The Captain's Journal » Herschel Smith

Fraternal Order of Police President Chuck Canterbury Picked To Head ATF

6 years, 8 months ago

Late on Friday afternoon the White House released an official statement that Chuck Canterbury, Jr. was nominated to become the next ATF Director.

Unfortunately, Canterbury has a long history of publicly supporting and endorsing anti-gun policies, anti-gun Supreme Court nominees, and anti-gun high ranking government officials.

In his official capacity as President of the National Fraternal Order of Police, Canterbury has:

*** Supported radical anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

*** Supported former Attorney General Eric Holder – Obama’s head honcho who ran the deadly Fast and Furious gun running program.

*** Supported expanding the federal government’s gun registration schemes.

Even more troubling, Canterbury’s FOP is currently lobbying AGAINST Constitutional Carry, even though the vast majority of law enforcement officers support the right to carry.

I find this release to be short on facts, or at least, references to those facts along with analysis of them. So let’s do a little digging.

From The Daily Caller.

President Donald Trump announced Friday plans to nominate Fraternal Order of Police President Chuck Canterbury to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Canterbury has been Fraternity Order of Police (FOP) president for 16 years, having previously spent 26 years in the Horry County, South Carolina, Police Department’s patrol, criminal and training divisions, according to the White House statement.

“Chuck is one of the most honorable people I’ve ever worked with and if he is selected, I can’t think of a finer person to take the position,” said Jonathan Thompson, executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Association. Thompson made the remarks to POLITICO in Nov. 2018, when Canterbury’s name was first floated for the position.

[ … ]

Canterbury has been vocal in his Second Amendment support, testifying July 2009 before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who had worked closely with police as a Manhattan prosecutor early in her career:

“I want no mistake to be made,” Canterbury testified. “I take a back seat to no one in my reverence for the Second Amendment. In fact, if I thought that Judge Sotomayor’s presence on the court posed a threat to my Second Amendment right, I would not be supporting her here today.”

Dave Kopel explains why support for Sotomayor was problematic.

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the Supreme Court opinions in McDonald v. Chicago was the dissenters’ assault on District of Columbia v. Heller. Not only did Justice Stephen G. Breyer vote against extending the Second Amendment to state and local governments, he also argued forcefully and at length for overturning Heller and, therefore, for turning the Second Amendment into a practical nullity. Ominously, Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the Breyer dissent – contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.

So was support for Sotomayor just a brain seizure or an indication of a deeper problem? First, Canterbury wants local and state police to know all about NICS denials. Doubtless such support for this law is couched in terms of learning about felons trying to purchase weapons, but swept into the mix are veterans who didn’t know they were on the denial list for NICS due to reporting conducted by the DoD for things like PTSD.

More troublesome still is this letter from Canterbury to Patrick Leahy.

Dear Mr. Chairman,

I am writing on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police, the oldest and largest law enforcement organization in the United States, to strongly recommend that several measures, all absolutely critical elements of addressing gun violence, be included in any legislation moving forward as a result of your deliberations.
These measures are:

•Expansion of background checks on firearm purchasers;
• Reinvigoration of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATP) to ensure that it has the tools and resources necessary to its mission;
• Improved law enforcement access to mental health records in the context of firearms acquisition;
• Funding to put more State and local law enforcement officers on the street.

[ … ]

We believe the most logical starting point to address gun violence is the expansion of the background check system. Incomplete or absent background checks create a gaping hole in the wall between firearms and criminals. Loopholes in the background check system give criminals unprecedented opportunity to access firearms. This problem must be remedied quickly. An expanded and improved background check system will provide the first level of defense against criminals arming themselves.

[ … ]

Specifically, the confirmation ofB. Todd Jones must occur as quickly as possible. As Acting Director at ATP, Mr. Jones has provided the agency the leadership and vision which has been lacking in recent years. Mr. Jones has the requisite experience pursuing tough firearms and weapons cases and has demonstrated the ability to reset ATP after recent tumultuous investigations.

