Feinstein on the back burner…

NewImage

After a week of pain in my hand I’m typing again!

I don’t know what I did but for whatever reason I was having some serious problems moving my hand. Who would have thought that a sharp pain in the middle of your hand would cause so much interference just going about my daily life?

The pain was in the wrong position for stigmata so I’m relieved that I’ve not been called into the priesthood or anything.

I’ve been scanning the news and while there are many things that I probably should say I’m not going to.

I was glad to see that Feinstein’s gun bill wasn’t being voted on. I suspect that means that it will show up attached to some other group of bills that we really do need and thereby the old battle ax will have her way.

I can sort of understand her position on guns, early in her career she was first or second on the scene of at least two murders. That would have to change your opinion of guns and violence.

In my case it would make me decide to sponsor concealed or open carry that didn’t require registration. I’m a firm believer in the saying “An armed society is a polite society

She has a right to her opinion and beliefs.

What concerns me is that she’s likely to snake her bill into something else and that bypasses the purpose of our politicians voting on bills/issues in the first place.

I’m in favor of out politicians having to vote on each law/bill individually. I think that would stop a lot of the pork and provide a more transparent and representative body of law.

It will never happen though…

Can we now safely say its gone too far?

I caught this headline yesterday, the NRA picked it up this morning on Twitter.

7-year-old Maryland boy suspended for shaping pastry into gun – (via @WashTimes)

This boggles my mind. It’s almost as bad as the boy being suspended from making a gun with his index finger.

Or the Canadian boy last year whose parents home was raided because the boy drew a picture of a gun in school on a piece of paper. Uh… hello? It was a picture! (There’s more to the story and I’m oversimplifying the Canadian case a little. If you’re interested, you can find the original article in the archive section of this blog.)

20130303-094656.jpg Folks lets get a fucking clue!

Guns are in our culture, they are in every cop show, they’re romanticized, demonized, and endlessly discussed in the media.


As an aside, I happened to catch an episode of Hawaii Five-O a few weeks back.

There was a very interesting exchange between the two main characters, I don’t remember the whole thing exactly but it was something like “you’re a cop how can you not like guns?”, The other characters said “I use a gun as part of my job but that doesn’t mean I have to like guns.”

I remember that caught my attention because it was unusual for a cop show to address the gun issue and I wondered if the actor(s) or writers were taking a bit of a stand. I wondered if the actor who played the character not liking guns was making a personal statement for himself in the show with the help of the writers.

Either way, I liked the delivery. I thought it was reasonable, not preachy and pretty adult in it’s message. It also happened that it mirrors my own opinions about guns. They’re tools. Shooting at a target range is fun, a gun is a tool that facilitates shooting at the target range. I might like a particular gun, or a certain gun might have sentimental value to me. But that’s about as far as it goes. I am by no means and don’t anticipate becoming a collector / ammo hoarder with a walk in gun safe


There are pictures of guns almost daily in the newspapers in this country.

We shouldn’t be surprised that our kids would be curious.

The problem I see with the irrational behavior exhibited in these instances is that we add to the mystique of guns.

What lesson are we teaching a 7 year old by suspending him? Are we saying that guns are mysterious, forbidden, frightening, and therefore ultimately desirable?

Will this child learn the lesson that he can get out of school anytime he wants by presenting any remotely pseudo gun like object in class? Where will that lead?

Will this child and his peers ultimately decide that a gun is the most sought after object they can acquire? If so, doesn’t that logically increase the probability of children accidentally shooting each other?

20130303-094712.jpg It’s time for us to dial it down a few notches.

Water pistols will soon be making their annual appearance.

How do we as a society justify water guns being sold at Toys r Us and Walgreens, as toys and at the same time suspend kids for making croissant or finger guns?

I personally think making gang hand signs is far more damaging and deserving of sanction but that’s my opinion.

How about the schools, instead of freaking out, do something like actually teach the kids why they’re concerned?

Why not teach children what guns are used for, (hunting, law enforcement, military actions,) etc?

