I found this, from the CDC, interesting:

Unintentional fall deaths

• Number of deaths: 31,959
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.0

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

• Number of deaths: 35,398
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.1

Unintentional poisoning deaths

• Number of deaths: 38,851
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.3

And from another CDC page:

Firearm homicides

• Number of deaths: 10,945
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.4

So, the average resident of the United States is about three times more likely to die from an unintentional fall, motor vehicle traffic accident, or unintentional poisoning than to be killed, including JUSTIFIABLE homicide, by someone with a firearm.

Hence, the science is settled. If Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, and others were really interested in saving lives they would spend their money and political capital on banning ladders, stairs, cars, and household chemicals instead of guns. And since they are not their real objective is something other than saving lives.

So, what is the real reason they continue to advocate for infringing upon our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms? And what are we going to do about it?

From the NRA:

From the NRA:

Via Stephanie:

This is in reference to a recent QOTD.

This may have been the first televised presidential debate I have watched in it’s entirety since the first one. Yeah, Nixon v. Kennedy. I was young then, it was on a black and white T.V. and dinosaurs sometimes ate our fruit trees back in those days.

I think I was as bored with the debate tonight as I was with that first debate when I was a little kid.

Hillary talked about wanting to tax, spend, and implement gun control. Trump wanted to reduce taxes and regulations, wanted somewhat less gun control than Hillary, and made faces.

Jaime and I watched it together and afterward she said she was disappointed. She had hoped Hillary would start coughing, have a seizure, and flop around on the stage.

Yeah, that would have made it less boring. Maybe next time.

Spokane Valley city council discusses it.

I like the idea for one reason; it puts people on record as to whether they support human rights or whether they’ve allied themselves with the criminal class. Take names.

Of course we already have the second amendment, and multiple legal tools for enforcing it against all encroachment, so the logical response would be a declaration to the effect that the constitution and the enumerated rights therein, and others, will be enforced and protected with vigor in this town. Oh, how far we’ve fallen, that we contemplate special declarations and special laws to uphold what is already the Supreme Law of the Land.

There’s another mildly satisfying aspect to this proposal– The Progressives love to flout the law (it’s what they do – they’re criminals), and have created “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants which they view as future Democrat voters. This is a slap in their faces on that subject. Two can play at this stupid game, but the problem is that a stupid game is always a stupid game no matter who plays it. I doubt that there’s a Republican alive who understands that simple truth.

Oh how far we have fallen!

Anyway; this is the sort of thing (though poorly thought-out) that’ll eventually bring the country around to reason– The states, and in this case the cities, who love liberty will have to thumb their noses at authoritarian feds, and then be willing and able to back it with force. In this particular case it’s a pretty empty declaration, and if they were serious, as I indicated above, they’d simply use existing law to prosecute the Progressive offenders, fine them, disbar them, put them in prison or hang them, as appropriate. It’s the only way freedom survives, and the sooner we realize that the sooner we can start fixing things.