No, I didn't mean uncivil, but civil as in civil court.
The promise of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) was to lower health care costs and increase accessibility. High costs and less accessibility claimed lives as people had to make tough choices and were denied expensive care. Thus Liberals proclaimed no one had a moral case to oppose Obamacare. This argument demonstrates that Liberals understand the connection between high costs and suffering/premature death.
We Conservatives pointed to history, common sense, and mathematics arguing that Obamacare, being a collectivization of the health care system, would create resource scarcity and actually drive up the cost of care/decrease accessibility. We were called racists, bigots, homophobes, and sexists. We were told we hated women and children.
Well, we were right. And we don't hate women, children, minorities, gays, or any other identity group--in fact Obamacare will prove to disproportionately damage those groups (and we warned about this too)!
And an apolitical one at that!
This is the local story of two dogs that were shot dead last Thursday night. What some people see as a case of animal cruelty others see as a case of natural consequences.
Before I go any further let me state, for the PETA people, that a do not condone the killing of pets. The issue here wasn't the dogs, it was the owners.
It all started months ago when the owners, the Lubliners, started getting complaints about their dogs' frequent barking. They ignored those complaints. The neighbors then turned to the Douglas County Sheriff's Office (DCSO) for help. The Sheriff's department has charged the Lubliners twice with animal nuisance.
Couple of items to share that back up my previous post "Gun Control" is Violence.
First, Jeffrey Shapiro gives us the data and first hand experience that, once again, demonstrates that "gun control" costs lives...
The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew
that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend
themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides
rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual
homicides had reached 454.
[snip]
Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone
down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was
enacted in 1976.
...and promises of "gun control" are threats of violence. Behind every gun control advocate's argument is a desire to harm millions for the supposed goal of saving hundreds. The ones that know this have a hidden agenda that they dare not share for it will expose their evil nature.
I put "gun control" in quotes because the end-game isn't reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership but rather an all-out prohibition or disarmament. Liberals have made this perfectly clear in places in Washington DC, New York City, Chicago, etc... where they use taxpayer dollars to prohibit taxpayers from utilizing their sacred, Second Amendment protected, right to keep and bear arms. A right that has been re-affirmed by every high court that has ruled on the matter including the recent Heller case.
In spite of promises that disarmament will prevent violence, here are the reasons the exact opposite is true...
The media buzzing about Rep Todd Akin's statement this week--and only because he has an (R) behind his name.
But Akin didn't screw up nearly as bad as the "Conservatives" and supposed Christians who have rushed forward to vocally support abortion in cases of rape. These hypocrites are the ones we should be discussing.
IT IS NEVER MORAL TO DISTRIBUTE THE DAMAGES CREATED BY CRIME TO AN INNOCENT THIRD PARTY.
NEVER!
...that’s how the Left sees tragedies like those that happened Friday morning in Aurora.
These active shooter events are emotionally exhausting. After the grief comes anger. The most frustrating aspect is the vacuum of personal safety created by strict gun laws, an incompetent government that promises us safety but constantly fails to provide it, and an army of useful idiots (Century Theatres [owned by Cinemark] has a no guns policy even for lawful concealed carry permit holders). And as if the actual shooting wasn’t bad enough, the coalition of gun-grabbers and government “officials” can’t even let the blood dry before they start using this as an opportunity.
Gun Control
Some say that gun control is broken, but that actually isn’t true. Gun control has done exactly what it was intended to do—disarm the law-abiding public (and nothing more). A criminal who is about to commit a violent crime with a gun doesn’t care about gun control laws to include magazine restrictions, barrel lengths, types of weapons, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, or actions. A CRIMINAL DOES NOT CARE. And thus, gun control does nothing to limit crime while the unintended consequences (empowering criminals) far outweigh any benefits. This is a well-known and documented fact which is why support for gun control has dramatically decreased in the United States while the agenda of Leftist gun-grabbers becomes more apparent.
A little reported event occured this weekend that should have the attention of every American. Congress actually debated revoking your right to self-defense. No, they didn't offer an Amendment to the Constitution; they instead sought a way to bully states into striking down "stand your ground" laws having the same outcome without the due process.