How about teaching kids the dangers of guns and that they’re loud and smelly. (Gunpowder smoke isn’t all that pleasant, when I was a kid I didn’t like the smell, now… Well it’s not a problem.)

I’d say get law enforcement involved, have them speak to the kids about guns and why they carry them.

Have local gun clubs or ranges put on demonstrations so the kids have a very clear idea about what a gun is, how much damage a gun can cause and why the children should be very careful if they find themselves around guns.

Even if none of the above was possible, I think it would be far more responsible for schools to teach kids something useful, like what to do if they happen to find an unattended gun or even just bullets.

Useful information like;

Don’t touch
Leave the area
Go find an adult and tell them where the gun/bullets are.

It’s not necessary to dwell on the negative. Criminals will provide ample examples of misuse via the daily news.

Instead of increasing the mystique, lets dispel it.

Lets teach the kids that a gun is a tool. Most children are less than interested in operating a shovel, rake, or lawnmower.

If we could put guns in the same context it would be far more effective at curbing children’s curiosity than completely disproportionate and frankly silly responses from adults and educators.


I swear! I’d no sooner pressed “Publish” on this entry when I saw this in Twitter.

A sixteen year old student has been suspended for disarming another student on a school bus.

But wait it gets better! Our suspended student was one of three suspended for disarming a fellow student that was pointing a loaded .22 caliber at another students head and threatening to kill him.

The gun toting student was arrested.

The referral slip for the kid that disarmed the would-be shooter, stated that he’d been suspended for being involved in an incident with a gun.

Ok… WTF?

Again what are we trying to teach our children? We say you should be responsible, get involved, prevent bullying, and when kids actually do behave bravely and with honor doing what we tell them is the right thing…

We punish them!

Folks this really is not the way to instill higher values in our children or in our society.

Ran across these and enjoyed them

There are some readers of the blog who will no doubt be upset by my mentioning anything about The Constitution. 

Tough! Just like TV if you don’t like what you see… Don’t freakin look.

Now on with my thought…

I wasn’t going to write about guns for a while. Then I heard about the attendance at a gun show in Orange County.

People were standing in line for 5 hours just to get inside to purchase the gun or ammunition of their choice. Last I heard, something like 140 thousand people attended that show. Apparently I’m not the only one interested in the gun control discussion or where it may lead. (No, I didn’t attend the show.)

Ammunition is hard to come by right now and it’s expensive because it’s in short supply. This is pretty much like it was in 2008 after President Obama took office. This “run” on guns and ammo probably wouldn’t have happened were it not for the Sandy hook shootings and the subsequent call for more gun control.

I’ve been reading articles about the gun control debate and remain unconvinced that the new body of law will have much impact on preventing these tragedies. I am concerned about erosion of the 2nd amendment.

No, I’m not with the people who think the 2nd amendment is going to be abolished today, tomorrow, or next year.

I am concerned about what happens when more laws are enacted to prevent tragedies and those laws fail, leading to more and more laws, which I personally believe will fail. Does that represent a threat to the 2nd amendment? If so, how can that threat be mitigated?

This morning I ran across an original piece that caught my interest. It’s written by David Mamet.

I really enjoyed Mamets use of English, and his observation that what people refer to as assault weapons are more cosmetically akin to assault weapons than functionally similar. (Putting a Ferrari body on a1967 Datsun chassis doesn’t make the Datsun a Ferrari.)

This distinction is thought provoking in that to make the same weapon frame legal again requires nothing more than removal or repainting of largely decorative bits.

The rifle will no longer “Look” like an assault weapon, but the underlying frame could still be the same. I imagine that there are a ton of after market manufacturers tooling up at this moment to sell “customization kits” so that you can buy a legal rifle and then add the bits that make it look like an assault rifle. I guess it will be good for the economy. But the law itself is questionable in it’s effectiveness.

Later as I was scanning more news headlines I ran across this piece from CNN.  

