUS, #Senate, #VictimsOfCrime, #SupportLocalRapeCrisisCenters, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

No Easy Button For Infringing on Second Amendment Rights

California’s Governor recently vetoed for the second time a massive expansion of the state’s Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO), or so-called “Red Flag” laws.  He did sign other useless gun control measures, including a couple of minor additions to the GVRO law, but not this one.  While some are calling it a victory, I call it sad that we are celebrating when only minor incremental infringements on our Second Amendment rights are signed into law.

I’ve ranted about this before, the first time imbecilic bill crossed the governor’s desk.  This year’s version was no different.  The vetoed legislation would have expanded the list of who can secretly petition the courts to confiscate all your firearms and ammunition without your knowledge or ability to contest it ahead of time. The expanded list would have included employers, co-workers, teachers, professors and ANY other employees of secondary and post-secondary schools the person has attended in the last six months.

Pushing for these so-called Red Flag laws have become popular gun control tactics since the shootings in Las Vegas and Parkland, Florida. Using Las Vegas and Parkland as their rally cry, proponents claim that had these laws been in place then they could have stopped these events from every happening.  In other words, lies.

Las Vegas is easy; there were no red flags. Nobody in this sicko’s circle of family or friends had any inkling of any of his intentions to harm anyone else. Even after a year of investigation by local, state and federal authorities, no motivation has been found. The only ‘odd behavior’ anyone can come up with is legal purchases of firearms and ammunition.  But then, that’s kind of the point. He was legally purchasing firearms and ammunition, something the gun control fanatics think is a positive indication of future violence.

Parkland of course is another story.  There were so many missed opportunities to stop this from ever happening it is absolutely nauseating. The Broward County Sheriff’s Office had received literally dozens of complaints about the suspect in the years leading up to the shooting. Any number of them in and of itself would have been sufficient to charge him criminally. The FBI ignored two credible reports identifying the suspect by name where he claimed “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.” The Florida Department of Children & Families determined he was receiving adequate support from his school and outpatient care from Henderson Behavioral Health in Broward County. A team from Henderson found the suspect “stable enough not to be hospitalized.”

The Parkland school’s progressive anti-disciplinary polices could have removed him from the school and initiated criminal proceedings numerous times, but that would have made the school look bad. The school had even commissioned and received it’s own threat assessment of the facilities ahead of the incident, and chose not to act on them.  In the moments leading up to the shooting itself the school security guard who saw the suspect going into the school did not sound the alarm and a second guard locked himself in a closet.  And of course, when the shooting began, responding Broward County Sherriff’s deputies cowardly hid outside instead of going to confront the shooter.

So you tell me. Does it look like nothing could have been done to stop this incident without some new law? Given the utter incompetence of the agencies involved – the very same agencies who are claiming they did everything by the book and couldn’t have done anything to stop the shooting without a new so-called Red Flag law – wouldn’t screw up that as well?

All of these laws relate back to the 2014 Isla Vista, CA attack that resulted in six dead (three from stabbing) and 14 injured near the University of California, Santa Barbara. Much like Parkland, all of the information necessary to make an appropriate interdiction was there; it was just ignored. Now as a result of the inept police work of the multiple agencies involved, we now have new and improved ways to strip people of their Constitutional rights.

The basis to initiate firearm confiscations under the so-called Red Flag laws were set purposefully low. It can be as simple as conversation between two people where one hears what they think is someone contemplating suicide or violence towards others. Following the ex parte hearing, all firearms, ammunition and magazines – magazines just added by the California Governor – are confiscated. The order may now be issued verbally by the Judge, the other new addition to the law.

As is the latest fad, the person accused, the one who had their firearms confiscated now has the burden of proof to show they are innocent and not a threat to others. Legal costs, time and wages lost from work, mental health evaluations, costs related to the return of their property – if the law enforcement agency will even return it after a legal order to do so – are all born by the person accused, even if accused unjustly. The legal recourse for being falsely accused is of course up to the very same people who are advocating for the removal of your firearms in the first place.

Why should it be easy to strip away someone else’s constitutionally protected rights? Why should anyone have such as low burden of proof to strip you of your Second Amendment rights in secret? Why should the person accused then be responsible for proving their innocence to avoid permanent infringement of their rights?  Why should they be financially responsible for the costs incurred by someone else’s accusations?

