Letter To Newspaper Wonders Why Police Aren’t Backing Gun Control

H/T Bearing Arms.

Most police officers know that disarming the honest citizen will not take guns from the streets as criminals steal guns and will always be armed.

Look at the areas with the toughest gun control laws have the highest crime rates in example Chicago, New York City or Los Angeles.

The idea that a letter to the editor in San Francisco would back gun control isn’t particularly surprising. They live in a completely different world over there, from what I can tell.

However, one letter to the editor hit on what they thought was a brilliant way to undermine the National Rifle Association. Get police officers to back gun control.

Faced with gun violence, police officers are on the front line, so why aren’t the police officers’ associations also on the front line in getting guns off the streets? It’s easy for the National Rifle Association to gain support by dismissing their antagonists as liberal hippies or chastising people like James Brady, former Rep. Gabby Giffords and David Hogg as deluded survivors. They would have a much harder time trying to marginalize police officers. Police rightly expect sympathy when one of their own is killed, yet they don’t seem to do much to try to prevent it.

Wow. What a suggestion.

So, why aren’t the police out on the front lines of “getting guns off the streets,” as the letter suggests? I mean, this is brilliant. Why not get the police to try and push more and more gun control. People paid by taxpayer money making a political stand never goes wrong or anything, now does it?

Of course, maybe it’s because the police are already on the front lines and many of them have come to the conclusion that gun control is an abysmal failure?

Think about it.

California, of which San Francisco is a large city of, has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. It’s virtually impossible to do anything legally with a firearm without the state knowing everything about what you’re doing. It’s Big Brother using the Second Amendment as toilet paper.

It’s also a state with high rates of violent crime despite the claims of every anti-gun politician ever elected there.

And guess who sees this? Police.

These are the same people who are pulling guns off of gang bangers barely old enough to shave, much less own a firearm legally. They’re the ones who have to deal with gang violence committed by people they’ve already locked up a half dozen times on felony arrests. People legally barred from owning guns.

Police are the ones who have to respond to calls of someone breaking into a home or robbing a store, only to arrive after the fact and are forced to call the coroner.

The letter-writer is right. These folks are on the front lines.

The fact that so few of them advocate for gun control laws should be incredibly telling to people like the letter-writer. The fact that law enforcement officers are often among the staunchest advocates of the right to keep and bear arms should show them a whole lot.

Gun control has no impact on the criminals out there. It only hurts people who want nothing more than to defend themselves and their families. The criminals aren’t using legal means to get their guns. We know this. The police know this, too.

Oh, you’ll find the odd police officer here or there who thinks otherwise, but my experience says the vast majority of them know better. They understand the realities, which gets to why the letter-writer won’t find them standing on the front lines of the gun control debate. Those who sign their paychecks wouldn’t like what side they choose to stand on.



Where do These Gun-Lies Come From?


By Rob Morse. January 19th, 2019
Original Source

Study cures ignorance, but it is the comforting lies we cling to that cause us so much trouble. Where did we learn the foolish falsehoods we hear about civilian gun ownership? What makes these lies so attractive and so dangerous? Let’s look at the popular myths of disarmament.

You don’t need to defend yourself. You should just call the police and let them protect you. Yes, I’ve had people say this to my face. I’ve learned not to argue with facts about court decisions and response times. The people who say this know it is a lie, but they are clinging to the lie for a reason. I learned to ask them this question-

“You’re at the park with a child you care for. An adult comes up and grabs your child off the swing and starts to drag her toward his car. Are you’re telling me that we should run to the phone rather than use a defensive tool to protect our child?”

It is a shocking question, but so are some of the answers. The ideologue looks me in the eye and says we should sacrifice the child for the cause of ‘gun-control’. In contrast, if the questioner is honest, then they look down and say we should protect the child. I find it inspiring that people will still rush to the aid of an innocent child even if they are too lazy to defend themselves. Now, we can talk about the tools they need to be effective defenders.

You shouldn’t own a gun because a criminal is more likely to take it from you than you are to use the gun in self-defense. You’re more likely to be violently attacked if there is a gun in your home. I love these particular myths because they contain a twisted speck of truth. Too many gun owners think that the gun will stop a criminal. Some of these gun owners don’t load their guns because they think the gun will work like a magic charm to stop an attack.

