2ndAmendment – Page 8

National Disarmament Day?

Without question, the ultimate goal of the gun control movement is complete civilian disarmament. While feigning respect for the Second Amendment, they have been working tirelessly towards their goal for years with incremental “common sense” restrictions to “keep the public safe”. Limits on the types, brands and styles of firearms you can own, how many you can purchase, where and when you can carry your firearm for protection and limits on the type and amount of ammunition you can purchase are common. Add in a host of new laws on who can be stripped of their right to own a firearm without due process of law and they are well on their way towards the presumptive Democratic nominee’s desire to abolish the Second Amendment.

So, why not give them a day to try this grandiose plan out? We’ll call it National Disarmament Day and it will be on Monday, November 7, 2016, the day before the general elections. It will be 24 hours of gun control paradise.

Since the law abiding firearm owner is the only target of all the current and proposed gun control laws, on National Disarmament Day all lawful firearm owners will leave their firearms at home. You may have and use your firearms at HOME only. Outside the home, there will be no open or concealed carry. No carrying your firearm in your vehicle or at your place of business. No armed guards and no bonded, licensed or private armed security of any kind. The only ones legally armed in public will be law enforcement.

Understandably, there are some who will not want to go along with this plan. The good news is this is several months away and you have time to put in for the time off or close your business for the day. You may want to stock up on a few essentials ahead of time.

What will November 7, 2016 look like? One of two things will happen.

The first possibility is nothing will occur. There will be no crime, no violence and zero shootings. All of the legally owned firearms normally circulating in public will be gone. It will be the most peaceful day this country has ever seen.

The second possibility will look a little like the movie The Purge. Those who have the ability to protect themselves in their own homes will do so successfully. Those who venture out will be subjected to the wrath of an unchecked criminal element that will not hesitate to victimize anyone they come across. Businesses will be unable to protect themselves and will be looted. Law enforcement will quickly be overwhelmed and the National Guard, put on standby by the Governor of each state, will be activated to restore order. The number of injured and killed will be staggering.

Ready to sign up? Just go to www ARE YOU FREAK’N NUTS!?!?!

NONE of the “common sense”, “for the children”, disarm the law abiding citizen laws will ever do anything to disarm or discourage any criminal. In fact, it only emboldens them further. We are already at the point where the criminal or thug-terrorist has no fear of the law, the police or the courts. The only element they still fear is their victim. If that potential victim can adequately defend themselves, they will move on to a softer target. There is always a softer, easier target. They will go to a place and to people who do not have the ability to defend themselves. They will go to a “gun free zone” where they can act with impunity.

If you’re asking who in their right mind would go along with something like this, just look at the laws in place and being enacted or proposed in places like California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. This is the utopian vision of the gun control. It is brought to you by a group of political and economic elite who will never have to worry about their own security or the safety of their families.

Would you send your family out in public on National Disarmament Day? If the answer is no, then don’t allow your community, your state or your nation to become National Disarmament Day EVERY day.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #righttobeararms, #nationaldisarmamentday #getoutandvote!

Who is The Armed Citizen?

I am your family, your friend, your neighbor and your store clerk. I am the person you say hello to on your morning walks. You see me in the store, the restaurant, on the street and in your neighborhood.

Depending on your political point of view, you may think it odd I own or am carrying a firearm. You probably don’t understand why. Let’s clear up a few misconceptions you have about me.

I am not a remnant of the Wild, Wild West and I don’t fancy myself a junior G-man, secret agent or super hero. I am not a conspiracy theorist and I don’t wear a tinfoil hat. I am not compensating for alarmingly small genitalia. I don’t go around trying to get into fights and I certainly don’t want to put myself or anyone else in danger.

What I have done is gone through numerous background checks, completing many Federal and state forms along the way for the legal purchase of my firearms and the ability to carry them. I have completed every required training program and have gone well above and beyond that level of education. I train and practice often and take very good care of my firearms. I keep track of the latest legal cases to make sure I do not inadvertently run afoul of the law. The absolute last thing I ever want to do is use my firearm against anyone and I will do everything I possibly can do to avoid it.