GVRO’s are nothing more than an Easy Button for gun control fanatics who don’t believe anyone other than themselves should have firearms.  Stripping away someone’s firearm rights, even temporarily, should be hard as hell. It should require no less burden of proof than a criminal conviction. Yet to compensate for the inadequacies of investigatory prowess at all levels of government, we grant them the easy way out.

At the same time, nobody seems to want to address the amount of crime, the amount of violence or the number of suicides committed with weapons other than firearms. If you were really interested in saving lives or public safety, wouldn’t you address the actual behaviors and indicators for ALL violence?  It’s as if your life doesn’t matter unless you are killed by a gun.

So while the celebrations continue for the brief moment of sanity from California’s Governor, consider this. This massive expansion bill has come from the legislature twice before and with sparse opposition to stop it; it will be back on the Governor’s desk again next year.  With California’s Lt Governor’s coronation to the big chair virtually assured in this year’s mid term elections, what do you think the chances that one of the biggest gun control advocates in the history of state will veto it?

Maybe it’s time you got out to vote.

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #CaliforniaGunControlScheme, #GunViolenceRestrainingOrder, #RedFlag, #GunControl, #Vote, #GunVote, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Training – For Elites Only!

‘It’s a waste of time to train civilians’ – Retired Marine. ‘It’s illegal to teach team tactics to civilians’ – Retired Deputy Sheriff. ‘Tactics should only be taught to military, police and security guards’ – Security Guard. These are among my favorite quotes of why certain training should only be offered to a select few. No matter what the level, some feel they, and ONLY they, should have access to certain tools and techniques.  Guess what? It’s all a bunch of bull…

Everyone likes to feel like they are a little more special than the next guy. And to some degree this is true simply by vocation. But it’s not just the profession but what you do in that profession. Front line military troops are going to have a lot more training and experience with armed conflicts than most. Military cooks, clerks and other admin types, not so much. At the same time, just because someone is in law enforcement, doesn’t make them an expert in firearms and tactics.

A lot of this training elitism has been promoted by training equipment providers. By marketing themselves as exclusive to military and police, they create an aura of superiority over anyone that isn’t part of their target group.  Keeping things out of the hands of civilians also helps keep prices higher since ‘military/police grade’ products command a premium price point.

Do you as a civilian need this type of training equipment or tactics?  When you look at the history of armed civilian encounters you’re going to find the majority will be solo engagements with a single armed criminal at short range. But that doesn’t mean engagements with multiple attackers, at greater distances, or while working with one or more armed citizens doesn’t occur. If you think playing the odds and just preparing for the most likely scenario is all you need to do, you may wind up woefully physically and mentally unprepared for anything else.

Take a minute and think about the possibilities of having an armed encounter in your daily life. Let’s start with your home. Home invasion style robberies/burglaries by more than one perpetrator are popular tactics by criminals as their overwhelming force is less likely to encounter readily armed citizens in our new politically correct, gun controlled world. Have you and your spouse/significant other worked out how to defend yourselves in a close environment with children, pets and all the daily clutter of your lives in the way?

What about when you go out to dinner with family and friends? Have you considered what your response will be to a threat in a public place? Even if you are the only one in your group who is armed, the ability to work together and direct your non-armed friends is going to be critical to everyone’s survival.

If you still think civilians don’t need more than the basic point & shoot, square range training, I’ll have you look at any of the times where there has been a breakdown of law and order due to natural disaster or a manmade crisis such as riots. Or if you live in a jurisdiction where help may be 15-45 minutes or more away, or even in a well staffed city police environment where help is already dealing with someone else’s emergency, you’re going to be on your own for an extended period of time. YOU and ONLY YOU are going to have to ensure your own safety. The more training and preparation you have, the better the chances you have to emerge on the other side of whatever situation you are dealing with.

Take a little time and read the reports of armed civilian self-defense encounters around the world. They range from being able to deter a criminal attack without having to fire a shot to multiple attackers and full nightmare, drawn-out fight scenarios. By the way… Those law enforcement only scenarios the police train for, who do you think has to deal with them until the police arrive?