[ … ]

Along with comprehensive background checks, better access to mental health records is critical to keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Without access to these records, law enforcement, at all levels of government, is handicapped which gives the criminal element the advantage.

So with this single letter, we’ve learned that Canterbury is in favor of [a] universal background checks, [b] the nomination of B. Todd Jones as director of the ATF, and [c] law enforcement access to medical records.

The surest sign of a collectivist and statist is support for universal background checks, which is the denial of free trade, the infringement of the RKBA and in general the suppression of liberty.

We all know the record that B. Todd Jones left at the ATF, and while it’s easy to place this last one in the category of “Fix-NICS,” it isn’t exactly that. Remember, Canterbury wrote this while president of the fraternal order of police. He’s arguing for access to medical records by all local and state police, all justified and codified at the federal level. You can jettison the medical privacy laws, according to Canterbury. He wants to see your records.

But just to make it clear, Canterbury says, “I take a back seat to no one in my reverence for the Second Amendment.” His record proves otherwise. It would be far too simple merely to speak out against Canterbury. I would expect nothing less from the president of the fraternal order of police.

The deeper problem is with Trump himself for nominating Canterbury. First Trump gave us the bump stock ban. Then he gave us support for red flag laws, I’m certain lending credibility to and giving cover for Lindsey Graham’s efforts to nationalize funding for so-called “extreme risk protection orders.”

Now he is giving us a gun controller for head of the ATF. Don’t be surprised. From the very beginning Trump was and always will be a Northeastern progressive. He will never be anything other than what he is. He will not change. He cannot change.

He wouldn’t even understand why anyone would object to Canterbury’s nomination, in fact. His distance from the common man wouldn’t even allow him to understand the very language of proponents of the RKBA. We were brought up in a different cultural milieu, we have a different world and life view, we speak different languages. It isn’t even possible to translate or interpret the languages or bridge the gap between us, we are so different. If I were to speak to Trump about this, I may as well be speaking Mandarin.

I do not think it would be possible for Trump to understand why we would object to Canterbury, but mind you, we will likely see him sitting in front of Congress as an “expert” testifying about why America needs universal background checks and access to all medical records. He’s done it as president of the fraternal order of police, and there is no reason to think he’s changed. Trump has merely given him more power.

14 Comments

BATFE,Gun Control,Police Tags: Chuck Canterbury —

Texas Lawmakers Approve Safe Gun Storage Program

6 years, 8 months ago

And brace yourselves for the surprise culprits.

Lawmakers in gun-loving Texas have quietly gone around the National Rifle Assn. by slipping language into a massive spending bill that would fund a $1-million public safety campaign on gun storage.

The last-minute move late Sunday sets up a political test rarely seen in Texas for Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who must decide whether to veto the spending or to ignore NRA opposition and approve the program.

[ … ]

The campaign for safe home gun storage is a small item in the two-year, $250-billion state budget, and it was fiercely opposed by the NRA and gun-rights activists. The measure failed to get a vote and appeared all but dead weeks ago.

Then budget negotiators — the majority of whom are Republicans — added the funding into a budget bill. The legislation was approved Sunday night by the GOP-controlled Legislature.

Republicans. As soon as you turn your head, they’re at it again. The problem I have with “education” programs of this sort is the same as I have with any governmental education program. I oppose funded, taxed, mandatory education whether at the federal, state or local level. In fact, I argue that the veritable existence of the Department of Education is unconstitutional.

But if this passes it’s the first foot in the door. The controllers then have an excuse to say, “See, we tried to help you by educating you. You just wouldn’t learn, would you?” Then, on to the more draconian controls they always wanted in the first place.

2 Comments

Gun Control Tags: Texas Gun Laws —

Fearing Supreme Court Loss, New York Tries to Make Gun Case Vanish

6 years, 8 months ago

The New York Times:

A couple of weeks ago, the New York Police Department held an unusual public hearing. Its purpose was to make a Supreme Court case disappear.