I am also very well aware in the case of a self-defense incident where I have to discharge my firearm; my life will be turned upside down. Even if fully and unquestionably justified, I will very likely be handcuffed by the police, arrested and jailed until the situation is cleared up. My case may be taken by the prosecutor to a Grand Jury to determine what charges to bring. My entire life, every social media post, every letter, every comment to someone at a party will be scrutinized for possible indications of bias or callous intent. My training and my mental state will be evaluated. Some may wish to ‘make an example’ out of me, and my actions will be used to judge other armed citizens. I will incur significant legal expenses and my family will be harassed by those who feel that I was wrong to do what I did.

Why then am I an armed citizen? The answer is as simple as simple can be. Despite of the negative that may follow, I choose to live. My family chooses to live. I for one refuse to allow a criminal or thug-terrorist to decide it is my time, or my family’s time to bleed to death on a public street or in my own home.

Are there people who legally own firearms and use them irresponsibly? Of course. Just as there are people who drink too much, drive poorly, stand on the top steps of ladders and run with scissors. They are a minuscule population within the firearm community and I have as much problem with them as you do.

It is estimated that defensive uses of firearms outweigh felonious uses by 30-80 to one or between one and two million times per year in the United States. There isn’t an accurate number since this isn’t a metric collected in police reports. Nobody from the “gun control/gun safety” movement even wants to look for those numbers. They say they are statistically insignificant or simply don’t exist.

While you may not know I am a legally armed citizen, you still benefit from me being here. We are long past the days where any criminal fears the law, the police or the courts. The only thing they still have to fear is their victim. If they believe their potential victim is armed and can defend themselves, they will move on to someone who can not. They will find an easier target. (They’re criminals, not morons.) The more people like me, the more armed citizens there are, the less likely someone will be made a victim

In case you don’t remember me, let me give you my description. I am male, female or gender nonspecific. I am young, middle aged or retired. I am tall, medium height or a little short. I have a full head of brown/red/blond/black/purple/green hair or am bald. I am thin, fit & muscular or overweight. I’ll be wearing shorts & a tank top, jeans & polo shirt or a suit or long/short dress.

I am the armed citizen.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndAmendment, #armedcitizen

Shame On Us

2016 will be a pivotal year for Second Amendment rights in this country. A Presidential contest between a pro & anti 2A candidate awaits us this November. The incoming President will select a successor for Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and will likely place another three Supreme Court justices during his or her term in office. The balance of power in the U.S. Senate is up for grabs. At the state level, even traditionally pro-2A states are being forced to fight gun control initiatives. In my own State of California, the Assembly is rushing through an unprecedented list of anti-firearm owner laws to beat the legislative deadline. Citizens along with state and national groups have been fighting furiously against what has been termed Gunpocalypse and Gunmeggedon and are hoping for some small reprieve from the Democratic Governor when the bills reach his desk.

But with all our focus on national and state matters, we seem to have forgotten to keep track of what’s been going on in our own backyard.

Last week in my own hometown, the City Council passed a one-year extension to a so-called urgency ordinance for a moratorium on new commercial operations engaged in the sale of firearms, ammunition and / or explosive devices.

A little background: The original Urgency Ordinance was passed on September 2, 2015 establishing a temporary 45-day moratorium for new firearm business licenses. It was the result of concerned citizens discovering there were four firearms retailers in the city and a fifth was in the process of being established. An initial attempt to regulate current and future retailers with a wide-ranging licensing ordinance, which in effect zoned the entire city out of bounds, failed. A much simpler local licensing proposal was successfully implemented and the zoning requirements were pushed over to the Planning Department.

On October 14, 2015 the City Council extended the moratorium for an additional 10 months and 15 days to allow the City staff time to adequately study the appropriate land use regulations. This extended the original date to a full year. Combined with last week’s extension, the City now has a two-year temporary, urgency moratorium.