A brilliant doctor explained that situation this way. Criminals survive as predators because they become experts at reading their prey. Your determination to stop the attack is what stops the predator. Your gun is merely the tool you use to express your resolve.

The doctor is right. Before you own a gun, you have to ask yourself if you could shoot someone if your family faced a lethal threat.

The other thing I like about this question is that it hides so much. Yes, you’re more likely to be hurt during an attack if there is a gun in your home.. particularly when you include the attacker’s gun. There is that hidden grain of truth: armed criminals are more violent than unarmed burglars.

Which came first, crime or honest citizens wanting a gun for self-defense? People who live in high-crime areas are more likely to want tools to protect themselves from the violence around them. The fact that honest people own guns didn’t cause crime, but was a reaction to it. Also, as I study self-defense each week, I’ve found that it is more common for the criminal to be disarmed than the intended victim.

We should outlaw guns because guns cause crime. The world would be so much nicer if this were true. I wish we could control human behavior by making rules. Unfortunately, criminals don’t obey our laws. Criminals use any tool available to control their victims. Criminals bring friends so they can outnumber us. Criminals use knives so they can overpower us. They buy their guns illegally so ‘gun-control’ laws don’t disarm criminals.

Unfortunately, we face the criminals we have
rather than the criminals that ‘gun-control’ advocates imagine.

A woman won’t use a gun to stop an assault. She is better off without it. She should use pepper spray or a rape whistle for protection. I’ve had friends who were sexually assaulted by an armed rapist. They had pepper spray while their attacker had a knife. They won’t let that happen again. Today, they go armed. I looked at the statistics, and a vanishingly small number of sexual attacks are completed if the victim is armed.

The rapist is culpable for the assault. The victim is responsible for having the tools they needed to defend themselves. We can learn from both. We can learn that evil exists and that we can defend ourselves.

We have mass murder because it is so easy to get an assault weapon. There was a time in our history when you could buy a machine gun by mail-order.. and we didn’t see attacks on our schools and churches. Society changed in the last 85 years. Our media changed too! Today, mass murderers get hundreds of millions of dollars of publicity when they kill. Do you think that leads to more murders or less? Many mass murderers say they killed so we would know their name.

If you think guns are easy to get, then I suggest you go to a gun store and try to buy one. Better yet, try to buy a machine gun. Write up your experience if you think it was too easy and I’ll publish it here.

‘Gun-control’ works in other countries so we should do it too. Don’t confuse the news with the facts. The news media is wildly biased..for a reason. A murder in your town is news. A murder on the other side of the world won’t be covered in your local paper. That does not mean that there are no murders overseas and that the foreign country is safe. In fact, the US is about average when it comes to murder with a firearm. Many countries with draconian ‘gun-control prohibitions are more violent than the US.

It is comforting to pretend that words on paper will keep us safe. We have not seen that work in other countries.. or here in the US.

Adults have the responsibility to protect themselves, but we would rather pretend that society is safe and that ignoring our responsibility is free. We ignore hard facts so we can live soft lives without concern. We want someone to blame when we’re attacked..so we blame guns and society.

The fault is not in society, but in ourselves. It takes a person with strong character to set aside reassuring falsehoods and take comfort in the truth. Please be that person. Protect yourself and those you love.

The 11th Airborne on Okinawa

Pacific Paratrooper

C-47’s of the 54th Troop Carrier Group

Saturday, 11 August 1945, top secret orders were delivered to General Swing for the division to be prepared to move to Okinawa at any time. The division G-3, Colonel Quandt, called Colonel Pearson, “This is an Alert. Have your regiment [187th] ready to move out by air forty-eight hours from now.” Commanders throughout the 11th A/B had their men reassembled, even those on weekend passes had been found and brought back to camp.

11th Airborne

The lead elements left Luzon immediately. At 0630 hours on the 13th, trucks brought the 187th to Nichols and Nielson Fields for transport and they landed at 1645 hours that afternoon at Naha, Kadena and Yotan Fields on Okinawa. They would remain on the island for two weeks.