In January, the court agreed to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a New York City gun regulation. The city, fearing a loss that would endanger gun control laws across the nation, responded by moving to change the regulation. The idea was to make the case moot.

The move required seeking comments from the public, in writing and at the hearing. Gun rights advocates were not happy.

“This law should not be changed,” Hallet Bruestle wrote in a comment submitted before the hearing. “Not because it is a good law; it is blatantly unconstitutional. No, it should not be changed since this is a clear tactic to try to moot the Scotus case that is specifically looking into this law.”

David Enlow made a similar point. “This is a very transparent attempt,” he wrote, “to move the goal post in the recent Supreme Court case.”

The regulation allows residents with so-called premises licenses to take their guns to one of seven shooting ranges in the city. But it prohibits them from taking their guns to second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when the guns are unloaded and locked in containers separate from ammunition.

The city’s proposed changes, likely to take effect in a month or so, would remove those restrictions. Whether they would also end the case is another matter.

Until the Supreme Court agreed to hear the dispute, the city had defended the regulation vigorously and successfully, winning in two lower courts. In inviting public comments on the proposed changes, the Police Department said it continued to believe the regulation “furthers an important public-safety interest.”

Still, the city seems determined to give the plaintiffs — three city residents and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association — everything they had sued for. The plaintiffs, in turn, do not seem to want to take yes for an answer.

Move the goal posts, make it moot, and avoid an even bigger loss. At least that’s what the controllers in New York are thinking. Never allowing the free exercise of God-given rights is apparently their duty as they see it, regardless of their oath upon swearing in. But the NYT writer, Adam Liptak, expands the discussion in history to one that is near and dear to our hearts.

There is a precedent for the city’s strategy, from a surprising source. The National Rifle Association tried a similar tactic in connection with the 2008 Supreme Court case that ended up revolutionizing Second Amendment law, District of Columbia v. Heller.

The N.R.A. was initially skittish about the case, which was brought by a scrappy group of libertarian lawyers led by Robert A. Levy.

“The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case,” Mr. Levy said in 2007. “It was a very acrimonious relationship.”

As Mr. Levy and his colleagues were persuading a federal appeals court to strike down part of Washington’s tough gun control law, the N.R.A. tried to short-circuit the case.

“The N.R.A.’s next step was to renew its lobbying effort in Congress to repeal the D.C. gun ban,” Mr. Levy wrote in 2008 in a Federalist Society publication. “Ordinarily that would have been a good thing, but not this time.”

“Repealing D.C.’s ban would have rendered the Heller litigation moot,” he wrote. “After all, no one can challenge a law that no longer exists.”

Only an intensive countereffort kept the case alive, Mr. Levy wrote.

“After expending considerable time and energy in the halls of Congress, we were able, with help, to frustrate congressional consideration of the N.R.A.-sponsored bill,” he wrote.

The N.R.A. came around in the end. In the Supreme Court, it supported the suit, working closely with the lawyers who had brought it.

The NRA only “came around” because they couldn’t stop what was happening despite their best efforts. Now this is interesting, yes? The hand-wringers will claim that losing Heller would have been more harmful than any potential gain from a win. Thus, the best strategy to avoid losing is never to enter the field of battle in the first place.

To some extent this has proven to be correct, only in that Heller hasn’t brought much in terms of recognition of the free exercise of gun rights. There are still “may issue” states, and the notion of getting a carry permit in Hawaii is absurd. Heller was so weak that the Supreme Court needed yet another similar to it (i.e., McDonald) that has also been simply ignored by the city of Chicago.

While every Podunk, no-name judge in America seems to think s/he can boss the federal executive around concerning immigration, and the administration kowtows to their demands, the rest of America seems to ignore the courts when it doesn’t like the outcome (e.g., Heller, McDonald).

