How to tell if someone is a Republican, a Democrat, or simply a Southerner (joke… but not without an element of truth!)

Image result for Kimber 1911

On a lighter note…!

Are you a Republican, a Democrat, or a Southerner? This little test will help you decide:

You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.

Suddenly, a Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges at you…

You are carrying a Kimber 1911 chambered in .45 ACP, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

******************************
Democrat’s Answer:

Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question! What is a Kimber 1911 and what does .45 ACP mean?

Does the man look poor or oppressed? Is he really a terrorist? Am I guilty of profiling? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation?

Does the pistol have an appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior?

I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus. This is all so confusing!

******************************
Republican’s Answer:

BANG!

******************************
Southerner’s Answer:

BANG!
BANG! BANG!
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Click…..

(Sounds of reloading)

BANG!
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG!
Click.

Daughter: “Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Speer Gold Dots or Federal Premium hollow points?!”

Son: “Can I shoot the next one?!”

Wife: “You are NOT taking that to a Taxidermist!”

“You are NOT taking that to a Taxidermist!” Too much… I love it!!!

 

Alexandria Keyes Suspended for Posing With Gun on Snapchat | Pluralist

High School Suspends Teen Girl for Posting ‘Innocent’ Photo Where She’s Holding a Gun

Endeavor Academy, located in Centennial, told Fox 31 their decision to suspend 17-year-old Alexandria Keyes stemmed from concerns over “safety.”

Source: Alexandria Keyes Suspended for Posing With Gun on Snapchat

If there was any doubt that the lunatics are running the asylum:

“According to the school, social media posts made by Keyes ‘concerned the school community and resulted in multiple parents keeping their kids home from school out of concern for safety.'”

Seriously??? This is saying something unflattering (to put it gently), not about Keyes, but about the snowflake “multiple parents” in question. Aside from this specific incident – where she was posing with her brother, a U.S. Army veteran –

“Keyes and her mother, Kelley McCollum, told Reason they believe the other posts the school references are from much earlier in the year. Eight months ago, Keyes posted a video and picture to Snapchat showing her shooting at a local gun club.”

Quelle horreure! How terrifying, that a 17-year-old should be shooting, at a shooting range, with her family. GAH!!! The stupid… it burns!!! The idiocy of these people is surreal.

“Keyes says she never intended to threaten anyone with the posts and that visiting the shooting range is something she does often with her mom and brother.”

Good family time, doing something with what the late great Aldo Leopold, called “the father of modern conservation,” would have called “split-rail value”: any activity that reminds us of our distinctive national origins and evolution. Shooting sports / recreational firearms use are among these activities.

Her mother, Kelley McCollum, is understandably outraged by the lunacy, according to the linked post, and reports that

“McCollum told Reason her daughter is scared to go back to school once her suspension ends on Friday because she’s ‘getting death threats, hate mail, and [negative] comments on her [S]napchat.'”

Think about that, please, for a moment.

This young lady, whose legal recreational firearm use – outside school hours and far away from school grounds – supposedly caused parents to keep their kids home from school out of concern for safety, is getting death threats.

Just who, here, is the threat to safety? NOT Miss Keyes, that’s for sure!

How long, O Lord – how long???

Special Snowflake Award 2nd Class
For all those parents out there (and students, too), who felt that their safety was threatened by a young lady exercising her Second Amendment rights, on her own time, in a safe location, and daring to post about it. And of course, the school administration, which REALLY should have known better (they missed a “teachable moment”). As Bill Engvall might say, “Here’s your sign!”

 

How Liberty Dies | Campaign for Liberty

Image result for campaign for liberty

Right now, the political class is rushing to do something – anything – to appease the cries of those who seek security over freedom… And in the process, destroying the very reason our nation was created.

Source: How Liberty Dies – Campaign for Liberty

Rahm Emanuel (in)famously said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” and few have taken that dictum to heart with more enthusiasm than Leftist gun grabbers.

In the aftermath of two mass shootings last weekend, one in El Paso, Texas, and the other in Dayton, Ohio, there is understandable angst and fear, even though overall firearms homicides have dropped dramatically in recent decades, and the risk of anyone in particular being involved in such an incident is extremely low – something like a 0.0000001 chance in any given year.