Remember those ‘not available for civilian use’ products. A funny thing started happening with them. Active and retired military and law enforcement members started their own side businesses offering the ‘restricted’ tools and techniques learned from their government service to the public. By having exclusive access to the restricted products, they were able to offer training nobody else could. And business was good.  So good, the product companies took notice and decided these products didn’t need to be so exclusive any more. And business was very good.

Historically many training practices in the civilian world have come from military and law enforcement experience. That makes a lot of sense, as these are the people with the latest and greatest armed encounter experience. At the same time, the civilian world has influenced military and law enforcement because it was able to innovate without the burden of a government procurement contract. Some top trainers, sought out by the military and law enforcement are in fact civilians. They excel at what they do because they make it their business to learn and teach others. Go figure.

The level of training you as a law-abiding armed civilian achieve is up to you. You start with the basics and once proficient at that level, you can move up to more mentally and physically challenging programs. Team tactics, scenarios training, shoot/no-shoot, 360 degree ranges, low/no-light and force-on-force training are not only appropriate, but provide skills for the unpredictable real world encounters you may face.  Each builds on the essentials of safe and effective firearm manipulation and marksmanship skills you started with and adds more mental and physical stress to it.

So the next time you hear someone puffing up about certain training tools and tactics being inappropriate or unnecessary for civilians, take it for what it really is, elitism and someone needing to feel superior about themselves.

You and only you are responsible for your own safety and the safety of your family. The more physical skills and mental preparation you can bring to the table, the better the chances you will survive a violent encounter, or better yet – avoid it all together.

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #FirearmTraining, #Elitism, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

 

He Was Look’n At Me!

There are far too many who are more than willing to get into a fight with little or no provocation. Of all the rationalizations I’ve heard, my favorite and the one I’ve heard the most is the infamous “He was look’n at me!” Somehow, somewhere looking at someone became enough of an instigation to beat someone to pulp as anything else. I’d like to say we as a society can do better, but that just doesn’t seem to be an option.

Sadly, this isn’t something new. For as long as I can remember, and I’m guessing long, long, long before that, picking a fight with someone over the most trivial nonsense has been some people’s preferred way of life. While typically a male characteristic, females can be just as quick to strike out as males.

The cause? It could be anything. Alcohol/drugs, ego and mental health issues generally top the list. There’s also unchecked and misdirected anger, violent upbringing and general disrespect for anyone other than themselves. But even if we understand why, we still need to have to deal with the threat they cause.

Many of us in the Second Amendment community carry a firearm for personal protection. This is great, and there is no better deterrence against violent assault. But to use your firearm – and use may range from just warning your potential attacker you are armed to gripping, holding, aiming or even firing – you have to be faced with a threat sufficient to justify a firearm’s use. Not every situation is a deadly force one and you need to be prepared to respond with non-lethal / less-lethal options.

How many of you carry a non-lethal option as part of your EDC (everyday carry)? I am always amazed at how many people – including off-duty law enforcement – carry a firearm but not a non-lethal option. And no, a knife doesn’t count, that’s lethal force. I’m talking about something like pepper spray, mace, Taser, stun gun or impact weapon – and the training to use it effectively.  Hand to hand defensive techniques or some form of martial arts is also important as a last line of defense.

However, there’s something more important than all the weapons and other things you bring with you, it’s how to NOT get in the fight in the first place. It starts with being aware of your environment and continually accessing any possible threats to your safety.  If you do perceive a threat, you need to be willing and able to remove yourself from the situation as quickly as possible.

As critical as all of the defensive techniques are, there’s one skill that can’t be over stressed. It’s your verbal skills. Sometimes called conflict de-escalation techniques or verbal Judo, it’s your ability to talk someone out of the fight they want to have with you. It requires preparation and quick thinking, but it can be very effective. Maybe you have to eat a little bit of crow, swallow some pride or simply walk or run away, but NOT being in the fight is what counts.

If you’re thinking there’s nothing wrong with a good fight to defend your honor or the honor of someone with you, here’s something to consider. Unless your name is Chuck Norris, there is always going to be someone out there bigger and badder than you. Even if you know you can kick that special idiot’s ass, how about his / her three friends who are going to show up out of nowhere? What if one or all of them have weapons you didn’t count on? Is it worth getting into the fight then if you have a chance to resolve it another way? It’s not about not being manly, macho, strong, brave or tough enough, it’s about being smart.