On the other hand, losing Heller wouldn’t have been that big of a deal in my estimation, first of all because it has been mostly ignored by the lower and appeals courts, and second because states could still decide to honor our God-given RKBA regardless of whether the FedGov saw it the same way. Open carry was allowed in North Carolina before Heller, and South Carolina was a shall issue state before either Heller or McDonald.

The hand-wringers might also claim that the NYT is only reporting this way to aid and assist the downfall of the NRA. The more controversy that can be generated, it might be claimed, the more financial trouble the NRA will have. Or so goes the thinking.

But when the smoke dissipates and you think about this clearly, the writer is only reporting the facts. They are all out there for everyone to see. The NRA either [a] didn’t actually want Heller to be argued before the Supreme Court, or [b] was so afraid of a loss that they took the strategy to stay off of the field of battle – retreat and give up before the battle even starts.

Is this the kind of organization that deserves your money?

Fortunately, it might not be that easy for New York.

The question of whether the changes to the city’s gun regulation will make the case moot is a hard one. The city lost an initial skirmish at the court last month when the justices turned down its request to suspend the filing of briefs while changes to the regulation were considered.

The plaintiffs opposed that request. “To state the obvious, a proposed amendment is not law,” they wrote.

The changes to the regulations will happen soon enough, though, and the Supreme Court will then have to consider whether there is anything left to decide.

The court has said the “voluntary cessation” of government policies does not make cases moot if the government remains free to reinstate them after the cases are dismissed. But formal changes in laws may be a different matter.

To hear the plaintiffs tell it, the court should not reward cynical gamesmanship.

“The proposed rule making,” they wrote, “appears to be the product not of a change of heart, but rather of a carefully calculated effort to frustrate this court’s review.”

This is actually good reporting. I’ve come to expect far less from the NYT.

4 Comments

Gun Control,National Rifle Association Tags: New York Gun Control, New York Gun Laws —

In Memoriam

6 years, 8 months ago

Ammo.com:

Memorial Day is more than just the “unofficial start of summer.” It was originally a celebration of the lives sacrificed on both sides during the War Between the States. Not an official federal holiday until 1971, the history of Memorial Day is one of controversy. This guide traces the origins of this American day dedicated to remembering and honoring those who gave the ultimate sacrifice.

Remember, Memorial Day isn’t Veteran’s Day. The two are very different. I have been blessed to be able to say that not only did my own son come home from war, all of my uncles who fought in WWII and the Korean War also came home.

But there are many who didn’t, at least, not alive. That’s what you remember.

1 Comment

Memorial Day

Recommending Only Striker-Fired Pistols?

6 years, 8 months ago

Personal Defense Network:

Striker-fired semi-automatics were made popular in the 1980s by Glock. Although the company was not well received in the beginning, it has become one of the most popular defensive pistol brands in the world. The striker firing mechanism uses a spring-loaded firing pin that works more like the launcher in a pinball machine than that of a traditional pistol with a hammer. This spring-loaded pin is partially cocked by the movement of the slide. The trigger then cocks the pin the remainder of the way and releases it to strike the primer and ignite the cartridge. Why does this make a difference to the beginning defensive shooting student?

[ … ]

Why does this affect the decision between these two action types? The amount of force or weight of the trigger pull in many of these firearms is very similar, in about the six- to seven-pound range. But the duration or length of that weight is far greater on the double action only. Imagine you need to move an 80-pound bag of concrete from point A to point B. If point A is five feet away from point B, it is going to be much easier than if point A is 20 feet away. Similarly, completing a rudimentary test of a Ruger LC9 (double action only) to determine where the weight begins on the trigger, it took moving the trigger approximately ½ inch to activate the trigger. By comparison, an M&P 9 (striker-fired) took approximately 1/8 inch, after the weight began, to activate the trigger. You need to utilize more trigger control on the double action only, since the length of the trigger pull tends to amplify the deviation caused by lack of trigger control.