Still, the bodies had hardly been given a chance to cool before the Left was screaming and wringing their hands over the evils of gun violence, and the supposed “epidemic” of mass shootings… and of course finding ways to blame President Trump and his supporters for the incidents.

His supposedly “racist” and “inflammatory” rhetoric are being blamed for allegedly “fomenting hatred” and “encouraging violence” – ironically at the same time as a “satirical” film about “deplorables” (Trump supporters) being hunted down and killed is about to be released:

“A controversial movie about privileged vacationers hunting ‘deplorables’ for sport is ruffling feathers more than a month before its scheduled release and after tragic mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.

“‘The Hunt’ is billed as a satire that follows wealthy thrill-seekers taking a private jet to a five-star resort where they embark on a ‘deeply rewarding’ expedition that involves hunting down and killing designated humans…

“‘The violent, R-rated film from producer Jason Blum’s Blumhouse follows a dozen MAGA types who wake up in a clearing and realize they are being stalked for sport by elite liberals,’ THR’s Kim Masters and Tatiana Siegel wrote. ‘It features guns blazing along with other ultra-violent killings as the elites pick off their prey.'”

This comes in the context of multiple physical and verbal assaults on Trump supporters and other conservatives, not to mention threats of violence against the President himself by high-profile figures in the political and “entertainment” realms. In addition, the Dayton shooter was a political Leftist himself – possibly the first Antifa mass shooter (though sadly, probably not the last).

Indeed, WaPo columnist Mark Thiessen has noted that “if Trump is responsible for El Paso” (a debatable proposition, but if it were granted for the sake of argument), “the Democrats are responsible for Dayton.”

But of course Trump and his supporters are the ones fomenting an atmosphere of violence, according to the dominant narrative…

In any case, among the gun control proposals which has found some support, not only in Congress but from the President (who should know better) is H.R. 838, the Threat Assessment, Prevention, and Safety (TAPS) Act. From the linked essay:

The TAPS Act would encourage law enforcement to give EVERYONE a personal threat assessment (adults and children) and single out those they deem as future threats. That information would then be used as a kind of Big Brother substitute to “stop dangerous individuals” before they can commit an act of violence…

… And use your own social media to do so.

As alluded to above, Benjamin Franklin once famously said,

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

This is an excellent article on a deeply disturbing and concerning subject: the “TAPS Act” (H.R. 838) would “red flag” people suspected of possibly being a risk for violent action due to their social media posts, and enable confiscation of their firearms: one of those things that sounds great, until somebody uses it against you. I shall not comment further on this cogent essay, but as I have often said, “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest“!

It also includes links to contact the President, one’s Senators, and one’s Congressional Representative to urge them to oppose it. I have done so, and my letter to President Trump follows.


Dear Mr. President:

I have long been one of your stanch supporters. I deeply appreciate your love of this country, and I am grateful that you have stood up for U.S. interests against foreign adversaries like North Korea and Iran, unhelpful erstwhile allies like NATO and the EU, and invaders crossing our borders illegally. Now I am asking you to support the citizens of the United States and its precious Constitution by denying your support to the TAPS Act or any other gun control or Constitution-shredding bill resulting from last weekend’s tragedies.

The TAPS Act (H.R. 838) destroys virtually half of the Bill of Rights. It allows government bureaucrats to spy on Americans without a warrant (4th Amendment) and take away our gun rights (2nd Amendment), without our day in court, due process, or even us knowing about it (5th and 6th Amendments) until the police kick in the door. This is a statist, anti-liberty, and clearly unconstitutional scheme, and is not acceptable. I beg you to oppose this dangerous and un-American scheme, if you want my support and that of many other liberty-loving Americans in 2020.

Please do not allow fear, ignorance, and the greed of politicians to buy the support of their constituencies with ill-advised proposals that pander to that fear and ignorance to destroy what countless Americans have worked, fought (including my father, decorated for valor and wounded in action in WW II and an important part of our signals security in the hottest part of the Cold War), and died for, over more than two centuries.

You can do better, Mr. President. I know you can; and with all due respect, I expect you to do so if you want my continued support.