It would take the 54th Troop Carrier Wing two days to transport the 11th Airborne using 351 C-46s, 151 C-47s…

View original post 305 more words

Werner Goering, The US Bomber Pilot Whose Name Almost Got Him Assassinated By The FBI

H/T War History OnLine.

A lie told by the father of Werner Goering marked a brave man as a possible traitor to his country and put a man in the co-pilots seat with orders to kill him.

A famous quote from William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice states that “the sins of the father are to be laid upon the children.” In the case of one particular American bomber pilot in World War II, one of his father’s sins came very close to costing him his life.

The sin in question – a lie – probably seemed harmless to his father at the time he told it, but it would end up almost having lethal consequences for his son. This was because the lie Karl Goering told was that he was the brother of Hermann Göring, a German WWI air ace who went on to become one of the most powerful members of the Nazi Party.

His son, Werner Goering, ended up flying a B-17 bomber for the United States Army Air Forces during WW2 – and seated next to him on every flight was an undercover FBI agent with orders to shoot him dead if anything even looked like it was about to go wrong.

Formal portrait of Werner Goering (top right) and his crew in front of the B-17 Fearless Fosdick

The claim that Karl made, that he was Hermann Göring’s brother, was by no means a whopper of a lie. Indeed it was quite believable, as Goering’s wife was German too, and the whole family spoke German at home.

As for Hermann Göring, he never mentioned having any relatives in America – but nobody in the US knew this. Instead, they only knew of the fighter ace’s formidable reputation: in World War I, he had been a fighter ace and the last commander of the Jagdgeschwader 1, the fighter wing once commanded by the famous Red Baron.

By 1940 Göring had become the Third Reich’s Reichsmarschall – the supreme commander of all of Germany’s armed forces.

Hermann Göring.Photo: Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-13805 / CC-BY-SA 3.0

Meanwhile, in the US, after the Pearl Harbor attack Karl Goering’s son Werner immediately enlisted to serve his country in the war. Even though he had graduated at the bottom of his class in high school, Werner applied some fresh enthusiasm and hard work to the task at hand, and passed the US Army Air Forces’ tests to qualify for flight training.

In 1943, he was put in the cockpit of a B-17 Flying Fortress – a 4,800-horsepower bomber that could carry two and a half tons of explosives and hit speeds of over three hundred miles an hour. Not a bad achievement for a former high school slacker.

A 358th Bombardment Squadron B-17 on a bomb run

Of course, a former slacker was not the only thing Werner Goering was. The FBI had made a note of the fact that he was apparently Hermann Göring’s nephew, and this was a matter of great concern to them.

It wasn’t simply the fact that they suspected that he, being a German-American who spoke German at home, might defect to the Nazis – it was also the fact that if such a defection were to occur, or even if he was shot down and captured as a prisoner of war, the propaganda value to the Nazis of having such a captive or, even better, a defector, would be immense.

Nuremberg Trials. Defendants in their dock, circa 1945-1946. (in front row, from left to right): Hermann Göring, Rudolf Heß, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel (in second row, from left to right): Karl Dönitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel

For this reason, the FBI decided that they needed a contingency plan to prevent such a thing happening. This contingency plan happened to be a co-pilot with secret orders to put a bullet in Goering’s head if it even looked like the German-American was thinking of doing anything suspicious.

The FBI couldn’t assign this duty to just any pilot, though. They knew they needed a man who would not hesitate to do what needed to be done in a moment of crisis, and who in addition would be capable of flying the B-17 back to base on his own.


They found their man in Jack Rencher, a tough, no-nonsense B-17 flying instructor, who also happened to be a crack shot with a pistol. He was also half-Jewish, and had a very keen hatred for the Nazis.

The FBI briefed him on his mission, and he assured them that if it came down to it, he would not hesitate to do his duty. Confident in their man’s ability to perform if necessary, the FBI had Rencher assigned as Goering’s co-pilot for the entirety of Goering’s tour of duty in WWII.