[ … ]

Here is a list of striker-fired pistols that you can consider as suitable options — but you should still dry fire the gun prior to purchasing to be sure it is right for you.

Glock: All models are striker fire action. Find one that fits your hand comfortably and is in the caliber you want.
Smith & Wesson M&P series: All semi-automatic models except Bodyguard. M&P Shield offers the striker-fire action in a very compact slim design. I suggest this if ease of concealment is an important consideration for you.
Ruger: SR9 and SR9c.
Springfield Armory: XD series.

Well … okay … whatever. His comparison is only with double-action pistols. Furthermore, I’m not convinced that if you’re well-rehearsed enough you can’t make that first shot as accurate as any other. I’ve shot revolvers for a long time and I would entrust my life to them – in fact, I do under certain carry scenarios (smallish wheel gun on my ankle when the need arises for absolute concealment or in non-permissive carry situations).

But I still say, give me my 1911 any day, even with its additional weight. With its reliability, its narrow frame (which fits my fingers knurled up from RA), and its ability to chamber a round and yet use a mechanical safety with a single sweep of the thumb as I obtain purchase on the gun, my option works for me, and is probably better. Besides, I don’t like the feel of the springy, spongy, striker fired pistols. If you don’t think a single stack design with its narrow frame is better for my hands, then go back in time, ask God to give you RA your entire life, knurl your knuckles up like mine (with ligaments turned into scar tissue from attacks from white blood cells), and then we’ll talk. Until then, you’re not an expert on my situation in life.

I like the light touch of the trigger for a hammer-fired 1911, and I’m used to it. I’m accurate with it, I’m consistent with it, it fits my hand, its safe, and I like the grip angle. I don’t really care if it works for you. It works for me.

I consider this to be of the same genre as debates over holsters (I’ve seen some hating on leather holsters lately). For the most part I’m pretty unimpressed with folks asserting their bonafides and telling you what you should and shouldn’t do. I rarely use leather, but when I do I’ve got a nice one with a retention strap. I don’t like the feel of Kydex and I find it to run counter to concealability and unforgiving in terms freedom of movement and bending. I prefer a Cordura holster with a retention strap for both IWB and OWB carry, and as readers know, I absolutely hate IWB carry.

I recommend that you shoot what you like, like what you shoot, and get good at whatever that is. I recommend the same thing with holsters. Wear what you like and whatever works for you and meets your needs. I realize that it may run counter for a gun blog not to try to boss you around and bark orders out at people, but I respect my readers enough to believe that you’re capable of making your own educated choices.

18 Comments

Firearms,Guns

A Bit Of Sanity For Hunters In Idaho Concerning Defense Against Bears

6 years, 8 months ago

News from Idaho:

When various far-left ecology and animal rights groups such as the Sierra Club, the Humane Society of the United States, the Center for Biological Diversity, submitted a petition, calling for the manditory carry of bear spray by hunters, it made national news. The petition was submitted to the Idaho Fish and Game Commission and others. The petition claimed that “Studies show that bear spray is far more effective than firearms.”

That claim is not correct.

The petition was written about in several Idaho outlets, and nationally.

The Commission turned down the request that the carry of bear spray by hunters be mandatory. From lmtribune.com:

The commission turned down a request from environmental groups that it create a rule that would require hunters in grizzly bear habitat near Yellowstone National Park to carry bear spray. Commissioners said the rule would be overbearing and difficult to enforce, and agreed with agency officials who said education about recreating in grizzly bear country would be more effective.[ … ]

Bear Spray Hoax: IFGD Betrays Hunters

I’m pleased the Commission recommends denying a petition that would require hunters in grizzly country to carry bear spray. But the petition is not being denied for the right reason: When a grizzly charges a hunter with a rifle after a classic surprise encounter at close range, bear spray will not keep a hunter safe. IDFG must prepare hunters to use an adequate rifle quickly and effectively.

