Wednesday, June 22, 2016

"AR-15:" The TRUTH...for a Change *

I don't know about you, but I've grown weary of Left-wing politicians, know-nothing Hollywood celebrities, and Lap Dog Media talking heads preaching to you and me about guns in general, and the AR-15 in particular.

And this is true especially right after some crazed killer shoots up a mall, or a movie theater, or a church, or a Paris concert house, or a gay nightclub using any firearm, but especially an AR-15.  Or, a weapon we're told was an AR-15, but wasn't.  More on that later.

And it is also true that the most dangerous place on the planet - maybe the entire universe - is between one B. Hussein Obama and a TV camera after such a shooting takes place.  Right after an Islamic terrorist jihadist murdering pond scum dirt bag thug shot up the "Pulse Nightclub" in Orlando, Florida early last Saturday morning, Barry O graced our TV sets within minutes once again to minimize the role that radical Islamic terrorism played in the event, and to maximize the role that guns played in enabling it, nay, even causing it to happen.  

I am sickened that more than 100 innocent folks, out only for a good time, were killed or maimed.  And I am sickened that our President and his Sycophants cannot - or will not - place the blame where it truly belongs. And it does not belong with the AR-15, or any other gun.  You have been lied to, my friends.  You've been told that this rifle is "weapon of mass destruction."  And a "weapon of war." And an "automatic" weapon. And a "machine gun."  And an "assault weapon." Well, I'm about to set you straight. 

Here are the facts:

The Fairchild ArmaLite Corporation of Chicago, Illinois, invented and patented what they then called the "AR-10" rifle in 1958.  No, this is not some new-fangled way to separate you from your life.  That was nearly sixty years ago, folks! It was a fairly revolutionary rifle for its time, but is a bit long in the tooth by now.  

The "AR" simply stands for "ArmaLite Rifle," and not "Assault Rifle" as some Lefties would like you to believe.  It was conceived to be a small, lightweight (less than 6 pounds), entirely new design, composite (aluminum and polymer) modular rifle that would use small, light, high velocity .223 caliber ammunition.  This cartridge is kind of like your daddy's .22 but on steroids. They began manufacturing and selling it to the public in 1959. Financial problems caused them to have to sell the weapon and the patent to the Colt Manufacturing Company soon thereafter.  

The U.S. Army, desiring to find a successor to the M-14 shoulder-fired infantry rifle, itself a successor to the famed M-1 Garand, used so successfully during WW2, and the weapon I qualified with in the Army,  asked U.S. arms companies to offer up designs for its consideration back in 1960.  Colt won that competition and began selling the gun to the military, after some modifications, as the "M-16" in 1963. 

That weapon offered both semi-automatic (one pull of the trigger, one shot) and with the click of a switch, full-automatic (pull the trigger and the weapon fires until the magazine is empty).  The latter was available only to the military. They subsequently began selling the semi-automatic-only version to the general civilian public later that same year as the "AR-15." 

Note:  The sale of fully-automatic weapons has been outlawed in the U.S. since 1934 to all but select, Federally-approved and -vetted purchasers, and only after a major license fee is paid, months or even years pass waiting for approval, and an exhaustive qualification process is undergone. These weapons are not even available at your local gun store.  So when Lefty Progressive-types try to tell you that "automatic" weapons need to be outlawed, hey bozos! They already are! I guess you got your wish! Congratulations!

The rifle became so popular, primarily due to the hundreds of thousands of Army vets returning home from Viet Nam after having used them in that little "police action" over there, that civilian sales skyrocketed. Now, the off-patent AR-15-type design is manufactured by more than 50 companies world-wide.  It has become the single most popular rifle in all the land.  It is now designated as the "Modern Sporting Rifle." There are more than ten million of them in service.  And by the way, sales of them are currently skyrocketing following Orlando due to the belief that they might once again be banned.  That happens every time Barry gives us one of his little speeches on the need for more "gun control."

The modularity of the AR-style platform is pretty much like the process of making a pizza.  You start a pizza with the dough.  You start an AR with the receiver.  That's the part that the cartridge goes in and the bullet leaves from.  To the pizza you add a sauce of your choice, and some meat and veggies and cheese.  To the AR you add a stock, folding or fixed; a grip, pistol or otherwise; a barrel, long or short; a barrel shroud to protect your hand from the heat; and a sight system, such as a laser or telescope optics.  That's how you customize this rifle for the purpose you intend to use it, and that's why it's so popular with its owners.  Weapon of war?  I don't think so.    

Did you know that the number of guns here in America has more than doubled since Barry O was immaculated?  They have, my friends, from just over 150 million to more than 300 million.  As many as 20 million were sold just last year!  Barry gives us another of his speeches about the need for more gun control and the sales of guns go through the roof!  And that's why he's been designated by gun enthusiasts as the "Best Gun Salesman of all Time." 

Funny.  For a guy who so loudly proclaims his hatred for guns, he's become the gun manufacturers' very best friend.

The AR-15 is used for marksmanship training, competitive shooting and training, hunting of all types of game from squirrels up to Alaskan Brown Bears, and personal and home defense. Its versatility is why it has become so very popular.

School is not yet out, kiddies, so pay attention.  

The AR-15 is not an "assault rifle." There's no such thing as an "assault rifle."  There are only rifles used in assaults, and those that aren't.  There are "assault weapons," but they are necessarily fully-automatic in function, such as would be used only by the military.  See above if you're still confused.

The terms "assault rifle" was coined by San Francisco Lefty Senator Dianne Feinstein back in the early 1990's when she decided, all by her lonesome, that "assault rifles," the name she adopted for all scary black guns that for some reason evoke abject fear in the hearts of liberal politicians, should be outlawed. And they were, under ex-Prez Billy Jeff "Blue Dress" Clinton, for a ten-year period, starting in 1994.  

That ten-year period expired in 2004 after statistics proved that banning them had no significant effect on crimes committed using such weapons.  So if banning them then didn't help then, why ban them now? 


Yet, Barry and his True Believers are once again banging the drum to outlaw them. One has to ask why?  Perhaps it's no more than an effort to change the subject away from failed foreign and domestic policies that have put our Country at risk.  From the rise of ISIS, which didn't exist when he came into office, or before he ordered our forces out of Iraq without leaving a "tripwire" security military force to prevent exactly what has happened.  From unnecessary rules and regulations that have pushed 94+ million folks out of the job force. From the worst recovery from a recession in American history.  From the unconstitutional imposition of Obamacare that has made full-time work harder and harder to get. From a more than doubling of our National Debt.  From years of almost nonexistent GDP growth.  From the fact that the Lefties have to protect Obama and Clinton in the face of a mountain of evidence that their policies have led us to our current miserable situation. 