The four existing firearms retailers in the City were notified of this extension, including one, which was planning a relocation that would not be possible during the moratorium period.

Included in the justifications for this extension were the retirement of the Community Development Director in February 2016 and the retirement of the City Manager in December 2015. Also noted was the potential impact of the recent Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling regarding zoning and gun shops in Alameda County – a restriction on firearms retailers within 500 feet of a residential area.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling is significant as it held the Second Amendment extended to the buying and selling of firearms. “The panel held that the Ordinance burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment and that it therefore must be subjected to heightened scrutiny—something beyond mere rational basis review.”

Back here with my hometown City Council, there was no discussion of the progress made to date on the new zoning regulations or whether the delay was in fact reasonable. There was no commitment to any milestones or whether it would be completed by the next moratorium expiration date. There was no public comment. There was no debate. The ordinance passed unanimously.

The erosion and subsequent elimination of our Second Amendment rights come from all levels. It occurs not only in the legislative chambers in Washington D.C. and Sacramento C.A, but also in our local town halls. Each incremental intrusion on the Bill of Rights, each “common sense” regulation, each new rule, restriction, license and fee, pushes us further down the path of losing our rights all together. We all need to pay very close attention to what is going on at every level.

Shame on us. No, scratch that… shame on me.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndAmendment, #moratorium, #shameonus

2016 – The Year of the Butthurt Party

As the lead up to the 2016 general elections continue, more candidates are dropping off as the major candidates continue. As this quadrennial spectacle draws nearer to its climax, we see the emergence of the next great political group, the Butthurt Party!

Who are the Butthurt? These are the diehard supporters of the candidates that didn’t make it this far. They have been the fiercest, most vocal followers of their chosen one – and the most critical, rabid anti-whomever their candidate was running against. Their lawn, car and clothing are covered equally with pro-my candidate logos and slogans and anti-whomever logos and slogans. It’s been a bitter fight and they have been all in from the get go. If their candidate doesn’t win, they won’t vote at all!

But there’s a problem. Their candidate wasn’t selected. What do they do now?

As all primary and caucus contests do, they pit candidates from their own party against each other; the winner will go on to the final contest against the other party’s candidate in the general election. You know, sort of like the Stanley Cup Playoffs, only with more teeth and less civility.

You’ve spent months learning all the reasons why your candidate’s opponent is completely incompetent to lead – and now you’re expected to throw your support behind them in a show of party unity? You’re supposed to ditch all of your candidate’s logos, slogans, stickers and t-shirts for your hated opponents and be happy about it? What madness is this??

Welcome to the Butthurt Party of American politics.

One of the biggest issues with the way our political process operates is during all the run-up contests; the party members have been trashing the living crap out of each other to come out on top. Now they, and all of us, are challenged with how to turn all that hate and discontent towards each other into hate and discontent towards the rival party.

We’ve already seen some of the ‘reconciliation’ process begin. Stalwarts of the party are withholding their support until they can have meetings and, well… presumably negotiations over issues and points of power that are important to them. This is supposed to bring them, and their loyalists on board and ready to go into the general elections.

But what of the hard-core, anybody-but-my-candidate’s-opponent supporters? Will they be able to make that leap of faith or will they do as they are promising now and just not vote at all?

Here’s what it boils down to. For better or worse, we have a two party political system, especially at the national level. Like many people, I too wish there were more options available. But while there are always third party candidates, the elections are going to be decided by the two major parties.

It’s time to take a look at what is really important to you and decide if you can support what the candidates have to offer. Will it ever be 100% of what YOU personally want? Hell no! (If that’s what you expect then why isn’t your name on the ballot?) While you’re at it, also take a look at what the other candidate is offering and decide if you not voting is in your, or the country’s best interest.

Californians: Monday, May 23, 2016 is the last day to register for the June 7^th primary.

