Here’s what I have:
- 14 Die in California Rampage, Police Say — Three gunmen still at large. “Domestic terrorism” mentioned, although no one really knows yet what it was about.
- Spurrier banner removed from Williams-Brice — And now, from the world of far-less-consequential news… But I will say, I wondered when they were going to get around to this. And I wonder how much the thing cost. A tidbit from The State‘s story: Spurrier’s won-loss record was 77-39 before the banner went up, and 9-10 after. And they say he never wanted the banner.
- Private memo lays out how GOP would deal with Trump as nominee — From a quick scan of the story, it appears to outline a total capitulation to Trumpism. That is, going along with the guy who said today that he’d deal with ISIL by going after their families. You know, this could be the death of the Republican Party. It would certainly guarantee a Clinton victory. If there’s to be a GOP, Rubio needs to get his young behind in gear. Or Jeb!, but that ship may have sailed… I see what he’s put out lately, and it just seems weak…
- Iraqis think the U.S. is in cahoots with the Islamic State, and it is hurting the war — The normal, grownup thing to do would be to ignore such insanity, but we can’t because of the “it is hurting the war” part. I read the story and tried to understand the reasoning of people who think this, but I can’t. There’s just no place to grab hold of it that makes sense. Wow. Just wow…
Related Posts
No way we could survive a Trump presidency.
I’m worried about surviving the Obama presidency.
BTW can we please stop seeing the same film clips over and over again. Can they possibly wait until they know something new about this latest shooting, instead of repeating over and over that they don’t know anything new . It makes for very boring TV. I’d druther see what they’re digging up on “Oak Island,” and trust me, that’s a very low priority on my “to do” list.
Karen, some viewers may be seeing if for the first time, that’s why the endless loops. But it does get frustrating. You want to see new information but it’s just not available.
I’d be happy to see some other news. It’s not the only thing happening in the world. This coverage reminds me too much of OJ’s slow speed car chase.
Karen, do not watch TV coverage of bad things. It damages your soul. Find a good online news source and read.
Since I don’t as a rule watch TV news, I had my eyes opened by what I saw unfolding the evening of April 20, 1999. I was working out in the basement at The State while the story of the Columbine shootings developed, and the TV was tuned to CNN. And yeah, I’ve mentioned this before. But it was an appalling experience that made a big impression on me, between the repetition of skimpy details, the recitation of inaccurate rumors and other phenomena arising from the 24/7 formula, which holds that you must keep talking even though you have no relevant information to relate.
But the thing that struck me the most powerfully, which I have mentioned MANY times, was the person standing in front of the White House saying that a statement from the president was expected SOON. Since they had nothing else to do, they kept cutting back to that person, who kept telling us that a statement from POTUS was imminent. And NO ONE on the air ever wondered what I wondered, which was why on Earth we expected the president to say something about an incident that had absolutely nothing to do with his job description.
I really don’t understand why people watch such stuff.
I think we reached the apotheosis of this phenomenon yesterday when POTUS called for gun control while the shooters were still at large.
When shooters are at large is when you most NEED gun control…
Gun control meaning holding on to your gun securely? Sure, how else are you gonna hit your target?
Gun control meaning ineffective legislation, eh, not so much.
The most ineffective thing about the legislation is that it never passes.
But as I’ve said before, I don’t have much confidence that ANY gun control that could possibly be enacted in THIS country would have much effect. Because the fact would remain that there are just too many guns out there, so these incidents would keep happening. And despite the worst nightmares of the right, we’re never going to go out and round up all the guns, not least because it would be as impractical as rounding up all the illegal immigrants.
Still, I don’t see any reason not to tighten up background checks or waiting periods or things like that. We might stop ONE mass murder, and that would be worth it…
Yeah. If it’s just a little harder, I’m sure the folks with the desire to commit mass murder will just give up easily.
Not the terrorists; not the people who plan. But the ones who just SNAP? Maybe one little bit of inconvenience could, once in a blue moon, deflect one of them from that course.
Then again, frustrating them could make it worse. I’m talking about the level at which whim and happenstance play a fateful role…
Unrelated question: I’m reading that the black SUV the shooters used as their getaway car was a rental car.
The lawyer in me is wondering if standard rental insurance covers “getting shot to pieces by the cops during a getaway”, or does Hertz have to eat that loss?