Misdirection works well for magicians, why not politicians?

Gun control as a response to crazed Islamic terrorist jihadi killer thugs who want to cut off our heads?  They want to kill us right here at home and Barry wants to take away one of the ways we might use to defend ourselves from them? Barry is comfortable giving the Iranians The Bomb and the billions they will need to pay for it but isn't comfortable with us having the means to protect ourselves.  Really?  Why is it, one must ask, that any time a killer uses a gun to kill, Obama wants to take guns away from those who broke no laws at all and might need them to rebuff potential future threats? Think of it: 100,000,000 American gun owners didn't kill anyone last Saturday, but need to be punished because somebody else did.  Is this bizarro world, or what?

Omar Mateen, the killer, was employed by an international security firm, G4S (successor to Wackenhut), whose major client was the Homeland Security Department!  He'd been there for nine years, held numerous security licenses and a concealed carry permit. He'd been to Saudi Arabia to visit Mecca twice, once in 2011 and again in 2012.  Apparently that raised no red flags within the Justice Department. He'd been investigated by the FBI for numerous suspected terrorist leanings both in 2013 and again in 2014. He'd been placed on the Terrorist Watch List as a result. After the investigations were completed, he was inexplicably taken off that List just in time to buy the weapons he used to kill the folks at the Pulse Nightclub.  He bought those weapons legally, with full Federal background checks.  The same background checks the Lefties are clamoring for us to adopt. Are you seeing a pattern here?

The System worked exactly as it was supposed to...except that perhaps political correctness has tied the hands of the FBI and ATFE so they can't keep bad guys from using our System against us.  Perhaps we need to insure our elected leaders use that System the way it was intended for a change.

You should also be aware that the "No Fly List" that Lefties want to use to deny people their 2nd Amendment Rights is deeply flawed.  There are more than 800,000 of us on that List!  Are there 800,000 terrorists lurking in America?  I seriously doubt it!  And no one knows just how you get placed on that List, or who does it, or who's in charge of it, or how you get off of it if erroneously placed thereon.  As an example, Senator Ted Kennedy was on the List for more than two years before he bitched loudly enough and got removed. And so was Nelson Mandela.  And an 8 year-old Boy Scout. And a 19 month-old infant who self-identified as a female (a little joke there).  And Steve Hayes, Senior Writer for the Weekly Standard Magazine.  Could it be that Hayes' conservative leanings had something to do with that decision?  It took the hiring of several attorneys and seven months to get him removed from the List.  

But what about you and me?  What if it were you and you didn't have the horsepower of a major media source backing you to pry yourself loose from the clutches of the Federal Government? How would you get yourself off?  The Democrats want that List used to block gun sales.  And gun purchases.  And they want to use it without first granting you your 5th Amendment Right to due process.  No arrest, no indictment, no trial, no conviction.  Just guilty until proven innocent.  What do you think about that?

Just remember:  It's the Government's responsibility to prove you belong on that List, not your responsibility to get yourself off of it.  Yet, it's the Government that wants you to just lay back and leave everything to them.  They'll watch out for you. They'll take care of everything.  Riiiiight!  

Note also that the use of long guns of any type, rifle or shotgun, single-shot, bolt-action or semi-automatic, constitute less than 2% of all shootings!  The weapons of choice for Bad Guys are pistols, not rifles!  In fact, more people were killed last year with clubs and rocks than by rifles!  But hey, why let facts get in the way of good, solid, left-wing, Lap Dog Media-supported propaganda?  

And further, there is absolutely no difference between AR-style rifles and say, the Remington model 750 semi-automatic deer rifle, or the Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic Ranch Rifle...except they both have wooden stocks and don't look so awfully scary to Lefty weenies.  But were all semi-automatic, shoulder-fired, magazine-fed, gas-operated rifles somehow outlawed, overruling the 2nd Amendment in the process, the two referenced hunting rifles, and all the many others like them, manufactured by companies around the world, would be outlawed as well. What are these bozos thinking?  

Or maybe they know exactly what they are doing and they just want for some nefarious reason to disarm us, the General Public.  Ask yourself why "They," whoever "They" are, those who want to micro-manage our lives, want us disarmed?  Or maybe you'd rather not know the answer.  

Remember, you're not paranoid if they're really after you...

Lastly, I wish all politicians who wouldn't know an AR-15 from a private-sector employment application would finally understand that criminals do not obey the law! Penalizing ordinary God-fearing, law-abiding, red-blooded 'Muricans when criminals break the law makes no sense at all.  Except to them, I guess.  

And also, if these bozos who control our lives really want to end mass shootings like the one in Orlando, they should simply outlaw gun-free zones!  All but 3 mass shootings here in America since 1950 occurred in gun-free zones! And, even though Florida is one of America's most gun-friendly states, where around 6.5% of its population of 20,000,000 are currently permitted to carry concealed weapons, including the shooter Omar Mateen (!), the Pulse Nightclub was a gun free zone!  Like most of the nearly 40 states that offer "shall issue" concealed carry permits, Florida lets businesses "opt out" and deny their patrons the right to arm themselves. Pulse was one such business.

Pulse was a very big box with one door in and the same one out.  No windows, either. And no guns. Nothing but a shooting gallery just waiting for a would-be jihadist killer looking to make his bones with ISIS. And he did.  At the very least, Pulse should have provided for sufficient armed resistance at the entrance to dissuade any would-be killer from choosing that location.

Hello!  Are you completed addled?  Do your synapses not fire?  Are you without any vestige of common sense? Don't you realize that announcing there are places where the public is going to be assembled and disarmed just advertises where would-be terrorists and murderers can count on no defensive measures being taken to thwart their evil intentions? Don't you understand it does nothing but make it easier for a killer to kill?  The litany of "gun free zone" failures is legion:  Fort Hood; the Navy Yard; Aurora, Colorado; Sandy Hook; Charleston; Garland, Texas;  And on, and on.  


Annnnnnnd, for those who hold out hope that if we'd just outlaw all guns, you know, confiscate them, like Barry O and Pelosi and Reid and Feinstein and Biden, et. al., are all on record as stating they'd really like to do, if they just could, etc., etc., it would solve all the so-called "gun violence" problems, think about this: One of the largest "gun free zones" in the world is Paris, France.  Remember what happened there a few weeks ago? A crazed Islamic jihadist terrorist thug killed 140 and wounded another 350 more in a concert house using a fully-automatic assault weapon! One that is illegal and isn't even available in France, or Europe, for that matter. Guns are illegal in France! Yet, it happened.  You think outlawing guns here in 2nd Amendment America would have a different result?  I hope the answer to that question after you've read this posting is a resounding "NO." 