If you don’t vote, you don’t get to complain.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #elections, #getoutandvote, #butthurt

*Image from the great folks at ActionFigureTherapy.com

Not So Smart Guns

Bond… James Bond. When it comes to high tech gadgets, nobody does it better than 007. Through the Bond movies we’ve seen cars that fly, swim and are invisible, jet packs, mini-rocket cigarettes, watches with lasers powerful enough to cut through inches of steel and of course, a signature gun – a gun that can only be fired by the owner.

While many of the Q inspired gadgets are pure movie fiction, some have come to exist in the real world, but with real world limitations. A couple of cars can fly, but they don’t look anything like a regular car. Some cars swim, but they are the odd ducks of the auto and boat world and they can’t go under water. And then there are signature guns, now called “smart guns” by those who believe they are the next greatest gun safety, a.k.a. gun control measure.

The technology has been around for years and generally relies on a ring, watch or band that must be held in close proximity to the firearm to activate it. The theory is if the owner is not holding the firearm with the appropriate activation device, it will not fire. The only current production firearm is a .22 LR pistol made by a German company, which uses a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip and requires a five-digit pin code for an eight-hour activation period. It is not currently available in the United States. A few tech entrepreneurs have jumped on the bandwagon and are working on prototypes with remote controls, electronic ammunition and RFID chips embedded in the firearm owner’s skin. Firearms with pin codes, fingerprint readers, sensors to identify the owners grip, Bluetooth activation and Internet connected schemes are out there as well.

Despite the lack of demand from firearms community, it is being legislated as a requirement. The President’s latest set of Executive Orders included a provision for federally funded research into “smart gun” technology. A 2002 New Jersey law stipulates that three years after “smart guns” are available anywhere in the United States only smart guns can be sold in the state of New Jersey.

It’s worth noting the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) have both been very clear that they are not opposed to “smart gun” technology. What they are opposed to, and I firmly agree, is a government mandate for it. If the market decides they want it, then the products will flourish.

What could be wrong with a “smart gun”? In a word: technology. Aside from the issues of adding sensitive electronics to a machine with heavy shock and vibrations; batteries die and usually at the worst possible time. Add a little moisture, heat or cold and they’ll die quicker. Radio frequency connections are not only highly prone to interference but hacking as well. Being tethered to a device of any kind means you must always be wearing that device on the hand you will be shooting with. Take it off and you’ve got access to an ugly little brick. If you’re wearing gloves or have dirty hands with devices that check fingerprints, you’ll be out of luck.

In the research I’ve done (yes, I really do research) the inherent unreliability isn’t the worst part. The most frightening part is what is hidden inside the “smart gun” technology. Two core features are part of nearly all “smart gun” technologies; GPS and remote deactivation. GPS integration allows tracking of the firearm at all times, similar to your cell phone. Remote deactivation allows you, or someone else to remotely disable your firearm. That alone should scare the pants off you. At any time your family, employer or coworker – under California’s latest proposed enhancement to the Gun Violence Restraining Order law – could file a complaint against you and your firearms can be deactivated without your knowledge.

The real danger surfaces when those two features are combined. Similar to GPS software in newer drones, geofencing allows a virtual barrier to be placed around sensitive areas disallowing operation. The most common areas for drone operators are airports. Now move this into firearms restrictions. Government buildings, Post Offices and courts are the first to come to mind. But what about schools? Since anything within 1000 feet of a school is already a federally defined gun free zone, your firearm won’t work there. If you live within 1000 feet of a school – guess what, the Second Amendment won’t apply to you. Certainly banks will want to get in on the safety of geofencing their property. Who would need to use a firearm at an ATM?

Now consider a riot, protest or disturbance of any kind in your neighborhood. The beauty of connected systems is a geofence can be set up anywhere, anytime. The first action taken to an incident in your neighborhood can easily be a gun-free geofence set up around it to protect the first responders. It won’t matter if you are the one lawfully defending yourself at the time, all “smart guns” will be shut down.

Here’s the funny thing about so-called “smart guns”: The ONLY people who this will impact will be the law abiding citizen who wants to protect themselves or their family using their Second Amendment rights. It will have ZERO impact on criminals who will be using the plain old-fashioned pull-the-trigger-and-it-fires firearm that the rest of the world will still produce and can smuggle into the United States.