Now let’s say you’ve done everything right to avoid a dangerous situation, did everything you could to de-escalate to no avail or simply had no warning of an impending attack. At that point, keep this saying in mind. ‘If you’re gonna fight, fight like you’re the third monkey on the ramp to Noah’s Ark and brother it’s starting to rain.’ It’s all about your survival at that point and the third monkey isn’t going down easily.

I’ve seen a lot of fights that have started from a ‘look’ or a few angry words. Tension escalates pretty quickly from there and the whole situation goes to crap faster than you can ever imagine.  You need to be prepared, not just from a defensive techniques perspective, but also with proper situational awareness and verbal skills to avoid the situation in the first place.  Believe it or not, it’s a lot harder to NOT get into a fight than it is to just start swinging.

Get the training you need to defend yourself, but be sure your education includes as many techniques to not get into the fight as it does to get yourself out of it. That’s what real safety is about.

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #SituationalAwareness, #LessThanLethal, #EDC, #Safety, #Security, #Training, #SelfDefense, #ThirdMonkey, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

The Second Amendment – A Second Class Right

When we think about the foundations of our nation, we naturally think about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Yet sadly, not everyone believes in these documents relevance today. Nowhere is this more evident than in the obstructionist view of the Second Amendment.  It has been called irrelevant, misunderstood and out of date for the modern world. Slowly but surely, the Second Amendment has become the redheaded stepchild of the nation.

Picking the Second Amendment apart isn’t a new thing, but it has become far more fashionable since the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions. The gun control extremists even claim it was these two court decisions that gave individuals the right to own a firearm, instead of what they really were – decisions affirming the individual right always existed and it just took that long for an infringement case to get to the Supreme Court.

Still, that doesn’t stop the gun control crowd from claiming the Second Amendment to mean you can only bear arms while in the state sponsored militia, the modern day National Guard.  History of course doesn’t support this creative reinterpretation when in fact every able bodied man of the time was part of the militia of the day, some well organized, some not so much. The common defense of self, home and community was just part of being in the community.

One of the most popular Second Amendment attacks is that it only grants you the right to bear arms that were available at the time, in other words muskets.  The rational is that there is no way the Founding Fathers could have foreseen the type of modern weaponry we have today. Again, the argument completely ignores history and that there were far more advanced weaponry available when the Second Amendment was written. It’s also important to remember that muskets WERE the “weapons of war” of the day. The United States and British troops were issued muskets to go into battle with, clearly a point well understood when the Second Amendment was written.

Then of course there is the interpretation that the Second Amendment only covers hunting, and therefore is invalid in modern times when sustenance can be purchased from a grocery store. Only in rural areas do the gun control zealots concede the tradition of hunting should be tolerated, and even there they are trying to regulate hunting out of existence. Hunting might have been a more essential skill at the early years of our country, but nowhere in the Second Amendment text does it say or even imply hunting for food.

Even more creative are the recent additions to the ‘not covered by the Second Amendment’ crowd’s argument. This includes saying  “arms” does not include ammunition or magazines.  While it boggles the mind that someone would try to separate the fact that arms use ammunition and that it’s okay to infringe on the right to possess the very item the arms were intended to fire. The same illogic is extended to magazines. This historical equivalent to a modern magazine limitation would be that you could only possess a small power horn or tiny cartridge box with your musket.

Modern gun control elitists also contend the Second Amendment does not include the right to sell or purchase firearms. This is the main argument for banning firearms retailers in NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) communities.  So while the local government proudly says they “support the Second Amendment, but…” the but includes many limitations and exceptions where they feel it is okay for them to regulate firearms retailers out of existence. Absolutely unsupported “safety” guidelines of not being within 500 feet of places like residential areas, parks, schools, day cares, another firearm retailer or so-called “high risk alcohol outlets” are designed to eliminate the ability for stores to operate in their area.

The latest trend is to subject firearms retailers to a Conditional Use Permit application. With this new costly and protracted bureaucratic process, a city or county has unlimited discretion to approve or deny a new firearm retailer’s application based on an undefined and arbitrary “fit” to the community and perceived impact to the surrounding properties. The notification portion of the process also ensures the NIMBY’s from inside and outside the community will mount a popularity contest to the Planning Commission to determine if a legally responsible retailer should be allowed to operate, simply because they do not like firearms and don’t believe they should be allowed in the community.