Self-defense is a natural right. Period. There is no legal debate to be had here. Self-defense is also a moral act as individuals have a duty to avoid harm and preserve their lives which in some unfortunate situations requires a level of force. Pragmatically, self-defense is necessary in a civilized society as a means of de-incentivizing crime via natural consequences. And the collective benefit of such acts is demonstrated when comparing crime rates in populations that acknowledge this natural right v. those that do not. It bears repeating that America's crime capitals have the most gun control.
I am posting this advice as I have been asked by several people in recent weeks for advice on purchasing their first firearm. The reader should assume there is always more detail and information available than what is contained in this post—I am going to try and keep this as short and to the point as possible but it is a lot of information.
Anyone interesting in getting introduced to firearms should take classes from a qualified instructor. The local gun shop can be a great resource and the NRA is also be helpful.
If there was ever a time in the history of the United States to own a gun it is today. Right now. The idea that a weapon will be made available to you, in the event of emergency, and you’ll be able to use it is limited to Hollywood movies and fiction. The threats to our Second Amendment rights are numerous and growing.
The handgun (pistol) is the most versatile self-defense (SD) weapon available. If you can only own one gun, or are getting into guns because you want a SD weapon, the handgun should be first on your list. By no means should you stop with handguns either, but this post will deal only with handgun selection and it will be limited to semi-automatic handguns as they are the most capable for SD.
A Sig Sauer P226R in three different roles; home defense, sidearm, and concealed.
The ammunition that a handgun fires, called a “round” in the singular, is the most important variable in how capable the weapon is. There are no “high/low” switches on firearms, and frankly, no reasonable person would use such a switch. In a SD scenario the goal is to stop the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Various .40SW loads; 135gr JHP, 165gr JHP, 165gr BJHP, and 180gr FMJ
The action of a weapon is also critically important in selecting a handgun. The action determines how a weapon is fired and involves the trigger, safety(ies), and sometimes a de-cocker.
Many people will get confused when considering the action of a gun and assume that a gun that lacks external safeties is less safe. It is actually the operator who determines how safe a gun is and not the mechanics of the weapon. Alternatively, the presence of an external safety doesn’t make the gun safer either as many people have accidentally shot themselves with guns that have external safeties.
Once an action or “platform” is selected, users should try to stick to that platform. This decreases the need to train to different platforms which would increase confusion and decrease the effectiveness of muscle memory once the adrenalin kicks in. In short: keep it simple.
While there are advantages and disadvantages it is always the shooter who must train to that action and be safe with it. Here are my thoughts on the most popular actions available...
This is also where things get super confusing as there are many choices. Most major handgun manufacturers will make models in the following sizes: full, compact, subcompact, and pocket. Among these sizes are “single stack” (single row of rounds in a magazine) and “double stack” (two rows of rounds in the magazine).
To make this easier, rule out the subcompact and pocket sized guns right off the top. Unless you have very small hands and cannot handle a larger gun, don’t even consider these as a SD gun. It’s worth noting that these sized guns do have a role for shooters, but they are not good primary SD guns because of their limitations (capacity and accuracy [shorter barrel]).
I would also eliminate single stack guns for the capacity limitations.
The most important thing to consider in the brand department is the track record of quality. If you buy a gun that malfunctions when you need it, it becomes an expensive chunk of metal. Do not spend time on what looks cool or what special forces team x carried to kill Bin Laden (they carried P226s by the way :) ).
I find that manufacturers with military/LE contracts are the most invested in quality. Gun companies live and die on the basis of these contracts and not civilian sales. A company that loses a contract because of quality will have a serious black eye that will cost them dearly.
These are some things to think about in addition to buying the actual gun and what comes with it in the box.
Sights
I prefer night sights on my handguns. These are sights that glow in low light/no light and provide you with a sight picture in all conditions.
They are about $160 to add onto a gun after purchase or $100 if you can do it yourself (and they are hard to do—I have done them). It is best to buy a gun with these sights installed and properly zeroed.
Night sights have a 12 year life limited by the radioactive isotope (Tritium) that is used in them. Yes, that sounds scary, but it’s not. If buying a used gun or old stock, consider this lifespan. Most manufacturers will label the box with the born on date.
No, I didn't mean uncivil, but civil as in civil court.