Firearms are supposed to do one thing and one thing only, reliably and accurately send projectile out the end of the barrel each and every time the trigger is pulled. Anything that has even the remotest possibility of preventing that from happening is a threat to your life. Safety, security and marksmanship are the sole responsibility of the owner, not a computer chip.

Is a “smart gun” right for you and your family? If so, that should be your choice, and your choice alone. If you prefer to have the regular, reliable kind of firearm then that should be your choice also, not the government’s.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #smartguns, #guncontrol, #gunconfiscation

Remember the updated malfunction drill: Tap, rack, check GPS, change battery, run setup, re-sync, bang.

United We Stand

This is a difficult year for those of us in the firearms community. Attacks on our rights are occurring at the local, state and national level. Traditionally gun hostile states are doubling down on new and creative ways of whittling away Constitutional rights. Firearm friendly states are being forced to defend themselves from external forces funded by political motivated elitists. Presidential candidates are vowing to destroy guns with Australian style confiscations.

While some states are making strides towards a return of Constitutional rights, others are working to strip them away. This conflict of ideology across the nation will undoubtedly wind its way through the judicial system to the Supreme Court. The next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court has the potential to trigger the reversal of the Heller and McDonald decisions and fundamentally reinterpret the Second Amendment into oblivion. Our next President will likely appoint an additional two to three Supreme Court Justices during his/her term.

Let’s be very clear on what is going on. The attacks on our rights, on our ability to own and use firearms, to defend our families, and ourselves is well funded and well coordinated. While feigning to support the Second Amendment, the goal is crystal clear; the elimination of private firearm ownership. This is a long-term strategy to systematically minimize then eliminate rights. Every incremental “common sense gun reform” “in the name of public safety” or “think of the children” restriction is another step towards the eventual outright ban.

So with all this at stake, why are we fighting with each other?

Lately I’ve been seeing a lot of time and energy being expended bashing other firearm owners who flee to other states or are not doing ‘enough’ for the cause. Not only is this foolish, it’s counterproductive. If we can’t treat each other with respect, how do we expect the rest of the nation to treat us?

A lot of good people will undoubtedly migrate towards more free states. Let’s face it, even the most hardened, battle tested troops deserve a little time off the front lines and we know nothing of each person’s struggle. Consider how many firearm makers and related manufacturers have moved out of restrictive states. We haven’t stopped supporting them and we shouldn’t condemn some of our own for doing the same. Instead of ridiculing or berating them, we need to be understanding so they will continue to support those of us who remain and be strong proponents in their new home state.

Not all firearm owners can take the time to go to a rally or participate in a demonstration. Despite firearm ownership being lawful, some still need to live in relative secrecy because of their jobs or location. They are supporters just the same, but cannot be as vocal as others. Not everyone can speak to an audience, but they can write an email, a letter or contribute to an organization fighting on our behalf. There are many roles to play and we can each do our part in some way. But no matter what, we all must vote.

There are an estimated 350 million legal firearms in the United States, and the number grows every day. The owners span every possible race, culture, status, age, gender, religion and political affiliation. Imagine the power of that many united voices.

Without cooperation and participation from all firearm owners, the second half of Founding Father John Dickinson’s phrase is certainly going to kick in. And we will be the generation that allowed it to happen.

United we stand, divided we fall.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #unitedwestand, #gunconfiscation

Gun Confiscation Made Easier

This week the California legislature made progress on new ways to deny residents their Second Amendment rights by moving forward on a number of new anti-gun bills. None have anything to do with reducing crime or punishing criminals. All are aimed at taking gun rights – and guns, from law-abiding citizens. One of the most dangerous is AB 2607, an expansion of California’s unique in the nation Gun Violence Restraining Order law. This Bill would add employers, coworkers, mental health workers and employees of secondary or postsecondary schools to the list of persons who could deny you of your Second Amendment rights without due process.