Göring with Lord Halifax at Schorfheide, 20 November 1937 Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-17986 / CC-BY-SA 3.0

As it turned out, however, the FBI’s fears about Goering’s loyalty were unfounded. While Rencher came close to having to fulfill his secret orders on a few occasions, they were never for reasons arising from any question of Werner Goering’s loyalty. On one occasion, a shell passed through the cockpit, but narrowly missed both pilots.

After making sure that the crew’s oxygen supplies were okay, Goering got the plane back to base. Another time, Goering’s plane was hit by flak while flying a raiding mission over Buer. Despite the flak taking out an engine and starting a fire in the cockpit, Goering managed to get the plane safely back.

All in all, Werner Goering flew forty-nine combat missions, with almost half of these being flown during a second tour of duty for which he volunteered, even though he could have gone home after his first tour.

Distinguished Flying Cross

He ended up receiving a number of decorations for his outstanding service during WWII, including a Distinguished Flying Cross. He stayed on in the Army, joining the United States Air Force when it was established in 1947, and eventually retired from the Air Force as a lieutenant colonel in 1964.

And what about his father’s claim that he was the brother of Hermann Göring, the claim that could have gotten Werner assassinated by the FBI? Expert genealogists investigated this claim in detail in 2010, and found out that Karl Goering and Hermann Göring were not related at all.

Luckily, Karl’s false claim of kinship with the Nazi Reichsmarschall never ended up getting his son killed, and Werner left the Air Force as a hero.

Democratic Homeland Security Chair: I ‘Would Not Rule Out a Wall in Certain Instances’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Is this a sign of cracks forming in the DemocRat resistance to funding the wall?

If so I hope President Trump exploits these cracks.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D., Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said on Sunday that he does not deny the effectiveness of border walls in certain instances.

ABC’s “This Week” host Martha Raddatz asked Thompson if he would rule out a wall in any negotiations with President Donald Trump.

“I would not rule out a wall in certain instances,” Thompson said. “Now the notion that we can’t have barriers is just something that’s not true, but again, Martha, you have to have a plan and the plan that the president initially started with is where he is now. We don’t know where he will be tomorrow.”

Trump and Congress remain at an impasse over funding for Trump’s proposed wall along the southern border. The standoff has resulted in a partial government shutdown that is now in its 30th day.

Over 800,000 furloughed federal government workers have gone without a paycheck, with some of them still having to work. Trump is adamant Congress approve wall funding while Democratic leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) remain adamant no funding will go towards a border wall. Pelosi has gone as far as saying a border wall is “immoral.”

Some Democrats have distanced themselves from Pelosi’s view by saying some physical barriers are necessary along the border.

“You just heard the chief of border protection for the San Diego sector tell me barriers are an essential part of effectively controlling the border because it allows for agents to focus on specific threats like smuggling drugs and he was showing me exactly the kind of barriers that President Trump was talking about … so why are Democrats opposed to any physical wall in addition to updated technology?” Raddatz asked.

“Well, I don’t think Democrats are opposed to any physical barriers. It’s just the president constantly involves his description of the wall just as he indicated Mexico was going to pay for whatever was there. So what we have to do is sit down, work through this and let the public know exactly what we’re talking about and what they can expect. We’re not there yet. Democrats historically have supported certain barriers, certain other things to protect this country,” Thompson said.

Court Says Road Project Guidelines Inappropriately Discriminated Against Nonunion Contractors

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

The Pennsylvania Department Of Transportation will naturally give more contracts to the union thugs in exchange for the kickbacks and political donation money they funnel to the politicians for awarding them the contracts.

Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court ruled Friday that the state Department of Transportation tilted the playing field against nonunion construction companies when it required a “project labor agreement” for any firm that won the bidding on a road improvement project.

The PLA would have meant that any nonunion employer that won the contract for the work in Montgomery County would have to hire its workers for the project through a set of 11 local unions. But the request for bids carved out an exception for contractors associated with United Steelworkers.

Contractor Allan Myers, a nonunion firm, protested the terms of the bid request in December 2017 on the grounds that it essentially barred any companies that didn’t have a union workforce from winning the contract while at the same time providing favored status to United Steelworkers-affiliated companies. PennDOT rejected that protest in February 2018, leading Allan Myers to file a lawsuit in response.