The CNN article caught my attention because it addresses some of the concerns that Assault weapon bans don’t. Criminal behavior doesn’t by definition respect the law. More importantly, the article notes that handguns not assault rifles are responsible for more deaths in America per year.

I’m not against gun control per se. I am against theatrical, grandiose but largely ineffective laws.

I’d be completely supportive of taking the existing body of gun law and tossing out everything that is nonsensical. From there, I’d support consistent logical laws that stay within constitutional guidelines are recognized nationwide, and make the public safer too.

Years ago I actually approached a Police officer at a LEO recruiting booth during a state fair. I asked “Where could I go to get proper training with firearms?” I further explained that I was interested in purchasing a handgun but didn’t want to make a purchase without appropriate safety training. The officer looked at me as though I’d lost my mind. 

My logic was He was an officer, he worked with guns all the time, and I had nothing to hide.

His response was, just go to a gun store and buy a gun, then go to a shooting range and shoot it. Maybe I was putting him on the spot, or he felt he couldn’t make a recommendation about a particular school or training facility. I’ve always thought that the one place you should be able to go for information about gun training and safety should be the police.

I’d pay to attend gun training classes. Hell I’d pay for police instruction about how to deal with the police in the event I’d had a break in and had fired at or shot the intruder. The last thing I’d want to deal with is the police shooting me because they couldn’t tell I was a “good guy”.

I’d welcome the ability to demonstrate my proficiency with a gun to an NRA instructor or local Police instructor and wish that upon that demonstration the instructors would make recommendations that would not only improve my safety in handling a weapon but my shooting ability too.

I think that a lot of potential and current gun owners would stand up in support of laws that made sense. Sadly, the centrists from both sides of the discussion are being drowned in the hyperbole of the extremist reactionary fringes.

As an example, go back and listen to Ben Shapiros interview with Piers Morgan. Mr Shapiro, tries to engage Piers Morgan in a real discussion when he asks, citing the statistics,  why not hand guns? Why only assault rifles? Mr Shapiro raised a great question… One that apparently CNN is finally seeking to answer.

I’m going to try to paste both of the articles below for your convenience.

Please take a look at the site links. If the articles are updated you’ll get the update only by going to the sites.

Thanks to The Daily Beast, Newsweek, and CNN.  


From Newsweek, The Daily Beast

Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm

Jan 29, 2013 12:00 AM EST

 

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so. By David Mamet. Get the full issue of Newsweek today on your iPad and other editions.

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.

 

‘In announcing his gun control proposals, President Obama said that he was not restricting Second Amendment rights, but allowing other constitutional rights to flourish.’

For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”

All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.

Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.

As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.

President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”

But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.

The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependant on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”

Gun rights advocates rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Jan. 2013.

Who threatens American society most: law-abiding citizens or criminals? (Matt Rourke/AP)

This is a chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms willdefault to dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance with law.

The Founders recognized that Government is quite literally a necessary evil, that there must be opposition, between its various branches, and between political parties, for these are the only ways to temper the individual’s greed for power and the electorates’ desires for peace by submission to coercion or blandishment.

Healthy government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men. Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure; if they are arrogant, willful, duplicitous, or simply wrong, they must be replaced, else they will consolidate power, and use the treasury to buy votes, and deprive us of our liberties. It was to guard us against this inevitable decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and confused electorate, but to protect us from such a government.

Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.

The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.

Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition.

But President Obama, it seems, does.

He has just passed a bill that extends to him and his family protection, around the clock and for life, by the Secret Service. He, evidently, feels that he is best qualified to determine his needs, and, of course, he is. As I am best qualified todetermine mine.

For it is, again, only the Marxists who assert that the government, which is to say the busy, corrupted, and hypocritical fools most elected officials are (have you ever had lunch with one?) should regulate gun ownership based on its assessment of needs.

Q. Who “needs” an assault rifle?

A. No one outside the military and the police. I concur.

An assault weapon is that which used to be called a “submachine gun.” That is, a handheld long gun that will fire continuously as long as the trigger is held down.

