Grey Matters

Well, it would seem that Obama’s border policy chickens have come home to roost, as they say.

For years, he’s tolerated, some say encouraged, the sneak-ins and they have proliferated. In 2012, he issued some Executive Order concerning kids (I have no idea what was in it) and that seems to have picked up the pace of unaccompanied minors, according to the host on Meet The Press last Sunday.

The Homeland Security Secretary said the problem is one of “push” — meaning that the conditions are so bad in Honduras that it is “pushing” people to the U.S. Really? The conditions in the region are largely unchanged in recent years. What’s changed is Obama’s Welcome mat.

And “push” does not explain why these refugees don’t stop in Guatemala. Or Mexico. Why travel all the way to the U.S.? News coverage explains that these people risk life and limb, riding atop freight trains the length of Mexico, through bands of bandits, rapists, murderers and such, just to get to the U.S. “Push”, indeed.

They are being pulled here by policies that provide for them medical care, food, clothing, shelter and a bus ticket to Atlanta, Chicago or New York. One such illegal alien was shown in a clip saying, “I was so glad when border patrol pick me up!” She’d grabbed the Brass Ring.

I do wonder what portion of them actually show up for their scheduled deportation hearing court dates.

The Homeland Security Secretary wanted to send the “unequivocal message” that these illegals should not come here — that we do not have open borders — but our policies say otherwise. The president says our borders are secure but we cannot even stop unaccompanied 7-year-olds, much the less terrorists.

I am not amused by news agencies’ practice of labeling these people as “undocumented immigrants”. Sure. “There’s a mix up on your paperwork. Just give us a moment and you can be on your way.” Like maybe we lost their reservations.

If they are “undocumented immigrants” when picked up, then surely they must be “documented immigrants” once we log them into the system and set a court day and such, right? So how do we distinguish these from immigrants with actual green cards — the ones NOT here illegally? Would it be okay to call them “illegal documented immigrants”?

Now Obama wants $3.7 Billion to deal with the kids. The idea that our borders are porous and allowing in pretty much anyone, including drug smugglers and terrorists, did not worry him much. But, gee, we need more money for the kids.

Meanwhile, on the network news last evening, it was reported that people “continue to flood in” to the country. Wouldn’t it be cheaper in the long run, and easier, to keep them out in the first place? How about a hundred billion to build a decent border fence. Keep out the hordes and then Border Patrol can concentrate on the drug smugglers.

Unless, of course, you really don’t want to keep out the hordes.

Police forces are becoming increasingly militarized. SWAT teams are dispatched for routine tasks. Local police everywhere are obtaining military equipment, equipment they will find a reason to use. Fun toys must be played with.

Officers, the cooler ones, like to refer to themselves as “operators”. It is not a good trend. Even the New York Times has belatedly taken notice.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html>

Foreigners entering the country illegally in Texas are being flown and bussed to Arizona. This is doubtless a way to get back at Arizona for having the temerity to do something about the illegal alien problem.

I think Governor Brewer should bus them all to D.C.

Or Chicago. Let them get a dose of Obama’s Chicago and they may head back to the border.

The Supreme Court Of the U.S. (SCOTUS) has turned the fifth amendment on its head.

“The whole purpose of the Miranda law was to protect you from incriminating yourself. But now the burden of protecting your rights has shifted from the police to YOU.

“You are expected to know that you have a right against self-incrimination, and unless you specifically and clearly invoke this right, anything you say or do not say, including your mannerisms at the time you stop talking, can be used against you.”

<http://www.secondcalldefense.org/self-defense-news/5th-amendment-update-why-silence-no-longer-golden>

Man, I miss the days when we had a Constitution.

Interesting video on the efficacy of restricting the capacity of firearms magazines.

The people doing the shooting in the demo are not particularly good or fast at changing magazines. Just as well, as the average mass murderer is probably just an average lunatic and not well practiced.

The video would have been better had the shooters not had the replacement magazines laying there, ready to go on the top of a barrel. In a mass murder situation, the shooter is likely to have the extra magazines in a belt pouch or other type carrier upon his person. Even so, I can change magazines more quickly than the shooters shown, carrying my spares on a weak side (opposite my shooting hand) belt carrier.

Note that the shooters use a “tactical reload” rather than an emergency reload. The latter is done when you run empty and the slide of your semi-auto pistol or rifle locks back indicating you are empty. When this happens, the empty magazine is removed, the full replacement is inserted and a slide or bolt release must be actuated to insert the next round into the chamber.

In a tactical reload, one reloads at his or her convenience, perhaps just to “top up” your ammo. You might still have half a magazine, but anticipate needing more than half shortly. In the video, they use the tactical reload to eliminate the step of releasing the locked-back slide. The slide never locks back until they have run all the magazines; that’s the only time they are empty. That is, with a ten-round magazine, fire nine shots. Now the magazine is empty and the tenth round is in the chamber ready to fire. (So you’re not yet empty.) Drop the empty magazine, insert the full one and you now have eleven rounds ready to go. Fire ten, drop that empty magazine (with one yet in the chamber) and repeat as often as necessary.

Actually, any mass murderer with a brain would already have one round in the chamber with ten in the mag. Fire ten, still have one in the chamber then reload. The one in the chamber while reloading is handy if some hero thinks you’re empty and charges you. I’m just saying’… And even if empty, a practiced shooter like this guy who’s about my speed  changes magazines fairly quickly,.

The fact that magazines are interchangeable means that capacity is not all that significant in the overall scheme of things. People who want to restrict magazine capacity as a cure for mass shootings are deluded.

California has a different idea. There, rifle magazines are not so interchangeable. CA would like nothing better than that a gunsmith should be required to reload your rifle. In CA, a magazine cannot be detachable without the use of a tool. Gone is the common magazine release button, replaced by a “bullet button”. That is, to comply with the requirement that a tool be required to release the magazine, the mag release button is recessed and must be pressed by some sort of tool; a finger is too big (and not a tool). The bullet button uses an ordinary round of ammo as a tool to press into the recessed area of the button and detach the magazine. Before the bullet button, you might have to break open your weapon and reload the magazine from a stripper clip.

Clever people designed a magnetized tool to attach right over the bullet button but, apparently, this is not allowed as the tool must be separate from the weapon. Some people attach a tool or dummy round right to their shooting vest, to keep it handy. Others have gloves with a little spiky tool built in to press the bullet button.

One outfit came up with the Ultimate Bullet Button Tool that attaches right to each magazine so that the full magazine about to be loaded is the tool to release the empty magazine.

All of this is an inconvenience for shooters but will do diddly squat to reduce mass shootings. The percentage of firearms deaths due to all rifles, much less “assault weapons” is very, very slight.

One has to wonder why politicians spend so much time and effort accomplishing no real reductions in deaths and merely harassing gun owners. I guess it’s an easier path than addressing the real issue.