If that’s where gun control has been and where we are now, a hint into the future comes from the confirmation hearing of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. California’s Senior Senator argued that common possession does not equal common use as describe by the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s writing of the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. Here he wrote the Second Amendment protected the sort of weapons “in common use at the time.”  The Senator’s direct quote was “You’re saying the numbers determine common use? Common use is an activity. It’s not common storage or possession, it’s use. So what you said is that these weapons are commonly used. They’re not.”

This sets up all kinds of new legal buffoonery. In highly gun controlled states like California, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey, among others, will they be able to argue that so-called “assault weapons”, which are highly regulated or even outlawed, are no longer in “common use” there? If you possess but don’t regularly “use” your firearm, does the Second Amendment not cover it? And what would be a fair test of “use”? If you use your firearm for self defense like the approximately three million others in the United States every year but don’t fire it, is that enough “use”?

While the Second Amendment has been beaten up, carved into pieces, minimized, misunderstood and creatively reinterpreted, it has survived to this day – at least in most of the country. In other areas such as my current home state of California, it is a mere shadow of what it once was and getting dimmer and dimmer every day.

Unless we are out protecting it and ensuring our elected representatives will no longer stand for the incremental elimination of our rights, the Second Amendment will fall. It’s on all of us to stand up and be counted before we have no rights to fight for.

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #DeclarationOfIndependance, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #GunVote, #GunRights, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

Crime Without Consequences

There used to be a time when politicians ran on agendas of being “tough on crime”. They knew how much safety and security meant to their constituents and how crime – everything from simple thefts to violent assaults and homicide impacted peoples lives. They understood that the best way to handle those who broke the law and discourage the next potential criminal was to punish these criminals, swiftly, severely and with certainty.  And then there’s California.

If you have any question about who our elected officials in California are concerned about, look no further than the latest set of bills signed into law and those waiting in the wings. I’ll give you a hint; it’s not you – the law-abiding citizen.

California politicians haven’t cared about law and order for a long time. Propositions 47 & 57 which reduced many crimes to infractions and took away the threat of serious penalties for such “non-violent felonies” as Assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer; Battery with serious bodily injury; Solicitation to commit murder and Rape/Sodomy/Oral Copulation of an unconscious person or by use of a date rape drug, clearly show the Governor and legislature’s preference on protecting the criminal instead of the victim.

In March of this year, California’s Governor pardoned five ex-convicts who were facing deportation due to their criminal convictions.  Among the convictions were auto theft, illegal drugs, domestic violence, obstructing a police officer, kidnapping, robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Then of course the pardon of the man who was convicted of murder in 1994 for shooting a gang rival and was facing deportation.

Also in March the California Supreme Court issued an administrative order that opened the door for the Governor to legally commute the sentences of every inmate on death row. The Governor used to have to get the concurrence of a majority of the state Supreme Court to issue a commutation or clemency when the individual concerned has two other felony convictions. This new administrative rule – which nobody seems to know what case prompted it – removes that condition.

With the Governor’s signature, California has proudly become the first state in the nation to eliminate the bail and will free so-called “non-violent” suspects within 12 hours of being booked. In lieu of bail, suspects will be gauged under a county-by-county defined risk-assessment system. While effectively eliminating the bail bond industry, the costs of implementing the new system are estimated at up to $2 billion. Of course more state jobs will be added to the public payroll and less people will be incarcerated while awaiting trial, a win-win for the state bureaucracy.

Oh but that’s not all… The Governor Jerry Brown signed a law that restores the voting rights of convicted felons serving time in county jails, on probation or under community supervision – but not those in state or federal prisons.  But fear not hard-core felons, no doubt your time will come too.

So, what about you and your desire to NOT be a victim of crime?  The California legislature has determined that if you want to carry a concealed firearm, you should have more training. Under the new law a minimum of eight hours of training on firearm safety, handling, and technique. Assembly Member Todd Gloria said “Since I introduced AB 2103, we have seen a persistent amount of gun violence in our nation and it’s become extremely difficult to ignore the link between gun violence and the number of guns in our communities.”