For those who are unaware of how we got here, California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order law came in the aftermath of the Santa Barbara murders of six individuals – three stabbed, three shot plus an additional 14 injured – by a disturbed college student who killed himself as police tracked him down.

The perpetrator had posted a number of disturbing videos online. Disturbing to the point where his family contacted the police about them. Six law enforcement members, four deputies, a university police officer and a dispatcher in training spoke with him outside his apartment. While typically two deputies are sent on welfare checks, officials said they sent a bigger response because they “were familiar with (him*)”. Before, during or after the 10-minute conversation with him, none of the law enforcement there, or at the two departments, looked at any of the videos or checked to see if he had firearms registered to him; an easy check in California. Shortly after the visit, the perpetrator took down the videos so as not to be discovered. He carried out his plans 30 days later.

According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco, “The fact of the matter is our gun laws are so weak that when someone openly exhibits that violent behavior, they can still access guns.”

Hours (emphasis on HOURS) after the Isla Vista shooting, Nancy Skinner, a California state assemblywoman from Berkeley, drafted a bill that would create a system for “gun violence restraining orders” in which relatives, friends and intimate partners could ask a judge to temporarily block someone who is exhibiting violent tendencies from getting a firearm.

I’m going to make a comment here which may not go over very well with some people and for that, I apologize. While the internal departmental reviews concluded the officers acted appropriately, I say the California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order law is a political knee-jerk overreaction that came into being from an inadequate police response.

Six law enforcement personnel on scene, plus however many in dispatch in two departments, were aware of the videos and nobody thought to look at them. While the officers may not have had the “right” to search his room, nobody thought to ask for consent either. We’ll never know if the information from a firearms registration search and the videos, combined with the family’s report would have lead the officers to do a more in-depth interview or search. But summarily rejecting the investigatory value of that information and advocating a ‘we need more laws’ attitude is an insult to all officers who do the job.

Having succeeded at getting their foot in the door with a new way to strip you of your rights, California wants to extend this no due-process tool to a larger group. Any of your managers, coworkers or employees can say you are a danger to yourself or others – real or imagined – and your rights and firearms will be taken away. Consider the power anyone at your company will have, someone who didn’t get a promotion, got a bad evaluation or just doesn’t like that you own firearms. While making a false report is a misdemeanor, nobody will ever be able to prove or disprove what was said in a private conversation.

The burden of proof then falls on YOU to dispute the accusations to get your rights back and your property returned. The costs, not counting your own time, will easily be in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars over months to years for legal expenses and costs associated with getting your firearms returned.

If you don’t live in California and think this will never happen where you live, think again. California likes to believe they lead the nation in rights smashing laws. Depending on how the elections go in November, this could very well affect you next.

If there is ever a time to get involved, it is now.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #gunconfiscation, #2ndamendment, #firearmsrestrainingorder

* I don’t find it necessary to carry on the legacy of psychopaths by continuing to name them.

Arsenals, Stockpiles and Caches – Oh My!

We’ve all seen the press conferences where a high-ranking law enforcement official or political gun grabber stands up with a crew of concerned cronies looking on from behind. In front of them, a table of scary looking guns and accessories is displayed. The description of the items usually includes terms such as ‘high-powered’, ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’. Then, the requisite quote to emphasize how serious this really is: I’ve never seen a stockpile like this in all my years…

Whether called arsenals, stockpiles, caches or something else, the perp walk of guns is also commonly witnessed as ‘evidence’ is being staged on the front lawn of the suspect in question. The spectacle serves no crime fighting purpose other than to scare the neighbors and let the invited press get some good close-ups so the story will stick in the mind of potential jurors. I suppose it does also send a message. If you have a lot of guns and ammo, this could happen to you.

Just to be perfectly clear: I do NOT object to removing firearms from criminals. I DO object to using the criminal justice process to further political agendas with exaggerations and half-truths.