In 1991, a Hunter/Grizzly Bear Interactions Task Team (that included U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen) told the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee that bear spray has “minimal usefulness in trail encounters with bears at close range due to the difficulty of effective use.”

Bob Wharff, executive director of Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, told the Jackson Hole News & Guide that bear “spray isn’t the answer for every encounter, especially when it requires hunters to drop their guns when there’s little time to react. You’re talking milliseconds. It’s illogical that you’re going to set your gun down and get your pepper spray.”

Trina Jo Bradley, vice-president of the Marias River Livestock Association, said “Let’s just think about how we carry ourselves when we’re hunting. I carry a large caliber rifle in my hands, usually with a bullet in the chamber and the safety on. I can easily raise my rifle and fire if I see the game I am hunting, or if a bear attacks. Why in the world would I put down the firearm that I’ve used over and over to grab a can of bear spray?

It’s clear a hunter carrying a rifle cannot use bear spray in a safe or timely manner during a surprise encounter with a grizzly. IDFG and other agencies acknowledged this in 1991. But on September 1, 1999, these agencies did an about face on bear spray when U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service news release announced: “Outfitters And Guides Develop Safety Class To Prevent Bear Attacks.”

The news release said, “During the past year, over 200 outfitters and guides in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Colorado have been trained to safely share the backcountry with bears.”

Were the outfitters and guides taught to use an adequate firearm effectively? No. “Course presenters discourage the use of firearms to mitigate bear attacks, because the practice has resulted in much greater frequency and severity of injuries to people involved [than bear spray]. The reliability and safety of pepper spray over other methods of deterrence has also been promoted by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee.”

No data or references were provided to substantiate this claim. Nevertheless, these agencies adopted a de facto policy of discouraging firearm use, and promoting bear spray. The results have been disastrous. As the environmentalists’ bear spray petition notes, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team found that “54% of all injuries inflicted on humans by grizzly bears [in the Yellowstone region] involved hunters.”

In response to the environmentalists’ petition, Toby Broudreau said, “the Department already has a Bear Education Program within grizzly range in Idaho. That program helps inform hunters on bear spray use and benefits.”

That program does not teach hunters how to use bear spray with each of the six field carries for long guns. That program does not provide hunters with accurate, meaningful information about bear spray and firearms research. If you keep hyping bear spray—and use that as an excuse for not teaching hunters how to use an adequate rifle quickly for self-defense—you guarantee the carnage inflicted on hunters since 1999 will continue.

A 2008 study on the Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska said, “In 96% (69 of 72) of bear spray incidents, the person’s activity at the time of was use reported. The largest category involved hikers (35%), followed by persons engaged in bear management activities (30%), people at their home or cabin (15%), campers in their tents (9%), people working on various jobs outdoors (4%), sport fishers (4%), a hunter stalking a wounded bear (1%), and a photographer (1%).”

Given that the purpose of stalking a wounded bear is to kill it, non-lethal bear spray was the wrong tool for the job. The study did not provide additional information about this mysterious incident. A 1998 bear spray study did not provide any information about the activity of people who used bear spray. So research tells us hunters carrying a rifle don’t use bear spray, and common sense tells us why: Hunters can’t use bear spray because they’re already carrying a rifle.

Bear spray advocates focus on the overall success rate from Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska: 3 people were injured during 75 incidents. Of 175 people present during 72 incidents, just 3 were injured. Bear spray advocates never inform hunters that 3 of 9 people who sprayed charging grizzly bears were injured.

Bear spray advocates have repeatedly made the indefensible claim that research proves bear spray is more effective than a firearm. One, they’re claiming that research on bear spray use by non-hunters (who are not carrying a firearm) proves hunters (who are carrying a firearm) should use bear spray. That does not make sense.

Two, there have been two interrelated studies on bear spray, and two studies on guns vs. bears. Bear spray advocates are really saying, if you compare the results of one bear spray study to the results of one dissimilar study on guns, bear spray wins. But Field Use of Capsicum Spray As a Bear Deterrent/Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska used different methodologies than Efficacy of Firearms For Bear Deterrence in Alaska. It is unethical to compare the two studies, because of the different dynamics involved.