Thank you, Sir, and you remain in my prayers.

 

PRAGER: Why So Many Mass Shootings? Ask The Right Questions And You Might Find Out | Daily Wire

Assault rifles hang on the wall for sale at Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly, Virginia, on October 6, 2017.

America had plenty of guns when its mass murder rate was much lower.

Source: PRAGER: Why So Many Mass Shootings? Ask The Right Questions And You Might Find Out | Daily Wire

“America had plenty of guns when its mass murder rate was much lower… Given the same ubiquity of guns, wouldn’t the most productive question be what, if anything, has changed since the 1960s and ’70s? Of course it would. And a great deal has changed. America is much more ethnically diverse, much less religious. Boys have far fewer male role models in their lives. Fewer men marry, and normal boy behavior is largely held in contempt by their feminist teachers, principals and therapists. Do any or all of those factors matter more than the availability of guns?”

I suspect most regular readers can guess my response to this question. And it will probably not surprise you, either, that I agree with Dennis Prager when he comments,

“When you don’t ask intelligent questions, you cannot come up with intelligent answers. So, then, with regard to murder in America, until Americans stop allowing the left to ask the questions, we will have no intelligent answers.”

Indeed.

 

Gun News of the Week: ATF Says “Assault Rifle” is a Bogus Term | Outdoor Life

Colt competition rifle

A Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “white paper” correctly identifies “assault weapons” as a politically contrived term with no real meaning and recommends dramatic federal law revisions in how they are regulated.

Source: Gun News of the Week: ATF Says “Assault Rifle” is a Bogus Term | Outdoor Life

The ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms – now Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, but still usually called by the older nomenclature) finally gets it right!

“Authored by ATF second-in-command Ronald Turk, the “white paper”… says the agency is interested in reforms that ‘promote commerce and defend the Second Amendment without significant negative impact on ATF’s mission to fight violent firearms crime and regulate the firearms industry.’

“Turk wrote that the misleading ‘assault weapons’ term to describe AK-and-AR-style rifles should be replaced with ‘modern sporting rifles,’ to reflect how the use and popularity of these firearms has grown. In fact, he noted, their use in ‘sport shooting’ has grown ‘exponentially’ and such guns ‘are now standard for hunting activities.’

“The ATF official also argued in favor of changes in policy for the import of WWII-era military weapons, such as M1 Garand rifles.”

Hallelujah! Now, it’d be nice if this would have some practical effect on the absurdity of some states’ gun-control laws, including Maryland’s…

America doesn’t actually lead the world in mass shootings | New York Post

America doesn’t actually lead the world in mass shootings

The claim that the US has by far the most mass public shootings in the world drives much of the gun-control debate. Many argue that America’s high rate of gun possession explains the high rate of mass shootings.

Source: America doesn’t actually lead the world in mass shootings | New York Post

Indeed, many do so argue, and do so vociferously and publicly. But as this article points out, that assumption is incorrect, and grounded on inaccurate data:

“[Criminologist Adam Lankford’s]’s data [purporting to support the claim that the U.S. leads the world in mass shootings] grossly under-count foreign attacks. We found 1,423 attacks outside the United States. Looking at just a third of the time Lankford studied, we still found 15 times as many shooters.

“Even when we use coding choices that are most charitable to Lankford, such as excluding any cases of insurgencies or battles over territory, his estimate of the US share of shooters falls from 31 percent to 1.43 percent. It also accounts for 2.1 percent of murders, and 2.88 percent of their attacks. All these are much less than the United States’ 4.6 percent share of the population.

“Of the 86 countries where we have identified mass public shootings, the US ranks 56th per capita in its rate of attacks and 61st in mass public shooting murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia all have at least 45 percent higher rates of murder from mass public shootings than the United States.

“When Lankford’s data is revised, the relationship between gun ownership rates and mass public shooters disappears.”

In other words, far from being the country leading the world in per-capita mass shootings, the U.S. is actually far down the list. Like the purported problem of police shootings of young black males, which pales to insignificance compared to the very real problem of black-on-black violence, the primary claim behind the gun-control mania of the Left is shown to be based in deeply erroneous data.

How much longer are we going to allow our national debates to be driven by false and misleading claims, advanced to support radical Left-wing ideologies and agendas?