So, what exactly is an arsenal? In 1994, Handgun Control Inc., which later became The Brady Campaign, was trying to get legislation passed to create Arsenal Licenses using this definition:

Any person who owns 20 or more firearms or more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition or primers would be required to get an “arsenal” license. To obtain a federal arsenal license, a person would need to be fingerprinted, obtain permission of local zoning authorities, and pay a $300 tax every three years. Their home would be subjected to unannounced, warrantless inspection by the government up to three times a year. “Arsenal” owners would also have to obtain a $100,000 dollar insurance policy.

When was the last time a criminal used 20 firearms and a thousand rounds of ammunition in the commission of a crime? Is that even possible? And other than the obvious Second Amendment argument, why are these numbers so completely meaningless?

Collectors acquire firearms for the love of the craft, the history as well as for investments. Hunters, sport shooters, competitors and those who simply own firearms to defend themselves and their families know one firearm isn’t appropriate for every use. You probably own more than one pair of shoes too since even something that simple is purpose driven.

Buying ammo in bulk is no different than buying toilet paper in bulk; it’s cheaper in larger quantities. For anyone who shoots on a regular basis for training, competition, sport or recreation, buying in quantity and when it’s on sale can reduce the cost up to 50%. A single two-day training program can require over a thousand rounds. Buying in bulk also helps to insulate the firearm owner from temporary price spikes caused by political speeches about banning some kind of firearm or ammo.

Yet in the name of public safety and security, national, state and local politicians are trying to limit how many firearms or how much ammo you can have. In California where there is already a one-in-30-day limit on the purchase of handguns, anti-gun politicians are trying to extend that limit to include rifles and shotguns as well as party-to-party transactions. The result would be a strict one firearm a month acquisition limit. In New York, one ammunition-banning proposal would limit purchases to two times the capacity of your registered firearm caliber every 90 days. If you own a six-shot .38-caliber revolver you can buy 12 rounds of .38 ammunition every three months.

Are any of these laws going to prevent crime or limit it in any way when crimes are committed? Of course not. It’s as if these legislators are purposely trying to create a class of owners who are less competent to defend themselves because they can’t properly train with their firearms. Personally, I am a lot less concerned with someone who is investing their time and money in firearms, ammunition and training than with the gangbanger whose stolen six-shooter has five mismatched rounds because that’s all he has until he steals more.

So fellow patriots, be sure to hide your extravagant shoes and excessive rolls of quilted two-ply well. As soon as someone decides you don’t need those either, they’ll be laid out across your front lawn for all to view in horror and shame.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #gunandammobans, #gunconfiscation

Second Amendment Voter

Gun grabbers love to refer to Second Amendment supporters as single-issue voters. Portraying 2A supporters as being out of touch with the reality of the modern world and narrow minded is an effort to shame and ridicule them so they won’t be taken seriously. As you might expect, I disagree.

Let’s approach this from the context of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow ranked needs from bottom to top starting with physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. The psychological theory is that the lower level needs must be met before the individual will have a strong desire for the upper level needs. In a very simple example: if you don’t have food, water and shelter, your desire for the fine arts and cultural pursuits are going to be pretty dim.

You are supposed to progress upwards as stability is gained in the lower levels but may drop back down through the list at any time due to your individual circumstances. When your lower level needs erode due to a change or loss, your primary concentration will be on fixing those foundational needs before you go back up.

So what does this have to do with the Second Amendment and voting? Think of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the foundational, base level need on Maslow’s chart. Everything that was built in this country, by this country, was born as a result of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by these documents. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the press, the right to bear arms – all necessary and the basis for the success of the nation we live in today.

Unfortunately, the foundation of our nation is under attack nationally and locally. The presumptive Democratic nominee for President is steadfastly opposed to the Second Amendment and will do everything in her power to gut this right or repeal it outright. In addition, an anti-Second Amendment appointee to the US Supreme Court, as has been proposed by our current President, would most certainly guarantee any future firearms rights cases would be rejected. Landmark cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago would be in jeopardy of being ‘reinterpreted’ or repealed.