These have been illegal in private hands (barring those collectors who have passed the stringent scrutiny of the Federal Government) since 1934. Outside these few legal possessors, there are none in private hands. They may be found in the hands of criminals. But criminals, let us reflect, by definition, are those who will not abide by the laws. What purpose will passing more laws serve?

My grandmother came from Russian Poland, near the Polish city of Chelm. Chelm was celebrated, by the Ashkenazi Jews, as the place where the fools dwelt. And my grandmother loved to tell the traditional stories of Chelm.

Its residents, for example, once decided that there was no point in having the sun shine during the day, when it was light out—it would be better should it shine at night, when it was dark. Similarly, we modern Solons delight in passing gun laws that, in their entirety, amount to “making crime illegal.”

What possible purpose in declaring schools “gun-free zones”? Who bringing a gun, with evil intent, into a school would be deterred by the sign?

Ah, but perhaps one, legally carrying a gun, might bring it into the school.

Obama family attending Easter church service

If President Obama determines a need to defend his family, why can’t we defend our own? (Jonathan Ernst, Reuters/Landov)

Good.

We need more armed citizens in the schools.

Walk down Madison Avenue in New York. Many posh stores have, on view, or behind a two-way mirror, an armed guard. Walk into most any pawnshop, jewelry story, currency exchange, gold store in the country, and there will be an armed guard nearby. Why? As currency, jewelry, gold are precious. Who complains about the presence of these armed guards? And is this wealth more precious than our children?

Apparently it is: for the Left adduces arguments against armed presence in the school but not in the wristwatch stores. Q. How many accidental shootings occurred last year in jewelry stores, or on any premises with armed security guards?

Why not then, for the love of God, have an armed presence in the schools? It could be done at the cost of a pistol (several hundred dollars), and a few hours of training (that’s all the security guards get). Why not offer teachers, administrators, custodians, a small extra stipend for completing a firearms-safety course and carrying a concealed weapon to school? The arguments to the contrary escape me.

 

Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre rattles off a list of places protected by armed guards at an NRA press conference.

Why do I specify concealed carry? As if the weapons are concealed, any potential malefactor must assume that anyone on the premises he means to disrupt may be armed—a deterrent of even attempted violence.

Yes, but we should check all applicants for firearms for a criminal record?

Anyone applying to purchase a handgun has, since 1968, filled out a form certifying he is not a fugitive from justice, a convicted criminal, or mentally deficient. These forms, tens and tens of millions of them, rest, conceivably, somewhere in the vast repository. How are they checked? Are they checked? By what agency, with what monies? The country is broke. Do we actually want another agency staffed by bureaucrats for whom there is no funding?

The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.

The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal (as above) for 78 years. Did the ban make them “more” illegal? The ban addresses only theappearance of weapons, not their operation.

Will increased cosmetic measures make anyone safer? They, like all efforts at disarmament, will put the citizenry more at risk. Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things.

But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws?

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.

President Obama seems to understand the Constitution as a “set of suggestions.” I cannot endorse his performance in office, but he wins my respect for taking those steps he deems necessary to ensure the safety of his family. Why would he want to prohibit me from doing the same?

An interesting thing

NewImage

Honestly I’d never thought about this until recently.

I firmly, completely and totally believe that the 2nd amendment insures my personal right to have a gun.

I realize that there are those who would disagree. Fine, that demonstrates yet another freedom we have in this country. The freedom to think for ourselves, do what we believe to be right and hopefully pursue our own personal happiness.

Your choice not to have a gun is as personal to you as my belief in upholding the 2nd amendment is to me. I’m totally good with that because we’re both pursuing our respective forms of happiness.

When you’re looking for a job and thinking about relocation, you start considering all the factors that moving your stuff from one place to another entails. You start making a packing list. That list has the stuff that you’d need immediately and the stuff that you could leave in storage, or have shipped.

If one of those items happened to be a gun, now you have to consider your destination.

NewImage

A responsible gun owner would be far more inclined to keep the gun or guns in a safe and would be hesitant to let that safe and it’s contents get too far out of their control. 

