March 11, 2017

Oh DAMN! That backlash really smarts!!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-africanamerican-guns-idUSKCN0PP2N320150715

Any day now...........

January 21, 2017

Well, I didn't let this day - 1/20 - get ruined.

This was my late mother's birthday. I decided that I would spend the entire day reliving fond memories of Mom. Worked pretty damn well overall.

Today as I was getting my hair cut, the stylist had me aimed at the TV set.....and I had to close my eyes. Luckily the sound was off so as not to clash with the stereo, which proceeded to feature Stevie Ray Vaughan's The Sky is Cryin'. Given the hard rain outside, I almost broke down right then and there. That was the only tough spot in my day. Otherwise, memories of Mom kept me sane.

That's all.

January 7, 2017

Car & homeowner insurance bundles

So I'm considering alternatives to my current (separate) coverage, and was wondering how many folks would like to share their experience in this area. I've been told that USAA is great, but I believe it's for military/families of military only --- and I'll call them Monday to find out if my deceased father qualifies as family. He did a 4 yr. stint in the Navy.

Any and all input is appreciated --- thanks in advance!

December 6, 2016

A little help from my friends...........

Hey all -- I've been trying without any luck to locate an older thread in the Postmortem forum which I know a few of you participated in.

A member was mulling over the possibility that perhaps a change in the way we look at gun restriction was in order based on the calamity of November 8th. (Of course, he/she should be commended for considering what we've been saying for decades!)

I'm thinking that one or more of you could provide a link to that discussion. Thanks in advance!

October 14, 2016

Texas, Arizona, Utah or Georgia might already be blue were it not for stupidity like this:

"Betsy got tired of waiting for the gunsucking cowards in Congress to get off their asses and save some lives, so she decided to take matters into her own sticky, chalky hands.

Gunhumpers love their deadly fetish objects so much that they bring them everywhere they go, and usually do a really shitty job of securing them. This is not so good for the 100 kids who Second Amendment themselves to death every year, but the silver lining is that it does help make Betsy’s job much easier.

Unlocked cars are a great place to find any kind of gun a Betsy might want, from handguns to AR-15s. Betsy helpfully reminded this gun owner, former gun owner, of the cold statistical truth:

Garages can also offer a wealth of weapons to literally anyone who happens to stroll by. Irresponsible gunlicking f*ckwits, take note: if you can’t keep your f*cking guns out of the wrong f*cking hands, they will end up in Betsy’s.

Any betsy can play this game – it’s fun and easy! The best part is that you don’t even really have to look all that hard before you start finding killing machines left lying around somewhere where a fragile man-child or a violent felon or a kid can pick ‘em up – public bathrooms, parks, even Disney World!

Make sure to take trophy pics…"

This was from an article published at HuffPo, since removed. The author of the piece was sarcastically encouraging theft of lawfully owned firearms from "gunhumpers". The fact that this article passed muster and was actually published makes a rational citizen scratch their head, to say the least. Just another example of moronic culture war that pushes voters toward the GOP, and prevents us from accomplishing worthwhile objectives like single-payer health care. (To cite just one example) Here's the scrubbed page that this quote was taken from:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/betsy-goes-gun-grabbin_us_57f6d7d6e4b0d786aa52adcd?timestamp=1475819190402

Edited to add: I saw this story of Facebook, and the quote from the article came from a right wing source. Despite the fact that The Huffington Post removed the story the message was still captured, and I imagine is circulating fairly widely.

September 20, 2016

Looks like we can tell the truth when it suits us.

I wish I had $5 for every time I've heard or read the phrase epidemic of violence. It's what those who push for gun restriction repeat over and over, ad nauseum, even though it's a blatant falsehood.

Looks like Trump has just been endorsed by the National Fraternal Order of Police, and will playing the same card we have for years in posturing as the "law and order candidate". Here's a quote from the Salon article that is really chapping my ass:

Today, a sharp uptick in murder rates in a small number of cities, against the backdrop of mass shootings and bombs scattered across metro New York, is lending Trump and his allies a rare fact that they can shamelessly distort to erroneously claim that crime is “through the roof.” In reality, there are very serious but locally specific problems in cities like Baltimore and Chicago. Overall murder and crime rates are still way down from the early 1990s.

So what's up, fellow Democrats? Is there in fact an "epidemic of violence" in the nation or not? Sure looks like some chickens are coming home to roost.

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/20/the-worst-kind-of-cop-out-of-course-the-fraternal-order-of-police-endorsed-trump/

June 20, 2016

You know you're in trouble when even Salon destroys the "assault weapon" myth

First off, why not just re-institute the “assault weapons” ban that expired in 2004?

"I think that would be a mistake. A ban on military-style rifles won’t do much to stop criminal activity and, in the case of mass shootings, handguns are used more often and to equally devastating effect. Contrary to popular wisdom, these are not machine guns, which have been effectively outlawed for sale since 1986. Like a handgun, you need to pull the trigger for each round you wish to fire. Most of these guns are basically rifles with military styling. When the federal assault weapons ban was in effect, the manufactures just made slight alterations in the design and sold the same guns, with the same lethality, by the millions.

Basically, banning assault-type weapons to prevent mass shootings is like regulating drunk driving by banning scotch. Most people seem to believe that it is more like banning all hard alcohol, leaving drinkers with the less powerful spirits, like beer and wine. In fact, it’s more like banning scotch and allowing people to drink vodka, tequila, and rum. Even with a ban on assault weapons, there will still be equally powerful weapons out there."

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/an_ar_15_ban_wont_stop_mass_shootings_thats_like_regulating_drunk_driving_by_banning_scotch/

The "banning Scotch" analogy is spot-on!

June 18, 2016

I must confess to being quite unobservant.......

How did I miss the significance of the weapon chosen for the Blue Steel Democrat logo? They could have gone with a "safer" choice, but decided instead to aggressively confront the "weapons of war" lie:

http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/

Bravo, I say. BRAVO!!!

May 17, 2016

OH NO! MORE OF THE DREADED BACKLASH!!!

On Monday, May 16, a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Teixeira v. County of Alameda, a case challenging a restrictive county ordinance that, among other things, prohibits firearm dealers from being located within 500 feet of a residentially zoned district. The plaintiffs challenged the ordinance on behalf of actual and prospective firearm purchasers, arguing that the ordinance violated both the Equal Protection clause and the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The appeals court upheld the dismissal of the Equal Protection claim, but reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim.

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit recognized that “if the right to keep and bear arms is to have any force, the people must have a right to acquire the very firearms they are entitled to keep and bear,” and that the people “cannot truly enjoy a constitutionally protected right when the State is permitted to snuff out the means” of exercising that right. The Court continued by stating there is no question that an ordinance restricting the commercial sale of firearms would burden the rights of law-abiding citizens, and that because of this burden, the ordinance clearly impacts the “core of the Second Amendment right.” Since the ordinance burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, the Court found that the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim must be allowed to procced, and that it must be analyzed under heightened judicial scrutiny. The Ninth Circuit also held that if the ordinance is found to effectively ban new firearm retailers from opening, a more rigorous level of judicial review, such as strict scrutiny, should be applied.

Since the Court reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim, the case will now be remanded back to the lower court to proceed towards a resolution of the case on the merits under the guidance of the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/05/16/13-17132.pdf