Fatherless Shooters … as Liberals Push for Fatherless Families | Crisis Magazine

Boys need dads. Just as daughters need dads. Children need fathers. They also need mothers.

Source: Fatherless Shooters … as Liberals Push for Fatherless Families – Crisis Magazine

I have a variety of interests, so I have a variety of stories coming through my Facebook news-feed – one of my chief methods, as a former op-ed columnist and lifelong student of human nature, for keeping my finger on the pulse of society. One of these was an essay by Paul Kengor, contributor to the online Roman Catholic magazine “Crisis,” citing a claim that I have seen before: that all but one of the 27 deadliest mass shooters in American history was raised in a home without his biological father.

Correlation, of course, is not causation; but if true, that would be a pretty stunning correlation. However, the essay was prefaced by an editor’s note that the figure cited was inaccurate, and containing a link to a new article discussing the complications in arriving at an authentic figure (the original article is well worth a read, even so, as shall become evident below). Kengor notes, with evident frustration, that “this is a dissertation project for an aspiring sociologist.” As it turns out, however, even the revised / updated estimates are still pretty stunning.

In “Shootings and Fatherlessness: A Clarification on the Data,” Kengor concludes that

“At most, and this is probably being generous, we found maybe four or five of the 27 shooters that we could definitively conclude (without doubt) had been raised in an intact family, or a family that included the biological dad at home, or a biological father who was consistently at home… what is clear is the vast majority of shooters came from broken families without a consistent biological father throughout their rearing and development. Very few had good, stable, present dads.”

Indeed! Something like one in five, if that. As Kengor goes on to note, “The overall thesis holds: the correlation between certain bad (even criminal) behavior among boys in fatherless homes is undeniable and terrible. In this case, the number of fatherless boys might not be 96 percent, but it’s certainly a highly disproportionate number.” He hastens to add that “Obviously, this doesn’t mean that boys raised in fatherless families are likely to become mass shooters. But it’s yet further affirmation of what we already know: boys need dads. Just as daughters need dads. Children need fathers. They also need mothers.”

This used to be self-evident, and widely accepted on both sides of the political aisle. Here is one quote from a former American President, cited by Kengor:

“We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”

Who spoke these words? Ronald Reagan? George W. Bush? Nope. Barack Obama. I am no fan of the 44th president, but if even the poster-child for modern American “liberal” and “progressive” ideology recognized, in 2008 – ten short years ago – that children need their fathers, that is a pretty clear indicator that it is, or should be, an issue that transcends partnership.

That it no longer seems to be so is a reflection of the changing parameters of progressivist ideology, but tracing that is not the concern of this present essay; Kengor does a rather good job of that in his piece, if you wish to pursue the matter. I will here simply note that even if the figure of 26 out of 27 mass shooters growing up in broken homes is erroneous, 22 or 23 out of that number is still stunningly high. It is not a number which can or should be dismissed by a thoughtful observer.

Now, as I say, I have a variety of interests. And so one of the other articles that came through my newsfeed on this day was this one, from the UK’s “The Guardian”: “No hugging: are we living through a crisis of touch?” The tagline notes that “Strokes and hugs are being edged out of our lives, with doctors, teachers and colleagues increasingly hesitant about social touching,” and asks, “Is this hypervigilance of boundaries beginning to harm our mental health?” My response to that question is that it contains its own answer. Of course it is!

As the essay itself notes, “Touch is the first sense humans develop in the womb, possessed even of 1.5cm embryos.” And insufficient touch – hugs, cuddles, etc. – has long been recognized as a contributor to “failure to thrive” in infants and children, and difficulties in childhood development in general. See, for example, this article in Scientific American, which notes that “Many children who have not had ample physical and emotional attention are at higher risk for behavioral, emotional and social problems as they grow up.” And something which is so critical to our early development does not suddenly become inconsequential once we have reached a certain level of maturity.