So while the State of California doesn’t issue concealed carry permits like many other states do, they are willing to set the standard for the cities and counties that do issue them. And now by mandating a full eight hours of training – generally starting at $100 and more depending on location, that bar is moved just a little bit further out of reach of those who are already struggling to cover all the other associated costs. And as evident from the author of AB 2103, their goal is to reduce the number of firearms in the community by targeting those carried by law-abiding citizens.

Right now the State of California, along with far too many communities who what to make their own political statement, are far too busy criminalizing the distribution of plastic drinking straws, mandating only milk or water be served to children in restaurants and making sure our youth get a good night sleep by legislating no middle or high school can start before 8:30 am than to tackle the hard issues of jobs, homelessness, mental health, public safety and the impact of all the new taxes they continue to enact on businesses and their employees.

Criminals – the people who break the law – don’t do so by accident. They make a conscious decision to steal someone else’s property, to break into cars, homes and businesses, to rob, rape or murder their victims.  Crime is a given natural occurrence in society; it’s a choice to break the law at someone else’s expense.

If you somehow find the need to be a little more “fair” to these criminals, how about a little tough love? How about telling them that if they don’t want to lose their freedom, if they don’t want to go to jail, if they don’t want to pay fines, if they don’t want to be subject to the penalties society makes for people who do things like this, maybe – just maybe they shouldn’t commit the crime.

How about just telling them: STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #CaliforniaGunControlSchemes, #CrimeAndPunishment, #SwiftSevereCertian, #SoftOnCrime, #SoftOnCriminals, #StopBreakingTheLaw, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

 

Gun Shows and Gun Culture

You would think it would be enough for the gun control zealots to legislate, license, register, restrict, or outlaw firearms, ammunition and the law-abiding firearm owner to within an inch of their very souls, but that just isn’t enough. They want to eliminate anything to do with the horrors of “gun culture” from our communities and from our minds, because THAT is what will make everyone safe! Welcome to the beginning of the end of gun shows.

What is the latest and greatest in vogue gun control scheme out here on the (extreme) left coast? Getting rid of gun shows of course! It’s all the rage out here in California. Local, county and state politicians are jumping on the bandwagon to stop gun shows from operating in publicly owned venues.  Why?  Duh… guns.  If it has anything to do with firearms in any way, shape or form, they want to get rid of it.

Where is this going on? San Diego County, Santa Clara County and the State of California for the Cow Palace in Daly City… among others.  Politicians backed by “local activists” are making the case that banning gun shows will somehow make everyone feel safer.

For a hint at the logic, here are the comments from State Senator Scott Wiener who is backing SB221, a bill that would specifically bar the historic Cow Palace from hosting events that would involve the sale of guns or ammunition.

“Our country is awash in guns, and schoolchildren are dying,” said Wiener. “We need fewer guns, and we need to stop the proliferation of guns whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. We should not have gun shows in the heart of the Bay Area. The Cow Palace gun shows should have ended a long time ago. Better late than never.”

And just to add a little bit of incentive, the budget for a new roof for the 1940’s era Cow Palace is being tied into the proposal.

If you think this sounds like a solution in search of a problem, you would be correct.  Gun shows at venues around the state must follow all local, county, state and federal regulations, which they do to a tee.  The widely spread myth of a “gun show loophole” has long since proven to be nothing more than a means to cause fear in the eyes of the uninformed public to get them to support more “common sense gun control laws”.

What is really going on is an assault on gun culture. And their definition of gun culture is anyone or anything that sees firearms in a positive way.  Or, the way they look at it, unless you see firearms as something that should be completely banned from civilian ownership and use, you are part of the gun culture problem.

Law-abiding citizens legally own roughly four (4) million firearms in this country. The reasons they own them are as varied as our nation. There is no one profile of a “gun owner” in the United States, people from every walk of life, every race, every religion, every political affiliation in every corner of the country own them and use them responsibly each and every day.

These good people buy everything from new and used firearms, ammunition and accessories all the time. The firearms industry itself makes up about $ 31.8 billion of the U.S. economy, and that was in 2012.