In addition, you’ve got to be totally unprincipled to pretend a 1999 study on the Characteristics of Nonsport Mortalities to Brown and Black Bears and Human Injuries from Bears in Alaska does not exist. After reviewing 1,036 incidents from 1986 to 1996 when people killed bears in defense of life or property (DLP), the authors of the 1999 study wrote, “Most of the persons shooting brown bears or black bears in DLP circumstances indicated that no human injury occurred (98.5% for brown bears and 99.2% for black bears).”

Bear spray advocates deny the existence of the 1999 study because it does not advance their cause. “Research proves bear spray is more effective than a firearm” is not a factual statement based on research; it’s a baseless propaganda slogan. To provide for the safety of big-game hunters in grizzly country, IDFG must teach hunters how to use an adequate firearm quickly and effectively.

This report dovetails nicely with the analysis conducted by Dean Weingarten. It’s nice to see some sanity from Idaho. It’s also nice to see the human-hating, creation-worshipping environmentalists put in their place.

7 Comments

Animals Tags: Bear Attacks, Bears —

Losing The Electoral College: A Sure Path To Tyranny

6 years, 8 months ago

David Codrea:

If a “popular vote” replacement of the Electoral system is allowed to stand, you can kiss “legal” recognition of the right to keep and bear arms goodbye, as well as anything meaningful ever happening to stop the ongoing invasion of “pathway to citizenship”-bound foreign nationals into this country.

As I’ve said before, the GOP’ers want the Latinos because they want cheap labor. The labor is cheap because they’ve set up a system of socialized medicine wherein the middle class has to provide medical care for themselves and everyone else, including immigrants. So the cost of immigration is foist on the middle class, which they want to eviscerate.

Do you doubt any of this?

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice wants to eliminate all of Obamacare and drastically roll back access to healthcare. On Monday, the Trump DOJ announced that it will continue combating the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, agreeing with a Texas federal judge’s ruling against sustaining the ACA on the basis of the GOP tax law changes in 2017. This decision to continue pushing for the repeal of the ACA is a clear signal that health care will be one of the top pressing issues in the upcoming 2020 election.

Beyond these efforts, however, there will be disastrous consequences if the law is eliminated. According to the Urban Institute’s 2019 analysis of the potential consequences of the full repeal of the ACA, an estimated 20 million people would immediately lose health care coverage, and health care spending would decrease in states where coverage rates had increased the most via the ACA.

Latinos in particular made the biggest gains in access to insurance under Obamacare over the last six years.

That’s one big reason they vote democratic by 75%-80%. As for the issue of gun control, we’ve discussed that before at length, and the statistics match almost precisely with what the numbers of supplied.

Of course, while the GOP elitists want to line the pockets of their fellow members of the BoD of various corporations with cheap labor, the democrats want the voters. That’s why nothing can stop this. It is inevitable. North Carolina was close in the last election, and Florida was a razor’s edge.

Texas will likely go blue this election or next, and Georgia is heading that way. But lose Florida or Texas and it’s over for any resemblance of constitutional conservatism in America for this generation and the next.

I realize this may be a bit far afield from David’s main point (the electoral college), but not really so much. The Latino population weighs big in states like New Mexico, Texas, Florida and California. What’s going to happen if we lose the electoral college and the popular vote is all that matters?

22 Comments

Immigration Tags: Electoral College —

Iraq’s Christians “Close To Extinction”

6 years, 8 months ago

BBC:

In an impassioned address in London, the Rt Rev Bashar Warda said Iraq’s Christians now faced extinction after 1,400 years of persecution.

Since the US-led invasion toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003, he said, the Christian community had dwindled by 83%, from around 1.5 million to just 250,000.