Yesterday, four separate gun control/gun rights bills was taken up by the Senate. Two were offered up by Democrats, and two by Republicans. None of them, none of them, would have prevented what happened in Orlando, or San Bernardino, or the Navy Yard, or Fort Hood, or even Sandy Hook, for that matter.  Even those who are presenting them will tell you they offer nothing substantive, and had no chance of passing.  Then why were they being offered? Simple.  Democrats want to gut the 2nd Amendment, and Republicans want to shore it up.  It was the "Dance of the Politicians." Sad this is happening in my America.

And while we're on the subject of "rewriting" the Bill of Rights, have you notice that the 2nd Amendment follows immediately after the 1st?  That's because our Founders wanted you to be able to hop on a soapbox and spew any idea that happened to cross your Colonial mind to all who might listen by use of the 1st, and then be able to protect yourself from any harm that then might come your way using the 2nd. Lefties want to gut the 2nd.  They also want to "re-imagine" the 1st.  Those of the Leftist persuasion want you to be able to say anything on your mind, so long as it comports with their worldview.  They want you to have an opinion, so long as it's theirs.  "Freedom of Speech" in 2016 America no longer means freedom of speech. It means the managed supervised freedom to say only what is politically correct...and the Lefties are doing their level best to define what constitutes "politically correct."

By the way, the rifle used by Omar Mateen to kill and maim was a Sig Sauer Model MCX. Although similar cosmetically, it shares no parts or pieces with an AR, uses a different operating system, is much more modern and costs more than three times as much. A comparison between it and the AR-15 begins and ends with the fact that they are both rifles.  But hey, the media and our POTUS will never let facts get in the way of a very bad story.

On the way out the door, metaphorically speaking, I apologize for this rather lengthy posting.  But hey, I warned you.  There was a lot to say, and I took the time to say it.  In depth.  But finally, consider this:  When a guy attacks somebody with a knife, we blame the the attacker.  When a drunk driver kills with a car, we blame the driver.  When a bomber blows up a Marathon, we blame the bomber. Then why, when a guy shoots up a gay nightclub, or anywhere else, do we blame the guns?  

Cogitate upon that, my friends. Get back to me when you come up with the answer...

*    (If you know somebody who has been hipmotizzzed by the misinformation currently aimed at you and me by the politicians and the celebrities and the media, feel free to pass this little missive along.  It never hurts to try to educate the sheeple, even if it's likely to do very little good.)

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

The Inexorable Push to Increase the Min-Wage...

So lemme' see here.  Obama is seven and one-half years into "fundamentally transforming America;" good, middle-class jobs have disappeared; 93+ million out of the work force, a forty-plus year high; min-wage jobs which used to be a training ground for pimply-faced teenagers who needed a few extra bucks to buy video games or put gas in the family truckster are occupied by ex-middle-class, middle-aged workers who have been displaced by creeping socialism; and now the unions are picketing MickeyD's in an effort to browbeat this fast-food giant into getting behind the bump to $15 an hour. * 


And the unions, most particularly the Service Employees international Union (SEIU), which represents mostly the maids who make up your bed at the Holiday Inn and janitors at the local high school, really need them to get that raise so they sign them up as members, collect their monthly dues and continue taking their first-class vacations to Bermuda.  

The unions, you see, are at an all-time low in terms of membership.  From a high of nearly 50% of the American workforce at the end of World War Part Deux, they are now at around 6% of all private-sector jobs.  And falling.  They are looking for a new source of dues-paying members like a Timber Wolf looks for a baby goat.  Over the past few years they have invested...are you ready for it?...more than fifty million of their members' dues dollars in trying to influence min-wage payers to adopt a more than doubling of the pay rate.  From an average of about $7.65/hour nationwide right now, they want it to jump, over night, to $15.00! Whaaaaaat?

They are lobbying Congress.  One has to ask why, given that what a private-sector business pays its at-will private-sector employees should be their bizz and their bizz alone.  It shouldn't be the Federal Gummint's!  Or even a state Gummint's!  Hey, you bozos, let the free market work its magic!

Yet, there they are, banging their drums, waving their signs and demanding, demanding that min-wages be doubled.  Is this going to happen?  Only in commie pinko dumbass liberal weenie states like Taxifornia, where I happen to still reside, although I wish I could convince Mrs. Chuckmeister to leave it behind (notagonnahappen with the kids and the grandkids still here!).  And in New York, and likely New Jersey, and probably Connecctticuttt, or however that weenie state is spelled.  Red-blooded "red" states, like Texas, which has produced almost 90% of all private-sector jobs in the past 10 years, is having none of it. And neither is Utah, or Arizona, or Kansas, or Montana, or the Dakotas, or Oklahoma, or Florida, etc., etc. They leave what a bizz pays its workers to the bizz-zes.  As they should.

Why, I ask rhetorically, do the lefty weenies somehow feel it's any business of theirs to decide, unilaterally, that the Korean grocer down the street, or the Mexican family that owns and operates a local restaurant, or the lumber yard or gas station or launderette, or private bizz of any kind, must hike their workers' pay?  In effect, pick a businessman's pocket?  Pick it so as to redistribute the forcibly extricated "wealth" to new union members, and thus, likely to new Democrat voters?

It's simple, in my opinion.  It's because they just cannot STAND it that anyone, anywhere is left to their own devices about anything!  As I often say, the Left wants you to have your own long as it's theirs!  Lefties don't want you to decide where to live or to work or play, or whether or not to have kids or how many, or how they should be educated.  They want to be involved in every aspect of your life, for one simple reason: They think you're too damn stupid to make such decisions for yourself. Because if you did, you might decide to come down on the side of reason, and self-determination, and self-reliance, and self-actualization, and...wait for it...freedom.  Sad.

The Left will tell you that such a major bump in the min-wage is good, because the newly-found wealth thus "created," actually stolen, will result in the newly well-paid being able to buy more stuff, thus boosting the economy for everyone.  

Of course, what they fail to realize, or maybe actually already know but simply choose not to admit or to care, is that the Korean grocer or the Mexican restaurant family are not rich; they are probably teetering on the edge of insolvency month-by-month. But the Left believes that everybody, everybody, who is a business owner is a millionaire or a billionaire.  And that simply taking a "small portion" of their undoubtedly gargantuan earnings won't hurt them so very much while helping the Great Unwashed so very much.   