Here in California, the list of anti-Second Amendment ballot initiatives and bills grows almost daily. Each new one coming up with unique ways of stripping rights away from honest, law abiding firearms owners while doing absolutely nothing to increase safety or reduce crime.

Some contend the Second Amendment is outdated and an unnecessary relic from colonial times. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The protections expressed in these documents were the result of living under an oppressive government that no longer represented them. If that doesn’t apply to all of the rights today, nothing does.

It’s not that Second Amendment supporters aren’t concerned with international monetary policy or global environmental issues, it’s that they are focusing on an essential principle of our country first. Destroying the Second Amendment would eliminate a key part of the foundation of our nation. Just as the foundation of a single story house is critical to it’s stability, the foundation of a 100-story building is even more critical.

Patriots fought and died for our liberty. Our Founding Fathers had the courage to defy their oppressors, risking their lives and the lives of their families, to document what our new nation would be established on. The men and women of our armed services have been protecting it with their lives for nearly 240 years now.

For me, a free citizen of the United States for the sacrifices of those who have come before me, walking into a voting booth and placing my ballot for candidates who will support and protect the Second Amendment is an honor and my duty as a voter.

And when someone calls me a single-issue voter, I just reply: Damn right I am – for now.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #billofrights, #2ndamendment, #1stamendment, #2ndamendmentvoter, #singleissuevoter, #gunvote

Sticks & Stones

By now you’ve likely heard of the latest American college student fad – the “safe space”. A protected haven from the cruel outside world, it is a place where words that injure or harm cannot be spoken so feelings cannot be hurt.

What the hell has happened to our youth?!?

The epicenter of this sub-societal trend seems to be the students of the University of Missouri. The poster child for which is the now terminated Assistant Communications Professor Melissa Click who was seen assaulting a student journalist and yelling profanities at a police officer. As part of this saga, the University Police Department even encouraged students to report incidents where their feelings were hurt.

The most recent example comes from Georgia’s Emory University where 40 students reported feeling “afraid” and “in pain” due to a number of political messages written in chalk around the campus. The messages? Trump 2016.

The following quote seems to capture the essence of the situation there: “I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe [here]. But this man is being supported by students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well. … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school.”

Afraid? Afraid of what??

When I was a child – many, many years ago, my parents taught me a simple saying: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. The lesson is ever so easy. No matter what the words, they cannot harm you.

Fast-forward to our college campuses today. What kind of a country have we become where our college students, the next generation of community, business and political leaders, need to be protected from words? These are supposedly intelligent young men and women who displayed enough intellect to be admitted to an institution of higher learning. What does this say about the colleges and universities themselves? Is setting up “safe spaces” where feelings won’t be hurt actually preparing them for… well, anything in the real world? What are the job prospects for a college graduate who – when they see or hear something that falls outside their narrow belief system – feels ‘hurt’, ‘afraid’ or ‘in pain’, and thinks protesting from a “safe space” is the preferred course of action? And when the HELL did we stop teaching kids about Sticks and Stones?

This nation’s Founding Fathers were so concerned with freedom and individual rights that the first set of Amendments to the United States Constitution is the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Notice it does NOT say – unless someone’s feelings could be hurt. I have no doubt the Founding Fathers understood granting everyone freedom of speech would be problematic. Inevitably, there will be times when views opposite to one’s own will be spoken. No other person is under any obligation to listen or even pay attention to them, but the person speaking does have the absolute right to speak.

This is why I have always felt the First Amendment is simultaneously the most difficult and the most important of rights. I may not like and I could even be disturbed by what someone else has to say. But if I do not defend that person’s right to speak it, who is to say my right to speak won’t be taken away next. Rights are funny that way. If not vigorously defended by everyone, for everyone, they can easily slip away.

An update: A recent report from University of Missouri indicates they are bracing for a 25% decrease in enrollments this year resulting in significant facility and staff layoffs. At the same time all other colleges and universities in Missouri are expecting record increases in applications.

Maybe there’s a chance for a few of our youth after all.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #sticksandstones, #safespace, #1stamendment, #constitution #billofrights