Furthermore, many mass shooters (though not all) are adolescents. With current studies suggesting that full brain maturity does not occur until somewhere between age 20 and 25, they are in many cases still in the development stage. So that leads me to wonder: are these people getting hugged enough? Are they – and particularly, were they during the most critical stages of development – receiving enough affection, enough positive emotional and physical stimuli? Were they, children of broken homes as so many of them have been, hugged, cuddled, read to while curled up in bed or their parents’ arms? This is not snowflake-safe-space la-la-land, this is a serious mental, and therefore public, health issue.

In fact, it leads me to have a little more sympathy for the seekers of “safe spaces” on the Left, because maybe they themselves did not get enough physical affection as children. Is that why so many of them seem so alienated, so angry, so out of touch with culture, history, heritage, traditional norms, and much else – that they did not, in fact, receive enough affection growing up? That they did not feel safe in their parents’ arms, surrounded by the comfort of home and family traditions? That, being also children of broken homes in too many cases, they never had a real sense of security and at-home-ness?

If so, that would not totally justify some of the looniness, but it might help to explain it. And, with our increasing prohibition on touch – out of an almost hysterical fear (not entirely unjustified, but excessive) of sexual predation – are we breeding more of the same? More alienation, more separation, and potentially, more violence? It’s a sobering thought, at least to me.

We are, at least and at last, starting to wake up to the role of mental illness in violence as more than just a convenient criminal defense (“not guilty by reason of insanity”). But we run the risk of over-reach – not everyone who has ever sought the aid of mental-health professionals is a risk to him- or herself, or others – and we also run the risk of stopping too soon, before we’ve followed the road for long enough. Okay, yeah, these folks definitely have some mental health issues. You don’t attempt to kill large numbers of people (or anyone, except to defend yourself or others) unless you’ve got some pretty serious mental health issues! But mental health issues don’t exist in a vacuum. Where do they come from? What is their source?

There is no single or easy answer to that question; but fatherlessness, and the larger issue of living in broken homes, dysfunctional and divided families, and the consequent loss of physical and emotional affection, positive reinforcement, and overall security that may result, do seem to be fruitful areas of inquiry, to me.

As well as the societal assumptions driving these problems: the idea that relationships are disposable – that people are disposable! – and that “my” short-term happiness and gratification is more important than the hard work of creating long-term, nurturing relationships; that marriage is no longer a sacred institution, but a short-term (or even optional) arrangement that may be ended or dispensed with according to  my own sense of what’s convenient; that children are an imposition (better to have “fur-babies”), not a gift from God; even that gender is fluid and interchangeable (which is one way of saying that objective reality is optional) – and the list could go on.

Guns are low-hanging fruit, easily observed and therefore easily blamed. I have discussed this issue many times and many places in the past, so all I will say at the moment is that a sufficiently draconian ban to have a realistic chance of making it impossible, or even difficult, for would-be mass murders to get their hands on firearms would a) be almost impossible to achieve in the U.S., even if it were desirable, and b) is not desirable, because it would involve an extreme infringement of our rights and liberties, and would unfairly burden the law-abiding while being unlikely to deter killers from finding other ways to kill.

The real issue is this: what causes people to choose to use firearms, not (as most of us do) as useful and interesting tools for hunting, for recreational shooting, and – if it should sadly become necessary – to defend ourselves, our loved ones, or even (God forbid) our country and its Constitutional system of government and way of life against malefactors, but instead to take innocent life? That is the real question, and the one which is being studiously avoided by the majority of media, academic, and political commentators.

But I would suggest to you that broken homes and families – fatherlessness in particular, but the absence of either parent is a major handicap – along with the loss of security, stability, and (by no means least) physical affection which accompanies that brokenness, are some areas in which we need to take a long, hard look at what we are doing and where we are going as a society.

As a driver-education instructor, I have many times told my students that since beginning to teach driver’s ed, I have come to realize that traffic and driving laws are not there to hold you back and make driving a chore. They are there to help you, to protect you, to save your life and the lives of others. In a similar way, I have over the years come to realize that the family and societal norms embodied in the Judeo-Christian religious tradition are not right because they are tenets of the religion. They are tenets of the religion (most of which are not entirely unique to that particular tradition) because they are right.

Don’t believe it? Look around you at the society in which we are living today, deeply and honestly, and I think you may change your mind.

And if not, I’m sorry to say, it may be some time for you to do some serious introspection and soul-searching.