“Christianity in Iraq,” he said, “one of the oldest Churches, if not the oldest Church in the world, is perilously close to extinction. Those of us who remain must be ready to face martyrdom.”

[ … ]

Taking a historical perspective, the Archbishop of Irbil lamented the fact that in centuries past there was a happy period of fruitful cooperation between Christians and Muslims in Iraq, a time that historians have referred to as the Islamic Golden Age.

“Our Christian ancestors shared with Muslim Arabs a deep tradition of thought and philosophy,” says Archbishop Warda. “They engaged with them in respectful dialogue from the 8th Century.

The last two paragraphs are an outright lie and he knows it. I feel pretty bad about all of this for them, but it would help a great deal if [a] he would quit whining to the Brits about it (they aren’t going to do anything), and [b] his statement had read this way: “Those of us who remain must be ready to pick up weapons and go to war to kill our oppressors.”

So much for GWB’s naïve notion of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Yea, freedom only for certain religions, oppression for others.

10 Comments

Religion

Understanding The Spending Habits Of Ammunition Buyers

6 years, 8 months ago

Duncan Johnson at Ammoland.

While only a third of active ammunition consumers report spending less than they did three years ago, the difference is in the size of their purchases. On average, those who report spending less have reduced their annual purchases (in dollars) by 38%, while those who report buying more are buying only 23% more. When combined, the net effect of the two groups translates into a roughly 2% decline in overall retail ammunition sales. The differences between manufacturers’ reported declines and the numbers reported here can be attributed to this survey’s orientation towards more avid spenders and retailers’ inventories which affect the volume of orders received by manufacturers.

Over the past five years, stockpilers, or those who set aside 20% or more of their ammunition purchases for future use, account for 44% of all ammunition purchasers. Reasons given for storing ammunition include:

Uncertainty about future supplies, 69%
Uncertainty about the political climate, 64%
To save money, 57%
Uncertainty about future economic conditions and income, 54%
To save time, 39%
Other, 8%

I don’t believe this is very complicated. I expect sales to pick up in about a year or little less as the election draws near. Then it will go berserk right after the election or slow back down for another four years – depending upon the results of the election – at which point it will go gangbusters again, never to slow down until made illegal.

This is just a temporary lull.

6 Comments

Ammunition

First Woman Completes Marines’ Urban Leader Course

6 years, 8 months ago

Military.com:

One of the Marine Corps’ female infantry riflemen hit another milestone when she became the first woman to graduate from the service’s Urban Leaders Course.

Lance Cpl. Autumn Taniguchi, with 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, finished the three-week course that prepares leathernecks to lead troops in urban environments on May 3.

“This course is not easy,” Taniguchi said, according to a Marine Corps news release. “I didn’t expect it to be easy, but it also helps to show me that I can do more than I thought I could.”

The Urban Leaders Course, which is led by 1st Marine Division Schools at Camp Pendleton, California, covers room clearing, close-quarters battle and combat marksmanship. Students are taught to make challenging leadership decisions in an urban setting through realistic training scenarios and live-fire ranges.

None of the course standards has changed since women began serving in infantry roles, the release states, adding, “Every Marine who undergoes the training is expected to execute the mission regardless of gender.”

Seeing Taniguchi complete the course gives women in the Marine Corps another thing they can say they are able to accomplish, said Staff Sgt. Ken Rick, Urban Leaders Course chief instructor.

“Not necessarily begging for acceptance but proving to the males that they can do this,” Rick said in the release.

Well, that’s certainly reason for another celebratory glass of wine tonight, huh? After all, that’s what the Marine Corps is all about – making it where people can say they are able to accomplish certain things.

Speaking of which, I have a quick question for Ms. Taniguchi. Can you pick up a 220 lb Marine who has been shot and carry him over your shoulder for hundreds of yards to safety and medical assistance? Without fracturing your pelvis?

If you can’t, do your Marines really trust you in combat?

43 Comments

Marine Corps,Women in Combat

Articles by Herschel Smith