And that it's their right, nay their obligation, to be a social justice warriors.  It's their "right," even though the result might cause major disruption in the economy as a whole. But hey, screw them!  They deserve it. They chose to start a business and get rich, so the Lefties will make it their cause celibre to just take their money and play Robin Hood.  After all, they're nameless, faceless bureaucrats who can hide behind legislation in the face of any outraged backlash.  It's not like the newly-poor businessmen will hunt them down and exact revenge, right?   

Hey Lefties!  If a fast-food franchisee is barely eeking out a 5% or 6% profit on his sales, which is the average, doubling his Number One expense, which is labor, could very well put him out of business unless he increases his prices.  And if he increases his prices his sales would most likely plummet. And plummeting sales would put him out of business.  He's in a no-win situation.

So he has no choice but to find other alternatives to hiring either pimply-faced teenagers or displaced middle-class workers at more than they're worth for the job that they do, and go out of business in the process.  He'll look to opening fewer hours, which would hurt sales, or even investing in high-tech mechanized robotic labor to do the job.  Wendy's, Burger King, McDonalds, Carl's Jr. and KFC have already announced they'll move to non-human answers to lower their need for high-priced human labor. A robot to take your order could cost as little as $35,000, and pay for itself within a short period.  Applebee's is already using I-Pad ordering with no waitresses involved.  Buh bye jobs!  A robot burger-cooker can make 250 an hour, error-free, at an investment of about $250k, with a pay-back of just over a year.  And need no days off or time off or sick days.  Which means the SEIU's chancy effort to force businesses to knuckle under will no doubt backfire. It serves them right.

What about the newly-rich min-wage recipients?  How would such a "windfall" effect their lives?  At $15.00 an hour, should a worker work 40 hours a week, which is highly doubtful under current Obamacare rules, he/she would earn just about $31,000 a year. And at that rate, he/she would earn too much for many aid programs, could no longer qualify for food stamps, might then owe income taxes, and would surely have to pay union dues.  The result?  They'd likely be worse off then now.  But don't try to tell them that. They probably won't believe you.  

Oh, and just so we have something to compare that to, the starting salary for an enlisted solider in the military is just about $18,000 a year.  So a burger-flipper makes $31,000 and one of our finest, who could be dodging bullets, makes $18,000.  See anything wrong with this picture?

And how should we help grow these people out of the minimum wage doldrums?  Just like we have forever.  They should get an education, or get some specialized training, or sign up for an internship so they can get some on-the-job training.  Then, and ONLY then, will they get their chance at the American Dream.  Remember, here in America you're entitled to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."  You ARE NOT entitled to happiness.  Just the pursuit thereof... 

in the final analysis, I've done a little research on this subject and can tell you that a doubling of the min-wage would cost the average McDonald's more than $100,000 per year.  And that's just about what such a franchisee makes.  The Left doesn't care. Predictably, the franchisee does. One MickeyD's franchisee I spoke to told me a burger/fry/Coke combo, which now costs about $5.50, will soon have to go to $8.50 -$9.00, or even more, if this min-wage hysteria continues. Think it will affect sales?  I do.

So how's it working?  Santa Monica has already voted to require all bizz to pay $15/hour.  And they've lost more than 10% of all their small businesses, and most of the remainder have indicated they will cut back on hours and hiring.  The Sea-Tac Airport, which serves Seattle-Tacoma, WA, has done the same.  They've lost more than a quarter of their businesses and many companies that had planned to open there have decided not to do so.  San Francisco, predictably the most business-unfriendly city in the U.S., and Berkeley, just across the Bay, did the same.  With the same result. They're losing businesses by the score.  There are many other early examples, but hey, you get the idea.  It seems, however, that the Progressive social engineers just don't care.  

If you were a small bizz owner, and were facing this onslaught on your profitability, which has, and will, drive all success, all hiring, all job creation and all stability in our economy, what would you do?  


*  NOTE:  The Chuckmeister is a highly-trained and -experienced, real honest--to-God economist, and an entrepreneur with more than 40 years' of bizz formation, operation and management experience, so he really knows what he's talking about. Although, that's not absolutely necessary for him to offer up his very valuable opinions. Never has been, never will be...

Monday, May 30, 2016

The Real Meaning of Memorial Day

Today, May 30th, 2016, is Memorial Day.

Memorial Day is dedicated to the many heroic soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and members of the Coast Guard who have given their lives in the defense of our Great Country.

In fact, a total of 1,217,273 brave souls* have died in combat since the Revolutionary War began.  And today is dedicated to their memory.  

They all made the ultimate sacrifice for their Country.  Had they not done so, we could very well be speaking British English now, or even German or Japanese.  

More than 2,400 veterans are dying every day.  More than 400 World War 2 veterans are counted among that number. Those remaining are in the nineties.  And less than 16,000 of them remain.  

More than 50,000 soldiers, sailors and Marines, as an example, died just in the assault on Okinawa!  That statistic should be staggering to anyone who contemplates the enormity of war, and America's commitment to keeping our wonderful Country safe and secure.

Our commitment to winning the Second World War was total. Our Country dedicated more than 50% of our Gross National Product to winning it.  More than 16,000,000 Americans took part in this Great War.  405,399* died while fighting it. 

The average age of those sailors and soldiers and Marines was nineteen.  Nineteen!  Nineteen year-olds today seem to need a "safe place" to go and suck their thumb when they get offended.

Americans who couldn't take part in the War personally did so here at home by conserving food, fuel and natural resources, and by buying War Bonds to finance the effort. As a baby born during the height of WWII, I recall my father saving up War stamps our Government issued back then so he could use them to buy a bag of sugar, or flour, or potatoes, or even a new set of tires for the family car.  That's because the boys "over there" needed these items more than we did.

Our Country's total commitment to the War was demonstrated by the Ford Motor Company's Willow Run, Michigan's assembly plant's capability of putting out a brand spanking-new B-24 Liberator bomber in just over three and one-half hours! That's start to finish!  They built thousands of them, for thousands of them were needed to defeat the Axis Powers.

For a Country that now has great difficulty in keeping its planes flying and its ships sailing, with the smallest military we've had since before WWII began (!) (the subject of another posting to come), we should be in awe of what can be accomplished when we're all focused on a achieving a common objective.  We should try that again some time.

Today, in the era of all volunteer service, less than 1% of our citizens have served their Country in uniform!  

I am among that number.

The remaining 99% should enjoy their hamburgers and hot dogs and ribs and potato salad and icy cold beer today.  But while doing so, they should also take a moment to silently pay their respects to the generations of fine Americans who went off to war before them and made the ultimate sacrifice so we could all enjoy a barbecue and a day off.

