Dean Weingarten has a good find at Ammoland.
Judge Eduardo Ramos, the U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, has issued an Opinion & Order that a ban on stun guns is constitutional. A New York State law prohibits the private possession of stun guns and tasers; a New York City law prohibits the possession and selling of stun guns. Judge Ramos has ruled these laws do not infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Let's briefly…… [read more]
Prosecutors said Weed was attending the fair Friday with his family when he was “harassed and followed by a group of teens.” The prosecutor said the teens were angry Weed would not give them a dollar bill, and that’s when they allegedly hit him in the head.
“There was some sort of dialogue that ensued after that that made it a negative situation. There was a punch that was delivered to the back of the head by the 16-year-old, at that point in time there was a number of minutes that elapsed after that at which point in time, you all saw the video, the younger 15-year-old came flying through, lands a deadly blow to the victim,” said Frederick County State’s Attorney Charlie Smith.
David is kind, saying “his own actions show he can’t be trusted outside of a cage and needs to stay in one until he can be.”
I’m not such a nice guy as David. Put him to death. He’s guilty of premeditated murder. That’s the Scriptural prescription, and besides, I don’t believe in the rehabilitative power of prisons, a fact my readers know full well. That prison is rehabilitative is a notion of modernism.
The Scriptural prescription for murder, kidnapping and rape is death. The Scriptural prescription for theft is slavery to the offended person until the debt is paid. There is no such thing as a biblical idea of a debt to society.
In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.
When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense. One colonial newspaper argued that it was impossible to complain that this act was illegal since they were “British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights” while another argued that this “is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense”. The newspaper cited Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England, which had listed the “having and using arms for self preservation and defense” among the “absolute rights of individuals.” The colonists felt they had an absolute right at common law to own firearms.
Their laws about children and guns were strict: every family was required to own a gun, to carry it in public places (especially when going to church) and to train children in firearms proficiency. On the first Thanksgiving Day, in 1621, the colonists and the Indians joined together for target practice; the colonist Edward Winslow wrote back to England that “amongst other recreations we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us.”
In fact, when congregants showed up to worship without weaponry, it was most often the pastor who collected the tax for going unarmed. The notion that the founders would have made sure to prohibit the FedGov from interfering with state militias and fail to incorporate that into protection of individuals is preposterous on its face.
In order to understand the second amendment, you must first understand the milieu in which it was written. An understanding of unvarnished and unbiased history is what most “scholars” today lack.
It’s called hunting, and it’s fun. Of course, you ultimately need to put a bullet through a squirrel’s quarter-size brain, and your gun is the tool for tying the process together. But if you’re going squirrel hunting mainly to show off your custom rimfire, the redneck who’s using iron sights and knows how to identify and creep up on the sound of pignut husks peppering the ground can probably teach you a thing or two.
That squirrel hunting has become overlooked is a hell of a statement about modern hunting culture. “You hunt squirrels?” people say to me. “That’s cool. My grandpa used to hunt those.” Instead of woodsmanship, today’s hunters seem to value and obsess over gear, especially guns and cartridges and optics. We pore over information about bullets and twist rates and custom turrets so that we’re ready for that 400-plus-yard shot we’re sure we’re going to get—but we forget to pick our feet up and whisper on the way there. We buy choke tubes and reflex sights and pattern shotguns with $10 shells so we can kill a turkey from 70 yards—but in the process, we fail to learn what a drumming turkey sounds like because we have never listened to one that’s been completely fooled at 15 steps.
When you see a bunch of outdoorsmen gathered around a phone these days to look at pictures of a buck or bull, the question you’re almost bound to hear is: How far was the shot? If it was a close shot, the hunter’s reply is usually sheepish: “Oh, he walked by at 40 steps. Kind of hard to miss that.”