The gun owners I know don’t want to ever have the possibility of one of their weapons being stolen.

Problem is a gun safe is pretty damn obvious going onto a moving truck or coming off of one. It’s not like you’d be able to be subtle about a 900lb safe that’s labeled “American Guns Safe” .

This is especially true if you’re wheeling it into your new digs with the help of 20 day workers.

My luck would have me moving into a house between a cop and a liberal do gooder who felt it necessary to report to authorities that they’d seen GUNS!!! and ammunition being wheeled into the house… 

I’d never really thought about it too much…

Mainly because I’ve always assumed my business was well… my business. Since we didn’t live in Nazi Germany or the USSR I never worried about my neighbors tattling on me.

Well that is until now, thanks in part to the newspaper in New York publishing gun permit owners names & addresses. I was surprised that anyone sided with the paper thinking it was OK for the public at large to know what you had in your home.

Of course the excuse of “the Children” was trotted out  as a justification for invasion of privacy.

Personally I think,  “The Children” are at far more risk from sexual deviants than guns.

In the interest of protecting The Children, perhaps we should make everyone purchasing vibrators, leather restraints, or pornography register these materials then publish their names and addresses weekly. 

That is after all the conflation the Journal News was trying to make with their gun ownership map. They were drawing a parallel between gun ownership and sexual molesters.

Which brings me to the question.

If you were to be offered a position in New York for instance or Massachusetts or Illinois… what do you do with your guns?

Both New York and Massachusetts are insane about their regulation, permitting, registration, and god only knows what all else.

I’ve been told that these states also make a lot of additional money from anyone choosing to exercise their 2nd amendment right. Something on the order of hundreds if not thousands of dollars just to get the permit that allows you to exercise your constitutionally guaranteed right

This mountain of bureaucratic nonsense probably isn’t about protecting the public as much as it is about discouraging all but the hardiest or masochistic of individuals from obtaining or keeping weapons legally.

I could probably head to Harlem or some of the less savory neighborhoods in Boston and obtain a weapon in 30 minutes or less with the right amount of money. No papers, no background check, no reporting or waiting periods either.

NewImage

And were you to land a job in Chicago (A safest place on Earth Gun Free Zone…) well I suppose you’d have to sell your guns…

A job transfer to Chicago would , I guess mean you’d have to go to one of those unsavory areas and sell your guns, associated ammo, and any accessories, the day you got there.

Again without background checks or any reports on to whom you sold the weapons.

Then you could go to your new apartment and lay your head down to sleep in peace knowing that you’d done the right thing and complied with the law.

Sarcasm aside, I realized that there are in fact places in this country where I absolutely will not even consider moving

I don’t want an arsenal, I don’t want mil spec weapons. But I damn sure do want the right to own guns, and I want the ability to go to the store put my money on the counter and buy a rifle, or ammunition 

So I’ve altered my job search / willingness to relocate parameters.

I’ve also responded “No” to an invitation to apply for a 6 month position in NY with the following:

Thank you for thinking of me.
 
However, I do not wish to move to a state like NY where I must for the most part forego my 2nd Amendment right to keep & bear arms, and where I also would be subject to the loss of personal privacy about the contents of my home.
 
All the best.

NewImage

Perhaps fighting gun control isn’t all about fighting with law in the courts.

Perhaps it’s about fighting oppressive laws in the economic arena too.

After all if companies can’t get employees or lose business because their corporate offices are in gun control states they’ll move somewhere else.

All that has to happen is for their employees to be honest when they leave, and for their prospective employees to be honest about why they’re not interviewing for positions. 

It’s the long way around but it does make a statement.

Gotta love hypocrites

Journal News publisher Janet Hasson

A letter has appeared from Janet Hasson the publisher of The Journal News  explaining why the paper has decided to take the gun permit map down.

Her letter doesn’t hold water, yet she’s trying to spin taking the map down as a victory.

Read the comments after her letter and It’s pretty obvious that the heat must have been and will hopefully continue to be withering against her and the paper.