So, simply saying to a veteran, "Thank you for your service," while surely appreciated, could well ring hollow unless the underlying understanding of what it takes in terms of bravery and commitment to don the uniform and go off to war is contemplated.  

Seek out a vet.  Shake his or her hand.  Wish him or her well. And say, "Thank you for your service." And mean it.  He or she will appreciate it.  And you will be better off for it...

* best available statistics.  

Monday, May 23, 2016

Observation, Humbly Offered...

As this is written, our Fearless(ful?) Leader, one Mr. B. Hussein Obama, is in Viet Nam to announce that our decades-old embargo against the sale of weaponry to these nice folks is being rescinded. The same folks, you might recall, who killed off a big chunk of an entire generation of our young men and women in uniform back in the 1960's and 1970's.

Yet, juxtaposed against that rather jarring factoid, Mr. Obama is still doing his level best here at home to disarm all of us good, solid, red-blooded, God-fearing, completely vetted and law-abiding 'Muricans.

One simply must ask, "Why?"  

He obviously doesn't fear a bunch of communists, who have proven themselves more than willing to strap themselves to a tree branch for who knows how long, armed to the teeth, just waiting for a G.I. to come looking for them, running around hither and thither with the newest, nicest, most powerful and lethal, shiny new made-in-America guns, rockets, bazookas, artillery, fighter planes and bombs, yet continues to pine for a time when Jim Bob and Luther will have to fork over their semi-automatic pistols, rifles and shotguns (how about that for a good long sentence?).  

All I can figure is that he is in favor of the Vietnamese form of government and wishes ours was more like theirs.  Then, he could simply wave his imperious, un-calloused, carefully manicured hand and all of our three-plus-million guns would simply vanish. He could then have his figurative way with us, you know, the Great Unwashed.  It would be soooo much simpler, then, to eliminate our freedoms, crank up our taxes, redistribute our existing wealth and enshrine himself into the pantheon of American lordship without fear that Jim Bob and Luther would come after his imperious little butt.

Or, unlike his anti-gun self, so famous for having said, on videotape, doncha' know, that he didn't believe us ordinary Americans should be permitted to own guns (!), he could take a page out of The Donald's playbook.  Don Don has mastered the art of equivocation.  Brought it to a new level of sophistication, he has!  Just this past weekend, as an example, while being interviewed on Fox New Channel's early morning "Fox and Friends," he was asked whether he thought guns should be allowed into America's classrooms. He said, and I quote:

     "I don't want to have guns in classrooms.  Although, in some cases, teachers should have guns in classrooms."  He went on to add, "I'm not advocating guns in classrooms.  In some cases - and a lot of people have made this case - teachers should be able to have guns, these teachers should be able to have guns in classrooms."

Maybe that's why Obama has been named America's Best Gun Salesman of All Time and The Donald just earned the National Rifle Association's endorsement for President of the United States...

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

The Evil of Two Lessers...

So it's come down to this?  With somewhere around 330,000,000 people in America, not counting 10 or 12 or 18 or 50 million illegals, and a bunch of ISIS/ISIL/Al Queadeedada/Al Gore, and some number of foreign spies, and no doubt a significant number of those who arrived via UFO's, intermarried and are now teaching at the University of Chicago, the very best we can do is Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump for President of the United States of America? The U. S. of A?  Really? 


As a good loyal 'Murican I must tell you I find this hard to believe!  With a starting lineup of a whole bunch of the very most qualified candidates in the history of our Country, we're left with these two?  Like, we're living in some sort of Bizarro World! Trump or Clinton?  Really?

In normal times, we're faced with choosing between the lesser of two evils at election time.  Today?  I suggest it is rather the evil of two lessers.  And here's why:

On the one side we have a woman who wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley on her hero, Saul Alinsky.  He's the guy who wrote "Rules for Radicals."  That's the tome that advocates the destruction of capitalist America from within to turn it, by any means necessary, forcibly or otherwise, into a socialist utopia.  By the way, our Mr. B. Hussein Obama is a very big fan of Alinsky and his little book and has been using his methods to "fundamentally transform America."  (For those of you who have been living in a dumpster behind Wal-Mart, this is what Barry O. promised during his January 15, 2009 speech, just five days before he was immaculated...the libby bozo.).

A woman who somehow managed to join in the Watergate Hearings during the effort to oust Tricky Dick Nixon from office.  Oh yeah, she was fired for lying under oath.  And lying became Hill's raison detre.  She's done almost nothing else since...

A closet socialist royalty-wannabe who has ridden the coattails of her serial sexual-predator hubby, Billy Jeff "Blue Dress" Clinton, into success she truly does not deserve. An aging woman of questionable health, no more than middling intellect and minimal political skills who, after failing her D.C. Bar exam, managed somehow to turn a Yaley law degree into becoming Arkansas's's's First Lady, carpetbag Senator of New York, Barry O's frequent-flyer Secretary of State, and now uber-rich Prez candidate with about $500 million in ill-gotten gains tucked safety away under a mattress somewhere. And all she had to do to achieve this level of wealth and fame was to trade influence to the Arkansas Statehouse, the White House, and then the State Department in exchange for gargantuan donations to her unscrupulous foundations. 

A woman whose voice is quite a lot like the sound a rusty file makes when vigorously and rapidly rubbed against spring steel.  A sound that is eerily similar to that made by a blue tick hound at full bay whilst treeing a terrified raccoon.  A sound that's similar to a runaway leaf blower brandished by an illegal alien early on a Sunday morning when you're trying your very best to sleep off a hard night on the town. A screeeeech that confounds the senses and makes the nerve endings vibrate eerily.  A sound that cannot be duplicated nor forgotten. Very unfortunately.  A sound that if played over the loudspeaker at GITMO's little jail, would guarantee those jihadist killer buttholes would swear to whomever to never, ever, ever go back to the battlefield if their keepers would just - please Mohammmmmed - STOP THAT NOISE

A sound that, when accented with a laugh, is much more a cackle.  A laugh that usually precedes your entrance into the House of Horrors when the carnival comes to town.  A laugh that comes at the most inappropriate moments.  A laugh that would however be appropriate as she lifts off on Broom Force One.  A laugh that's so unnerving as to cause milk to curdle. Yes, my friends, you know her as Hil(liar)y Clinton. The maybe, please God, hopefully not, never, ever, Pantsuit-in-Chief!

And on the other, we have a guy who was born on third base and thought he'd hit a triple.  An orange guy with a bushel basket full of cotton candy hair.  A guy who starts every single sentence with "I will tell you this!" And inserts "believe me! believe me!," and "very, very," and "millions and millions," and "am I right?," at least three times in every paragraph that tumbles willy nilly from his overactive mouth.  A guy who doesn't drink and doesn't smoke and doesn't do drugs, but makes up for all those non-vices by vicing the crap out of things by tweeting his ass off all day and all night.