I’m sorry, but there’s something wrong with that. Getting close enough to count coup ought to be the mark of a good hunter—not something to defend because it makes the shot too easy. If that’s not obvious to you, then I think you need to try the most overlooked hunt in North America. And when your buddies break out their phones to compare critters, make sure you show off a photo of a limit of squirrels and brag about sneaking in to 20 yards for six clean headshots with your .22 and 4X Walmart scope.
Funny. My youngest son was saying that same thing to me just this morning. Oh, he knows a thing or two about long range precision shooting. He was a DM and he went through Scout Sniper training.
But he would still rather shoot at 20-40 yards than 250 or further. Because that’s hunting.
Authorities are investigating how an off-duty Alhambra police officer ended up with a self-inflicted gunshot wound after an encounter on the road with an off-duty Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy.
The San Marino Police Department initially said the driver of a blue Subaru had shot himself after a road rage incident about 8:40 a.m. Sunday near Duarte Road and San Gabriel Boulevard. But on Monday morning, the Police Department said that wasn’t the case.
“At this point in the preliminary investigation, this does not appear to be a road rage incident and neither party knew each other or was aware they were members of a law enforcement agency,” police said in an updated news release.
According to San Marino police, a second driver, identified as an off-duty sheriff’s deputy, told investigators he thought the man in the Subaru was driving erratically.
He wanted to stop the man and ask him not to speed in the neighborhood, he said.
Police said the deputy, who was in a Mercedes-Benz, pulled alongside the other man while they were driving and tried to speak to the Subaru driver, motioning for the man to lower his window.
The Alhambra officer slowed and moved to the right to allow the Mercedes to pass.
The officer later told investigators that the deputy was speeding and that he believed the man in the Mercedes was driving in an aggressive manner.
“Fearing for his safety, the Alhambra officer drew his firearm while inside his vehicle,” San Marino police said.
San Marino Police Chief John Incontro said the officer accidentally shot himself in the process of pulling out his weapon.
Alhambra police said the officer was hospitalized.
“He’s OK,” Alhambra Police Sgt. Rodney Castillo said Monday morning.
Whew! I was worried. It’s awesome he’s okay. I remember the last time I yanked my gun out during road rage because I was “fearing for my safety.” An internal affairs investigation completely exonerated me.
A Canadian man fighting for his life begged his assailant to let him go, but his pleas went unheeded — which is probably because black bears don’t understand English.
Brandon Lattie, 27, was on a walking trail in British Columbia at the Ferguson Lake Nature Reserve on Wednesday night when he says he spotted the bear, which began to chase him.
Lattie told CBC News he ran and jumped into a small lake, not expecting the bear to follow him.
“It happened so fast I couldn’t even think, so that seemed like the right thing to do,” he said.
Brandon Lattie says he was attacked by a black bear at Ferguson Lake Nature Reserve in British Columbia, Canada.
Brandon Lattie says he was attacked by a black bear at Ferguson Lake Nature Reserve in British Columbia, Canada. (Brandon Lattie)
But the swampy water slowed him and the bear swiped at Lattie, leaving him with scratch marks on his back and arm. The 27-year-old said the dogged bear even tried to hold him underwater.
“I think it was trying to hold me underwater. I was already physically tired and kind of out of breath from when I ran away and then the next thing I know I’m…going to try to get drowned by a frickin’ bear,” he told the news outlet.
Lattie said he noticed “there was at least a foot or two of water above me” and pushed himself “back up to fight back.”
It was then, Lattie said, he resorted to begging.
“You don’t have to do this,” he said he told the bear. “You don’t want to do it.”
A family said they were nearby and saw Lattie running away from the bear in the lake. Lucky for Lattie, the family’s dog began to bark, distracting the bear and giving the 27-year-old a chance to break free and swim to a dock.
“It could have been a whole lot worse,” Lattie said. “As soon as I got hit, I just thought, ‘OK, this is where I die. This is where my head gets chewed apart.'”
I don’t think bears have feelings of sympathy or a conscience. I think a large bore handgun would have been a better choice.