Have you ever been to a gun show? If you have, you know what’s there. For those who haven’t, it’s a fascinating collection of new and used just about everything you can think of. Gun shows can fill entire convention centers or just a small meeting hall in a basement.

Overwhelmingly gun shows are populated by small vendors and companies with some kind of a niche in the market.  You can find everything from new and used firearms from just about every corner of the globe. If you are looking for historic military firearms (weapons of war in gun control speak), you’ll find them from every military conflict, from every side of the conflict.  You’ll see hard to find magazines and parts from out of production firearms that nobody else may ever have. You’ll find more accessories than you knew existed, some innovative, some a little strange. You’ll also find hats, mugs, jewelry, clothing, commemorative pins, patches and coins, crafts and creations as well as fishing gear and self-defense training programs mixed right in together.

I went to a gun show just this weekend and as usual, I was amazed at the variety of what you can find there. I saw a range of items from blunderbuss to modern sporting rifles, and everything in-between. I saw an original Red Rider BB Gun, an actual World War II FP-45 Liberator and custom hunting rifles that cost more than a luxury SUV.  I saw books, I saw rare and hard to find parts, I saw custom crafted accessories I’ve never seen before and I saw ammunition I didn’t think still existed.

But as fascinating as the items on the floor were, I was more interested in the people. Despite what the gun control zealots tell you, I saw a cross section of the community. I saw old and young, men and women, wealthy and not so well off. I saw elderly in wheel chairs and kids in strollers. I met some wonderfully knowledgeable people who knew WAY more than I know about firearms, and a few blowhards that are better at talking than actually knowing things.

In other words, when you go to a gun show, you’re going to find a room or rooms full of people who see the positive benefits of owning firearms, each in their own special way.

This is what the politicians are trying to stop. People conducting legal commerce, acting in accordance with every law, rule and regulation tossed in to make their lives a little more expensive and harder. They are trying to stop people from learning, sharing knowledge, innovations, ideas and a little bit of bullshit along with legal firearms and accessories.

In 1997, the U.S. 9th Circuit found that a Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors’ ban on selling guns at county-run venues to “avoid sending the wrong message to the community relative to support of gun usage,” violated the First Amendment rights of gun show promoters.  While seemingly an important ruling, this hasn’t stopped communities and the State of California from continuing to work on banning gun shows and/or gun sales in the name of “public safety”. After all, this is the 9thCircuit and Constitutional rights are always in flux.

Gun shows are not, and never have been a public safety issue in California, or anywhere in the country. They are however a demonstration of the positive side of gun culture, which makes them a prime target of the gun control zealots in our community and the politicians they support. It’s just another NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) argument against legal commerce and politically incorrect thinking.

I choose to think incorrectly.

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #GunShow, #GunCulture, #PoliticallyIncorrectThinking, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com

A Legitimate Reason?

There seems to be a growing trend where anyone who owns a firearm has to justify their need to own it. Simply wanting one or being guaranteed the right by the Second Amendment isn’t a valid reason. Self-defense is no longer a good enough reason. In the mind of the gun control elitists, you have to have a “legitimate reason” to justify why you “need” to own a firearm, and according to them, there will never be a legitimate reason. But guess what? That’s not the way the Second Amendment works.

Recently in Monterey, California, a probation search of a felon’s rented room at a residence produced an inert practice hand grenade, among other illegal items. Based on this, the police department obtained a search warrant for the remainder of the house. That search turned up, among other illegal things, 112 firearms and more inert practice hand grenades.  The owner was arrested for charges of illegal assault weapon possession, improvised explosive devices and maintaining a drug house.

All well and good, and I have ZERO problem with the convicted felon or the home owner – a former police officer and relative of the Panetta political family – being arrested. By all accounts both were breaking the law with the drug possession and deserved to have their asses carted off to jail.

My problem is with the characterization from the Monterey Police Department who said, “We obviously have a large quantity of firearms and evidence. We are trying to track down where these items came from, what is the reasoning behind them, and is there a legitimate reason for possessing this quantity of firearms.”

Following the arrests was the requisite photo op of all the firearms laid out on tables for the press to click and spread. The two so-called “assault weapons” were ones that met the California definition based on their “evil features”. Still, the press reported the man “faces charges related to keeping an arsenal of illegal weapons and operating a drug house.”