A guy who will swear to something during a debate and tell you the very next day that he absolutely never said it, and sometimes just a few minutes later.  Or maybe even in the same sentence!  A guy who never had a business go upside down, he says, except for the very many that did, of course. A guy who, when asked to comment on a recent primary victory, said "I won bigly."  "Bigly?"  l know I make up words, but hey, I'm not running for POTUS!

A guy who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but rather a "Trumpian."  A guy who, depending upon when you ask him, is both for and against increasing taxes, hiking the minimum wage, building a wall on the Meheeeekan border, defunding Planned Parenthood, eliminating NATO, and recommending every single country on Earth have its own unending supply of nuclear weapons.  

A narcissistic, bombastic, buffoonish, egomanical, bloviating, blusterous, scowling, rude, crude, conniving, intimidating, misogynistic, carnival barker ruffian bully clown who has mastered the ability to say lots and lots of stuff at a fourth-grade level with machine gun rapidity, without ever uttering a single coherent thought.  A guy who is the smartest, the quickest, the coolest, the nicest, the toughest and the very most important POTUS candidate, except for Abraham Lincoln, of course, that ever lived. Or so he says.  

Some of us know better.  A guy who turned a very "small loan" of just $1 Million Dollars from his daddy, plus a "small inheritance" of somewhere north of $100 Million into his gargantuan empire.  (Full disclosure:  I turned a very "small loan" of $150 from my daddy into my first car, a very used 1953 Chevy. And I had to pay it back, with interest.  BTW, I loved that car!). His name is Donald John Trump. It used to be Donald John Drumpf, before daddy changed it).  The maybe next Media Star and Deal Maker-in-Chief. But you knew that.

However, given that we're heading into the General Election Season, and knowing that these two presumptive candidates, the most hated persons in America, the two politicians with the absolute worst negatives of any who have ever pursued The Office, will do their best to eviscerate each other over the next several months, I thought it might prove helpful to give you a little deeper dive into each of them as they prepare to run for President of the United states.  They will tear into each other with viggah, I tell you! They will explore each others' weaknesses, gaffes, foiables, duplicities, mischarac-terzations, misrepresentations, sexual proclivities and outright, bald-faced lies.  And each will present, using Top Gun-speak, a very "target rich environment" for the other.  

And so, my friends, and you are my friends, I will attempt over the coming weeks to provide you, my legions of loyal readers, with the inside dope on each of these remarkably flawed - and talented - candidates, and with some of the stuff they might each choose to use to disembowel the other in front of all to see.  In fact, maybe they'll choose to do so on Pay-per-View.  Stay tuned.  It should be interesting...   

Epilogue:  In closing, I prayed to God before the Primary Season began to grant me enough more life to see the process through; to watch our Country go through the "sausage making" to the point where we had selected a shiny new President of the United States.  A POTUS actually qualified for the office for the very first time in eight years. I wonder if there's someone out there in Internet Land who knows how to rescind a prayer?

Monday, May 2, 2016

Let's Adopt Meheeeeeko's Immigration Policies!

To all you wonderful folks who have been waiting breathlessly for the next installment from The Chuckmesiter, your faithful correspondent, here 'tis...

In response to the cacophony of positive commentary I received from my tens of rabid followers about including old TV opening themes in my postings, I've decided to throw you all a bone once again.  So here is the opening theme music from the wildly popular 1960's Batman TV series.  Ready?

     "Da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da Batman!  Da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da Batman!  Da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da Batman!  Da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da Batman!  Batman!  Batman!  Batman!  Batman!  Batman!"

You're welcome.  Now on to the subject of this posting.

A major reason, some would say the major reason The Donald's campaign has caught fire is his position on illegal immigration.  Regardless of what you think of him, whether Internet-era reality show billionaire visionary super famous rock star, or circus clown loudmouth self-satisfied ego-maniacal rude crude buffoon jerk, he's touched a nerve within the electorate which has forever altered the way we view, and conduct, our elections. And because of him, we've been hearing more and more about 'Murica's need to reform our immigration policies.

Yes, my friends, and you are my friends, America's borders are like Swiss Cheese. Without the cheese part, of course. Just a bunch of gigantic, gaping, enormous holes. Holes through which millions of Mexicans and Central Americans and Cubans and who-knows-who-else pour through on their way to Valhalla.  We have a few miles of effective fencing from the Pacific Ocean heading inland just south of San Diego.  And then from there heading east for, oh, about 1,760 miles, not so much.  

The Trumpster wants to build a fence all across the Mexican - American border, and force the Mexicans to pay for it.  They say they will not!  Actually, their previous President said "No" with an "F" word thrown in for emphasis. One has to wonder just how tall such a wall would have to be to prevent some Chinese ladder manufacturer from creating one tall enough to scale it. Whatever, "the Wall" has ignited - some say reignited - a national dialogue over this signature issue for our 2016 General Election.

The Rio Grande, which means Grand River in Meheeekano, doncha' know, is a natural barrier between us and that big 3rd-world country to the south.  But it is unfortunately about three feet deep in most places.  And so that "natural barrier" isn't such a big barrier it turns out after all.  Millions of illegals have streamed across it, barely getting their feet wet, much less their backs, setting up shop and insinuating themselves into our society.  

That's been going on, pretty much unabated, since we stole Mexico from our brown brothers down there fair and square via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. That Treaty ended the Mexican-American War, during which we kicked their asses, and took the area previously known as "Alta California" as our spoils.  That "area" was a vast stretch of real estate from the Border north to San Francisco, and then east covering a dozen states or so and on to west Texas.  It represented about a quarter of what became the United States.  So winning this big chunk of dirt was kind of important to us, and one can certainly understand that losing it was a pretty big blow to the Mexicans.  

They not only took the loss hard, they have still failed to come to terms with it.  In fact, they refuse to accept its legitimacy. That's why they call the border between us "La Frontera," or The Frontier. That's also why they don't consider it a crime to cross it without our permission.  They feel breaking into our country is their right, not a privilege. And they feel that coming here, taking our jobs, and our subsistence, and a free education for their newly-minted American citizen kids, and then sending home the money they earn as just payback for our having screwed them out of a big portion of their land.   They call such payments "remittances,"  and it turns out to represent about $20 Billion a year in hard currency.  That's big bucks to Mexico's economy.  So their biggest export is oil, and second is their poor.  Think of that.  They send us their poor so they don't have to feed and clothe and house and educate them, and then welcome the dollars they send back.  And we seem to embrace that stark reality with open arms.

