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...