To our readers:
 
In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, The Journal News thought the community should know where gun permit holders in their community were, in part to give parents an opportunity to make careful decisions about their children’s safety.
 
The Journal News mapped the public database of permit holders, placing a dot on the address of every permit holder in Westchester and Rockland counties and providing the name and street address of each holder. The dots conveyed a powerful message: gun permit holders are everywhere in our counties.
 
But public reaction to the posting of names and street addresses was swift and divided. Many in the community expressed their gratitude for The Journal News’ decision to make the information available, but permit holders were outraged at what they considered to be an invasion of privacy. Gun owners from across the country vocally conveyed their anger and accused The Journal News of having exposed permit holders and non-permit holders alike to the risk of burglaries and other crimes. Hundreds of threats were made to Journal News staffers.
 
So intense was the opposition to our publication of the names and addresses that legislation passed earlier this week in Albany included a provision allowing permit holders to request confidentiality and imposing a 120-day moratorium on the release of permit holder data.
 
Today The Journal News has removed the permit data from lohud.com. Our decision to do so is not a concession to critics that no value was served by the posting of the map in the first place. On the contrary, we’ve heard from too many grateful community members to consider our decision to post information contained in the public record to have been a mistake. Nor is our decision made because we were intimidated by those who threatened the safety of our staffers. We know our business is a controversial one, and we do not cower.
 
But the database has been public for 27 days and we believe those who wanted to view it have done so already. As well, with the passage of time, the data will become outdated and inaccurate.
 
Equally important, the legislature has weighed in on the issue and representatives of residents from across the state have said that some New Yorkers who hold gun permits should have the right to keep that information private. As a news organization, we are constantly defending the public’s right to know. Consequently we do not endorse the way the legislature has chosen to limit public access to gun permit data. The statute is very broad and allows anyone who meets certain criteria within qualifying categories to keep their permit information private. When the moratorium concludes, far fewer permit holders will be identifiable, and those who want to know which houses on their block may have guns will not be able to get that information. But we are not deaf to voices who have said that new rules should be set for gun permit data.
 
Make no mistake, The Journal News will continue to report aggressively on gun ownership. We will continue to pursue our request for data from Putnam County, and will closely analyze the data for Westchester and Rockland counties when it once again becomes publicly available. And we will keep a snapshot of our map — with all its red dots — on our website to remind the community that guns are a fact of life we should never forget.
 
Sincerely,

Janet Hasson

President and Publisher

Journal News Media Group

Here is the link to the article.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20130118/NEWS02/301180125/Letter-from-publisher-gun-map

They’ve removed the map and the information about the gun permits because the law said they have to.

Sadly, this is rather like locking the barn after the horses have escaped, there are no doubt copies replicated on countless servers, blogs, and on private computers worldwide.

In short The Journal News has created a situation that can never be undone.

In other related news there is this from ProjectVeritas

The video is about 10 minutes long and it’s very interesting to note a couple of things…

First, not one of the editors/reporters who describe themselves as anti-gun will place a sign on their lawns saying that their homes are essentially gun free zones

Second, a large percentage of the editors/reporters either have armed guards at their homes or they’ll call the police at the “drop of a hat”.

Talk about people that think nothing of the safety of others (regardless of what they say) but when it comes to their personal safety all the sudden their concerns about guns vanish.

I guess this is what Über liberalism is all about.

I’m reminded of the line from Plan 9 from Outer Space. “All you people of Earth are idiots” I supposed we could revise that line to read “All you non-liberals are idiots, you’re either with us or you’re racist morons!”

Patience has paid off.

NewImage

After many days of tweaking and patiently letting my computer do whatever the hell it needed to do, I now have an alternate backup.

Not only do I have an alternate backup, It’s working very nicely and for the time being all is peaceful in computer land here.