Some of us are pretty pissed about that.  Some, particularly of Liberal persuasion, not so much. But all would say we need to do something, even if it's wrong. Particularly because that "3rd-world country to the south" doesn't seem to share our same idea of immigration laws.     

In fact, about the only ray of sunshine about this upside-down immigration situation is that our economy has soured under the reign of B. Hussein Obama, and Mexico's has improved quite a bit. A major reason has been that many American companies have relocated their manufacturing there so as to avoid our increasingly onerous taxes and tremendously burdensome rules and regulations. It seems we can't keep out  Mexicans and we can't keep in corporations.  Thus, the flood of immigrants our way has slowed a bit, with many heading back down south where the jobs picture has improved considerably.  

You wouldn't think that Mexico would ever, ever complain about our immigration laws unless theirs was above reproach, would you?  Me neither.  But they do.  Often.  And loudly!  So I decided to do a little research on behalf of my tens of loyal readers and see how their immigration laws stack up with our own.  Drum roll please.  The results:

If you break into Mexico without permission, you get two years in their Graybar Hotel, at hard labor.  And their idea of "hard labor" is quite a bit different from our own.  Put simply, no flat screen TV for you, Gringo.  You then get deported, if you're still alive, that is.

If you break in again, and they catch you, it's ten years' hard labor!  Of course, if you try to come in from countries across Mexico's southern border, such as Nicaragua, El Salvador or Guatemala, you'll face their entrenched army and a bevy of machine guns pointed in your direction.  In other words, don't try to break in. Think we should try some of that?  I'm thinking some pay-per-view of Mexicans facing down our chattering machine guns could help us reduce our ballooning Federal debt quite a bit.

But assuming you emigrate to Mexico legally, and that's not easy, you'll then face a daunting list of conditions.  It will take you at least a year and cost thousands of dollars to earn the privilege of a driver's license.  Here in Taxifornia we give, give drivers' license to illegals!  There?  You need to bend over backwards and pay through the nose to get one. NOTE: To those from other states (you lucky dogs!), Taxifornia issued more than 670,000 drivers' licenses to illegals last year, just over half of all those we handed out.  So those who can't be here legally, can now drive here legally, while being here illegally. I kid thee not.

There, you may not participate in any political actions, regardless of the type.  You may not run for political office. You have no freedom of speech.  You may not march, protest, wave signs and placards, desecrate their flag or attempt to influence public opinion. I think we could use some of that.  Remember reading about the illegal who graduated from one of Taxifornia's prestigious law schools awhile back, on a full-ride scholarship, no less, and then was awarded the right to practice law by our highest court?  Breathtaking. 

Mexican citizens in Mexico are given preference in hiring over foreign nationals, even those with visas and proper documentation. Here, Mexicans are given preference because they'll often work for less, "doing the jobs Americans won't do". 

Only citizens may serve in Mexico's police and armed forces, on airline crews, or at seaports and airports.  You may not obtain a pilot's license there or be an engineer on a train. Sounds a bit jingoistic, doesn't it?  

Members of both houses of their Congress and their Supreme Court must all be natural-born Mexicans. Immigrants - even legal ones - may not serve in their clergy. This racial profiling they practice down there is getting somewhat tiresome, don't you agree?  

Foreigners, legal or illegal, may not own land within 50 miles of any body of water, whether ocean, lake, river or stream. They may take possession through a type of holding company, however, but may not own such land directly. Here, we'll sell anything to anyone anywhere as long as they have a saddlebag full of cash.  

Think not?  Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arranged the sale of more than one-half of all our uranium production capability to a Russian company a few years back in exchange for a small $100 Million donation to her little tax-exempt Foundation.  Nice.

Any Mexican citizen may arrest illegals and their accomplices and turn them over to the authorities.  Foreigners, legal or otherwise, may be expelled at any time, for any reason, or for no reason.  Wait a minute!  Since about half of all Mexicans are already here, perhaps we should simply deputize them and put them to work arresting Mexican gang members! What a great idea!

According to their immigration laws, you will be barred from entry if your presence "...upsets the equilibrium of the national demographics."  You will not be granted legal residency unless you can "...contribute to the national progress," and that you have "...the necessary funds for sustenance."  Try some of that here and the ACLU would have your ass.

And once you finally get your visa, if you violate it, you're guilty of a felony, which gets you six years in the slammer. Think of that; it's a felony to violate their immigration laws by overstaying your legally-obtained visa.  Here?  It's a misdemeanor to break into our country, or overstay your visa.  NOTE:  It's estimated that up to half of all the illegals here are visa overstays.  And the ACLU and most Liberals would like to do away with that little impediment to signing up more voters-to-be.  There's more, but hey, space is limited, even for The Chuckmeister.

Well now, it would seem that those nice Mexicans must believe that their immigration laws are superior to our own. Otherwise, they wouldn't shoot off their mouths about how unfair we 'Muricans are to their exported poor.  It makes sense, then, for us to start the process of reconciliation by adopting theirs.  Then, working together with our most excellent friends and neighbors to the south, we can work jointly toward any mutually-beneficial compromises.  Maybe we can dig fox holes across the Rio Grande from each other, deploy our respective armies, with machine guns pointed at each other, and then wait for the next poor fool to dip a toe in those muddy, muddy waters... 

Just a thought...

Friday, April 22, 2016

More Guns, More (or Less) Crime?

So, it appears far too many Liberals believe that the primary source of "gun violence" in America is the fact that we have too many guns.

That group would include our present POTUS (Obama is on video (check YouTube) proclaiming that he doesn't believe that we Americans should have the right to own firearms!), our V.P. ("Sheriff" Joe has opined that the way to chase off home invaders is to go to the nearest window and shoot off a shotgun into the air...illegal in most states of course, and dangerous!), the crusty old female presumptive Democrat candidate for POTUS (as of the day this is written she is in Conneccctticutttt conducting a seminar on how to reduce "gun violence" by reducing the number of our guns!), and a whole bunch of dumbass weenies who wouldn't know how to load a gun, much less use it. Long sentence I know, but hey, it's my blog.  

Apparently they are not aware that the Bill of Rights comes as a Boxed-Set of Ten, not of nine or six or some fewer number in need of immediate revision.

And "gun violence" is their catch-all phrase for any accident or injury or hangnail or death resulting from a firearm, no matter what the cause.