Bryan, If the background check had been a little more throrough, Dylan might have had a bit harder time finding the guns he used.
You’re making an argument for competency in enforcing existing law. I’m all for competency.
Timeline Reminder:
April 11, 2015: Roof selects handgun (at Shooter’s Choice on 378) and fills out an ATF Form 4473. The data on the form was used to call the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) at that time. “Yellow light” is given by FBI, meaning they’re not sure if he’s a prohibited person or not, so no sale happens. The FBI has three days to either give red or green light. If they do not give either, then the sale may proceed at gun shop owner’s discretion.
Five days pass.
April 16, 2015: Roof returns to store, and no word from FBI, so transaction occurs.
Sixty-two days pass.
June 17, 2015: Shooting in Charleston
The FBI never figured out that he was a prohibited person, even after sixty-seven days. If, at any time prior to June 17, 2015, the FBI had determined that he was a prohibited person, they could have used his ATF Form 4473 data to find him and retrieve the gun. That’s part of what the ATF does.
People are motivated by money/job security. Institute a bonus plan for FBI employees responsible for gun licenses based on number of mass shootings. Terminate management employees if a threshold is exceeded. Start with a threshold 10% lower than previous year and continue that for a decade.
These are background checks, not gun licenses. They check law enforcement and other records for a hit, that’s all that happens. We don’t know what prevented the immediate approval of Roof’s application, nor do we know of any reason why Roof should have been prevented from purchasing a firearm because he had no felony convictions, spouse abuse judgements, or whatever.
I’ve purchased two handguns within the past several weeks without delay. One purchase was from a dealer at the South Carolina Arms Collectors Association gun show at Jamil Temple, the other was from a sporting goods store. In both cases I filled out the Form 4473, present my DL and CWP, the vendors ran the check, I paid, and got the guns. No fuss, no muss, and that’s the way it should be in a free country with a law-abiding citizen.
Everyone: Note that a background check is still required when you buy a firearm from a dealer at a gun show.
By the by, what did you purchase? I’m working on my list for Christmas, and I’m having trouble deciding between a Garand chambered in .308 or a more modern Springfield M1A.
Decisions, decisions.
You expecting the Krauts to counterattack or something?
You libertarians… I’m more of a Wyatt Earp type. You want to bring a gun into my town, I want to know the reason why.
Two handguns? What for? You gonna wear ’em like Wild Bill Hickok on TV — backwards? I thought that was cool when I was a kid, although it’s probably not the best way, for fast-draw purposes…
I got a great price on a Walther CCP at the show, then purchase a Beretta Nano, both are of course 9mm, my first 9mms. I got the Walther mainly for my wife and daughter to try out. While many finicky folks complain about the trigger, my gals like it and the recoil is surprisingly mild because of that plunger Walther uses on that model.
Nice rifle dilemma. I’m small of stature with aging eyes and would opt for the Springfield, mainly because I could /would customize it a bit and wouldn’t worry too much about dragging it around and getting it dirty.
I’d keep an original Garand vanilla, just for the sentimental value. That said, depending on the provenance, source, condition, and age, I might have to replace the stock, barrel, etc. That would be fun, interesting, and a bit expensive, but I don’t have the time right now. I would like to have one someday in the original 30-06.
My law partner got a Beretta Nano about a year or so ago. He loves it for EDC. I’m a big fan of 9mm. My first handgun purchase was a 9mm Hi-Power, pictured here. It was my EDC before I got my Springfield XDS.
I’m still much more accurate with my Hi-Power, though.
Nice pistol and holster. I’ve got a temporary holster for the Nano, but I’ll see what Bullard has once I sort things out.
I ordered and received a LaserMax for the Nano and plan to zero that in this weekend. I had to drive up to NoVA yesterday, but there’s a nice range 1.5 miles away in Ashburn, VA, where I hope to zero it in tomorrow. I also got some Polycase Inceptor ARX ammo in .380 and 9mm to see how they feed and feel.
I’m a firm believer in diversity, so I’ve got a .380 TCP and S&W .38 Spl Bodyguard to swap for EDC, a .40 (my favorite round) for general carry, a Public Defender with mixed .45 Colt / shotshells for car carry, and sundry other pistols and rifles for fun and defense.