Getting the backup took days (Still scratching my head over that one…) But now the incrementals are quick, efficient, and on a par with the TimeCapsule. Even though they’re being made on a Western Digital NAS

I’m over the hassle for the time being. I’ll probably do something like put the Time Capsule into maintenance mode when I’ve got nothing better to do. For the time being I’m just going to take a breather. None of the other computers backing up on the TimeCapsule seem to be having problems. I can only assume the problem I was having is some kind of corruption in the backup for my machine alone.

I can’t stress how much everyone needs to have a backup of their computers or at least their data. That is one thing I can say Apple has done mostly right, The Apple backup system in it’s various iterations has saved my behind on a number of occasions. 

Were it not for the automated system I can’t tell you how many times I’d have been lamenting over losing all the stuff on various computers.

Whatever you do to back your system up, be consistent about it.

DAMN! 

As I was sitting here typing I pondered the question about why the WD drive was so slow. It occurred to me that I have several really fast ethernet ports on the back of my TimeCapsule. Those ports while nice, had never really mattered all that much because the rest of the devices in the network are incapable of capitalizing on their speed.

I wondered what speed if the WD drive? Sure enough, it can capitalize on the additional speed so I took a break from writing this blog and did a little reconfiguration. Now time will tell if I notice the different in access speed. 

When I plugged the WD in a year or so ago after the Buffalo drive died I just used the same port and really didn’t think about it. I was so focused on saving what data I could save I just wanted a drive that was online. In retrospect I probably should have given a little more thought to the situation.

Yet another time when I’m doing the Homer Simpson “D’OH”

Now before my non technical readers start bleeding from their eyes I’m going to change the subject.

OK I’m going to break yet another taboo… Gun Control!!!

I don’t know how many of you watch Piers Morgan… ( I don’t as a rule, I think he’s a pompous ass and wish that CNN would just shut him down.)

However, poor Piers has really been taking it on the nose the past few weeks.

Most recently he was pretty much outclassed, out thought, and out maneuvered by a young Attorney, Author, and supporter of the 2nd amendment named Ben Shapiro.

 You can view the interview here 

http://youtu.be/hJ8jcsaDK1k

I like what Mr Shapiro has to say. He’s asking for a logical description of gun control. His point that relatively few murders are committed with AR type weapons is interesting and that if you’re going to ban weapons to be consistent you really should ban handguns. They are, after all used far more often in crimes of violence than assault weapons.

It’s an interesting point and In general I agree with him.

However I believe that banning handguns in this country is a lost cause. Therefore President Obama, Vice President Biden, and the congress are choosing a weapon to “Ban” as nothing more than simple theater.

It’s a way for the government to look like they care, and they’re doing something.

They may get assault weapons banned. Then what? 

Automatic pistols are sold in California with 10 round magazines

Depending on how good a shot you are that single magazine represents 10 people dead. I’ve posted previously that the people most likely to carry out the kind of insane crimes we’ve seen in recent history are planners. They think long and hard about what they’re going to do, how they’re going to do it, and they practice.

Remember Anders Breivik in Oslo? There’s evidence suggesting that he tested his bombs on a farm outside the city limits, prior to his rampage in 2011. 

Given the proposition that these people practice their murderous plans beforehand, nothing short of a complete ban on all weapons is going to stop the violence.

But then do you really think the violence will stop?

Even if by some feat of draconian socialist government control you manage to remove all firearms from this country. If someone wants to kill another person or multiple people… explosives, incendiary  devices, bows and arrows will do the same job just fine.

So are you going to outlaw gasoline? How about basic chemistry? Gunpowder is a really simple compound to make. I’ll grant you, it wouldn’t be high yield, but the Chinese were using gunpowder in explosives 1000 years ago. And the basic recipe can be found in a StarTrek episode.

Oh wait… One of the oldest human traditions is the good old fashioned club, There goes baseball bats and forget about Cricket bats. OH wait I guess we’ll need to cut down all the trees.

My point is this, a reasonably intelligent NUTJOB who wants to make a statement, or commit suicide by cop will find a way to express their violence or make their point.

The sad part is that a lot of these people are reasonably intelligent.

They may be crazy but they’re not stupid, unlike our politicians and TV pundits.