MTN News reports that the morning attack involved two bowhunters who, after getting medical care, “came into Shedhorn Sports in Ennis dressed in hospital gowns looking for new clothing. Shedhorn staff told MTN the men said they were able to deploy bear spray which ultimately drove the bear off.”
I don’t consider this successful use of bear spray. If it had been successful, the men wouldn’t have been in hospital gowns. I think a large bore handgun would have been a better choice.
This cocktail of criminality, extremism, and insurrection is sowing havoc in parts of Central and South America, sub-Saharan and North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. Not surprisingly, these conflicts are defying conventional international responses, such as formal cease-fire negotiations, peace agreements, and peacekeeping operations. And diplomats, military planners, and relief workers are unsure how best to respond. The problem, it seems, is that while the insecurity generated by these new wars is real, there is still no common lexicon or legal framework for dealing with them. Situated at the intersection of organized crime and outright war, they raise tricky legal, operational, and ethical questions about how to intervene, who should be involved, and the requisite safeguards to protect civilians.
Mexico is on the front lines of today’s metastasizing crime wars. Public authorities there estimate that 40 percent of the country is subject to chronic insecurity, with homicidal violence, disappearances, and population displacement at all-time highs. States such as Guerrero, Michoacán, Tamaulipas, and Veracruz are paralyzed by extreme organized violence, as routine discoveries of mass graves attest. Since former President Felipe Calderón ratcheted up the country’s war on drugs in 2006, violent competition among the Mexican military, police, cartels, and criminal factions has left at least 200,000 dead. There were more than 29,000 murders in 2017, but 2018 is set to see even more—perhaps the most ever. In Guerrero alone, more than 2,500 people were killed last year, many of them victims of clashes between 20 autodefensas (self-defense militias) and 18 criminal outfits. Owing to endemic violence and the government’s slow retreat from crime-ridden areas, some towns are now run by parallel governments made up of criminalized political and administrative structures. In what are increasingly labeled “narco-cities,” the entire political and economic apparatus exists to perpetuate a drug economy.
In Brazil, meanwhile large portions of some of the country’s biggest cities are under the control of competing drug trafficking factions and militias.
Some 1,000 low-income communities, roughly 20 percent of Rio de Janeiro, for example, are controlled by the Comando Vermelho (Red Command), Amigos dos Amigos (Friends of Friends), or Terceiro Comando Puro(Third Pure Command). São Paulo, meanwhile, is purportedly entirely under the authority of the Primeiro Comando da Capital (First Capital Command, or PCC). And in smaller cities across north and northeastern Brazil, gangs and militias are starting to battle for dominion in the favelas. Already, they effectively administer state prisons. Some vigilantes have started to try their hands at politics and are running for office, while others seek to influence elections through buying and selling votes. Organized and interpersonal violence killed almost 64,000 Brazilians in 2017, much of it concentrated among poorer black youth. The mayhem has also triggered repeated federal military interventions.
Where is all of this headed? The authors recommend Rio de Janeiro as an example of a “pilot program” that can be examined. Very well. Let’s examine it.
So the problems introduced by globalism – international crime gangs, crime warlords, payoffs, corruption, open borders – are all to be dealt with by an overarching police state.
America is travelling along in parallel with the rest of the world. Plan accordingly.
But the biggest question remained: Where does the president stand?
“That’s an important piece — if the president doesn’t support it, there’s no point. It’s not going to become law,” Mr. Hawley said.
It was not clear what Mr. Trump thought of the proposal, with lawmakers pointing out that he hasn’t signed off on it and Mr. Barr was taking a temperature check.
When Mr. Manchin volunteered to take his name off the background checks bill, Mr. Murphy said, the three senators were huddled around a speakerphone, talking to Mr. Trump from Mr. Toomey’s Capitol hideaway office.
“The president is a guy who thinks about branding,” Mr. Toomey said. “I think we just want to make it clear to the president that if he was going to do this, that he should get credit for it.”
Oh, no one has to worry about that. Whatever new gun control makes its way into law, Trump will own it. Completely.