The Commonwealth Court in its ruling Friday, citing its own past decisions, recognized that there are instances where it might be appropriate to require the use of local union workers when there’s a strong time element at play. In one case a convention center needed to be completed in a hurry to meet funding requirements. In another a school needed to be open in time for the new school year. And in the third, an exploding prison population dictated that a new prison had to be completed as quickly as possible.

“Here, by contrast, there is no evidence that the Markley Street Project has a critical deadline, notwithstanding the PLA’s statement that ‘[t]ime is of the essence for the Project,’” the court’s ruling, written by President Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt, states.

The court’s ruling notes that a previous stage of the Markley Street Project had been completed a year early – coincidentally, by a nonunion contractor – further calling into question the supposed urgency of the latest stage.

The provision favoring United Steelworkers-affiliated contractors was also seen as problematic by the court. Given that the United Steelworkers firms would be able to use their existing workforce, while nonunion firms would have to hire a new workforce to complete the contract, that term was inherently unfair. Further, part of the premise of forcing contractors to use local unions for the project was a clause that would forbid work stoppages – but, the court noted, it wasn’t clear that United Steelworkers firms would be bound by any such restriction.

“Our [prior rulings] did not establish the broad principle that a PLA is appropriate so long as it contains the boilerplate language ‘time is of the essence’ and ‘nonunion contractors may bid,’” the court’s ruling states. “The use of a PLA is permitted where the contracting agency can establish extraordinary circumstances, and PennDOT did not make that demonstration in this case.”

Judge Says Uninsulated Power Conductors, Not Climate Change Caused California Fires

H/T Godfather Politics.

Sadly Pacific Gas And Electric Company is thinking about filing bankruptcy so the victims of the fire they caused will see very little if any compensation from Pacific Gas And Electric Company.

U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup found that equipment owned by the utility company Pacific Gas and Electric was the cause of some wildfires due to tree limbs and other debris knocking uninsulated power conductors together, NBC News has reported. 

“The Court tentatively finds that the single most recurring cause of the large 2017 and 2018 wildfires attributable to PG&E’s equipment has been the susceptibility of PG&E’s distribution lines to trees or limbs falling onto them during high-wind events.”

Al ~ Societal Dreg@alpipkin

… don’t forget that years of forest mismanagement provided the fuel that allowed the fires to burn so hot ‼️

Our new Governor’s solution? Cameras in the forest⁉️

Judge Says Uninsulated Power Conductors, Not Climate Change Caused California Fires https://www.weaselzippers.us/408748-judge-says-uninsulated-power-conductors-not-climate-change-caused-california-fires/ 

Judge Says Uninsulated Power Conductors, Not Climate Change Caused California Fires


See Al ~ Societal Dreg’s other Tweets

NBC News:

A federal court in San Francisco tentatively found that equipment owned by Northern California utility Pacific Gas and Electric was “the single most recurring cause” in deadly wildfires that have plagued the state since 2017.

U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup made the finding Thursday in a case related to PG&E’s response to the deadly 2010 San Bruno gas pipeline explosion.

“The Court tentatively finds that the single most recurring cause of the large 2017 and 2018 wildfires attributable to PG&E’s equipment has been the susceptibility of PG&E’s distribution lines to trees or limbs falling onto them during high-wind events,” his order in the case reads.

“The power conductors are almost always uninsulated,” Alsup wrote. “When the conductors are pushed together by falling trees or limbs, electrical sparks drop into the vegetation below. During the wildfire season when the vegetation is dry, these electrical sparks pose an extreme danger of igniting a wildfire.” More

The Hill


Judge blames uninsulated power conductors for deadly California wildfires http://hill.cm/6XMH2sF 

View image on Twitter

robert oakes@robertoakes7

One of many causes (including terrible forestry mgmt by California). So Dan Rather, it was NOT caused by climate change as you claimed.

See robert oakes’s other Tweets

None of the HV lines on the pole tops are insulated. Not only would it be cost prohibitive to insulate them, it would decrease the amount of heat they can dissipate. Thus, vastly reducing their power carrying capacity.

You’ve got to keep the vegetation cut back from the lines. Preventing PG&E from keeping the easements free of the brush is the cause. That isn’t faulty equipment.