This case is just one of so many examples of the police and the press portraying anyone with more than one firearm as a dangerous gun nut.  It doesn’t matter if it’s two firearms and a dozen rounds of ammunition in a parking garage or 1200 firearms and seven tons of ammunition from a dead man’s house, the implication is if you own multiple firearms and more than a few rounds of ammunition, it’s an arsenal, stockpile or weapons cache and there is no valid reason for it other than planned illegal activity.

While the press and social media are spinning fables of sinister plots being created at every kitchen table, let’s deal with a few facts. While we do, keep in mind firearm ownership is often a very private topic and a lot of people are unwilling to disclose their ownership to anyone conducting a survey, especially in today’s hyper-politically correct society.

The latest estimate of privately owned firearms in the United States is about 400 million for a population of 327 million – a little more than one for each US resident. Of course not everyone owns a firearm and the estimates as to how many do ranges from 25% to over 50%. The average number of firearms owned is estimated to be between four and eight. Fortune Magazine even came up with the term “super owners” who have anywhere between eight and 140, with the average of 17.

Ignoring the obvious preliminary question of why people own a firearm at all (see the Second Amendment), why do people own multiple firearms? The reasons vary from each firearm having a distinct purpose such as conceal carry, target shooting, hunting large, medium, small and flying game, home defense, plinking, practice, competition, disaster prep, etc. etc. etc.) to a simple love of shooting and collecting. And then, there is the one reason that trumps every other, because they can and they don’t have to justify it to anyone.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is unique in the world. No other country guarantees the right to bear arms the way we do. Some countries do grant the right to possess firearms, but more often than not there are serious restrictions on that right, or privilege as they see it.  Most common are restrictions on the type of firearms that can be owned (shotguns vs. rifles vs. pistols), the number that can be owned, the legally allowed calibers (most common is no military calibers) the amount of ammunition that can be purchased and possessed in one year (i.e. 50 rounds of handgun ammo/year), the storage requirements (locked, unloaded in residence, stored in a gun club / government safe or ammunition kept at a different premises).  Carrying firearms in public is generally restricted to the military, police, government officials and VIP’s.

If laws like these make you bristle at the mere thought of them, then it’s time to start looking around at what’s happening in our own country. City by city, state by state, gun control zealots are chiseling away our right to own and bear arms.  Every little infringements brings us closer to a time when our “right” is sold back to us as a “privilege” that very few will be able to afford or access.

In some states, restrictions on the ability to even purchase or own a firearm already exist. Restrictions on the type of firearms you can own already exist. Restrictions on the caliber of ammunition you can have already exist. Restrictions on the number of firearms you can purchase in a given time frame already exist.  Restrictions on how firearms are stored and whether or not they are allowed out of the home and where they can be transported to already exist. Restrictions on who can carry a firearm in public, and where they can go already exists. And in each of these cases, the gun control elitists are working to make the rules for law-abiding citizens more restrictive, more expensive and further out of reach for everyone – except themselves.

And how do they sell these so-called “common sense gun control” measures to the unknowing? By portraying everyone who owns firearms, or heaven forbid multiple firearms, as dangerous gun nuts. When they showcase criminals with multiple firearms they imply only dangerous, violent druggies, thugs and terrorists have THAT many guns and THAT much ammo. When they refer to any number of firearms as an arsenal, a stockpile or a weapons cache, they are trying to shift the narrative of what the law-abiding firearm owner is and paint them as the next potential active shooter.

Well guess what? Millions upon millions of regular, law-abiding firearm owners know the difference. Whether they own one, eight, 17 or a couple of hundred firearms each, they know they are not only among the safest, more responsible, law-abiding citizens out there, they know the fact that they do own firearms is a deterrent to violent crime. They know they are responsible for their own and their family’s safety, day in and day out.

So if you don’t think it matters who you vote for this year, then just go ahead and turn in your firearms now and trust your personal safety to the people who want to disarm you, but are doing nothing to disarm those who are preying upon your family.

And the next time someone asks if you have a legitimate reason for having ‘so many guns’, just look them straight in the eye and say – because I can.

Bob

#oddstuffing,  #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #ALegitimateReason, #safety, #security, #family, #BecauseICan, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com