So they believe that we could reduce "gun violence" by simply reducing the number of guns.  And they offer up other countries' experiences as proof-positive that their solution has merit.  Those countries would include England and Australia, both of which have outlawed and forcibly confiscated their citizens' weapons.  (However, both have experienced a rapid uptick in serious crime since doing so...they conveniently forget to mention that). So when they suggest we adopt those countries' solutions to this "epidemic," that's what they're suggesting.  Nice.

But these gun-grabbers are kind of loose with the statistics they offer to prop up their proposal.  They state that our homicides per 100,000 of population are the very highest in the world, and that's what leads us to our sick, twisted, maniacal, fanatical Wild West obsession with guns.  That would be a scary statistic, if it were true.  It isn't.  They include all deaths from guns, regardless of the cause. Suicides, accidents, terrorism, homicides, gang warfare, no matter.  All are included.  Yes, we have the very most guns per our population in the entire world.  And I'm about to prove to you that this is why we became free more than two centuries ago, and why we shall always remain free!

Americans own, proudly I might add, 90 guns per 100 people at present.  That's the very largest percentage in the entire world. And that number has increased by no less than 100,000,000 (that's One Hundred Million!) during the tenure of one B. Hussein Obama, the absolute Best Gun Salesman Of All Time.  

Let me state that again.  America's guns have increased in number by more than one-third since Obama assumed the Presidency!  

He spews something about guns being so awfully bad, and people flock to their nearest gun store. They fear that he will try and grab our guns, a reasonable fear, I might add, so they buy them by the millions to beat the legislation. More than 20 Million background checks were performed just last year, an all-time record. And stats indicate that gun sales will likely beat that record in 2016.  So that 90 guns per 100 people is sure to quickly become 100 per 100.

Next country in terms of gun ownership is waaaay down there at 58.2 to 100 in Serbia. And then 54.8 in Yemen.  And 45.7 in Switzerland.  And 36.1 in Cyprus. And 35.0 in Sweden.  And 34.2 in Iraq.  And so on, and so on. 

Only 34 guns per 100 population in Iraq?  Saddam Hussein made sure of that!

Yes, we own the most.  And thank God for that!

Does that automatically translate to the world's highest murder rate? Nooooooooooooo!  Are we second?  No! Fifth? No, again!  Twentieth?  Fiftieth?  One hundredth?  No, no, and no!  We come in at 111th!  

Surprised?  You should be.  Amazed that your elected leaders have been blowing smoke up your collective ass? You shouldn't be.  They do it alllllllllllll the time!

So, my friends, and you are my friends, The Chuckmeister will now pass along to you some truth for a change.  Some truth that you can take to the bank in addition to that pretty shocking number up above.  Some truth that you can use to counteract all that crap that's shoveled your way at the dinner table when crazy Aunt Doris, the commie pinko weenie gun-hating Liberal, when she decides to stop by and ruin your appetite.  

So we have three times the number of guns than the Iraqis do, and our Liberal weenies want us to believe we're more dangerous than downtown Baghdad? Pullleeeezzz!

Would you like to know how we'd rank internationally if we didn't have to include the death rates from gunfire in all the towns owned and operated for decades by those same loony Liberals who are so quick to blame us, 'Murica's honest, red-blooded, flag-waving, God-fearing gun-owners for all that "gun violence?"  Read on.

There are a whole bunch of American towns that have chosen to elect Liberal Democrats for generations.  And not surprisingly, most are all-out shooting galleries. Here's a list, along with their most recent murder rates per 100,000 of population:

     -  Detroit:  54.6
     -  New Orleans:  53.2
     -  St. Louis:  35.5
     -  Baltimore:  34.9
     -  Newark:  34.4
     -  Oakland:  31.8
     -  Stockton:  23.7
     -  Kansas City:  22.6
     -  Philadelphia:  21.5
     -  Cleveland:  21.3
     -  Memphis:  20.2
     -  Atlanta:  19.0
     -  Chicago:  18.5

Note that Chicago hasn't had a City-wide elected Republican since Dwight Eisenhower was in the White House.  Hmmmm. And Chicago's gun-control laws are soooo stringent that buying and owning a gun there is virtually impossible.  Yet, they average, average, more than fifty shootings per weekend!

Want to know which is America's safest big city?  Ready? Here it is:  Plano, Texas: Murder rate per 100,000 of population:  0.4!  

Why?  Because virtually everybody in Plano, Texas is armed and considered dangerous.  And nobody who wants to walk away after an armed confrontation, be they bank robber, thug, home invader, gangster, burglar or Islamic jihadist murdering terrorist, would pick Plano, Texas to ply their nefarious trade.  

Remember the would-be mass jihadist shooting outside a draw-the-Muhammed contest in Garland, Texas last year? Yeah, it ended with the Bad Guys being shot dead by a security guard before they could pull the trigger a single time.  There's an example of some of that Wild West justice for you!  

Ready for another statistic you can use to figuratively slap Aunt Doris across the face when she starts to spew her anti-gun bile?  Were we to somehow just erase all of the above Democrat-(mis)managed cities from the American map, America's death rate from "gun violence" per 100,000 of population would magically drop from 111th on the list of nations to...ready for it?...211th!  Maybe Vatican City would be a bit safer than America were that the case, but only just barely.

So, in closing, let me throw in this little palate cleanser.  Ms. Hil(liar)y will make eliminating "gun violence" a centerpiece of her upcoming campaign for President of the United States. That's assuming she isn't trying to run America from behind those cold stone walls of Leavenworth Federal Prison.  And she will advocate harsh new gun control measures that will center upon duplicating Australia's confiscation measures. What I don't think she realizes, and please don't tell her, is that more than 5,000,000 ordinary average $40-per-year dues-paying Americans are members of the National Rifle Association. And they have fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, girlfriends, boyfriends, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, co-workers, bowling team members and buddies who will be influenced by them, as well as the millions who are simpatico with the NRA and its goals and objectives who aren't yet members.  And there are tens of millions of other gun owners and shooters and those who count on their firearms for safety and self-defense.  

And they vote!

Put another way, the Democrats won the Presidency in 2012 with a total of 65,915,796 votes, including all those who voted three or four times (remember the inner-city woman in Philly who proudly proclaimed she'd voted seven times?). Republicans garnered only 60,993,501 votes.  That's a winning percentage of 51.1% to 47.2%  Now just imagine that "gun control" was elevated to a top-tier issue in the upcoming 2016 Presidential election.  Then add in the 5 Million NRA members and the millions more they will most assuredly influence.  Get it?

Once again, please don't tell Hil(liar)y.  

So, do more gun equate to more crime?  Or do more guns equal less crime?  You now have the accurate, carefully-researched information to decide for yourself.

Don't thank me, your friend, The Chuckmeister.  That's why God put me here...