2nd Amendment Rights – How Technology Defines Them

2nd amendment rights virgin post in a brand spanking new category here on OGNDY.

My SEO plugin (WordPressSEO by Yoast) suggests that I should put my chosen key word/-phrase at the beginning of the article, which is why I just shamelessly and blatantly did it in the 2H heading (also suggested by the plugin) above (still flags it as yellow, though, go figure (OK, I think I got it now)).

Enough about that! I’m trying out a new category tentatively called “Transcribed From The YouTube”, reason being I’m very uninspired in a creative sense these days (didn’t write much about the election, see?), but I still need to keep my blog going with fresh content on a regular basis so as not to die off in the search engines, should I ever figure out a way to monetize the site.

So right off the bat I’m letting you know that I’m transcribing videos, or parts of videos, that I stumble upon on YouTube. I don’t think I violate anyone’s copyright (or 2nd amendment rights for that matter) in doing so, but if you disagree and think I’m unlawfully taking advantage of the fruits of your intellect, take a number, get in line and call my lawyer. What I’m saying is, sue me.

So as this shall not turn into a completely meaningless endeavor, I will only transcribe from videos that for some reason pique my genuine interest, be it because they have something important to say, that it’s said in a particularly artful manner, that it’s something stupid, something I agree with, disagree with, whatever; it is something I for some reason thought was worth sharing. I may or may not overtly express my reasons (figure it out for yourselves) and I will not identify the video. I will, however, offer a one million dollar prize to anyone who recognizes the transcript and can send me a link to the source video. (I don’t actually have a million dollars, so if you win and I don’t pay (I won’t), take a number, get in line and call my fucking lawyer.)

I’ll make this inaugural post without further comment other than to say that the guys in the video are concerned about their 2nd amendment rights.

“(…) Of course, this is one of those things that gets thrown in our faces all the time as gun owners, but, you know, back when the 2nd amendment was actually conceived and drafted and signed and everything like that, and the whole constitution and all this, our founding fathers, you know, we had all, all of the civilians and military had all the same firearms. You know, it wasn’t uncommon for a male to go and serve in the military to grab his rifle off the, off the mantle and go fight, ’cause that’s all he had.”

“Oh yeah.”

“So you know, the peo…, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…”

“Well, that’s what it says.”

“…and, so I mean, they mean the same technology as the military, because, back then, that was the height of technology.”

“That was the height of technology that time and it should not be any different nowadays, I mean, a lot of folks out there think the 2nd amendment only applies to hunters. OK, no! Not at all! If I want to grab the AR off my mantle and go to battle, then I’ll be damned if I’m not gonna grab it and go!”


In the future I may attach my own views to the transcript and make it into a true opinion piece, making it more legitimate than just shamelessly fishing for SEO brownie points, but for now it’s just a way to get free content easily, while also being a training exercise in search engine optimization (something I’ve been putting off since ca 2002).

Below is an image of the original transcript in yours truly’s hand.

An image of a handwritten document concerned with 2nd amendment rights.

This image of the handwritten transcript that is the subject of this posting is included for no other reason than to provide 2nd amendment click bait for the search engines.

Post script:

Here is the analysis the SEO plugin made of this article:

The keyword density is 0.45%, which is a bit low, the keyword was found 4 times.
The copy scores 67.3 in the Flesch Reading Ease test, which is considered OK to read.
The keyword / phrase appears in the URL for this page.
Keyword / keyphrase appears in 1 (out of 2) subheadings in the copy. While not a major ranking factor, this is beneficial.
The images on this page contain alt tags with the target keyword / phrase.
This page has 3 outbound link(s).
The keyword appears in the first paragraph of the copy.
You’ve never used this focus keyword before, very good.
The page title contains keyword / phrase, at the beginning which is considered to improve rankings.
In the specified meta description, consider: How does it compare to the competition? Could it be made more appealing?
The meta description contains the primary keyword / phrase.
There are 893 words contained in the body copy, this is more than the 300 word recommended minimum.
The page title is more than 40 characters and less than the recommended 70 character limit.


Bye-Bye NRA

I got an e-mail today from the NRA. It started out as such:

Dear LARS:

Your NRA membership has officially expired. I’ve e-mailed you several times and I haven’t heard back from you.

If you have a problem with NRA that’s keeping you from renewing your membership, please let me know what it is, and I pledge to you that I’ll do whatever I can to fix it.

It was signed by Wayne LaPierre and there was more to it, but this is the part that mattered. Below is my response.


The NRA is no longer a single-issue organization (if it ever was). I have come to understand that you are a full-fledged political manipulation machine supporting candidates and values contrary to mine. There’s more to life than guns. I don’t define myself as a gun owner. I joined the NRA in the wake of Sandy Hook reacting to the dishonest argumentation from those you would call the “gun grabbers”. But your own rhetoric when arguing your case(s) is so dishonest, vile and vitriolic, and some of the spokespersons (e.g. Ted Nugent) you hold up so repulsive and beyond the extreme, that I choose not to be associated with you and your organization for my own good name and reputation’s sake and will not be renewing my membership.

Get back to me when you’ve addressed these issues and we can talk.

Lars Dahl

I will be severing my ties with the National Association For Gun Rights for the same reason. I still support Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL).

Connecticut: Attention Gun Owners and Sportsmen—You are Immediately Impacted by the State’s New Draconian “Gun Control” Law

From my not-really-so-good friends (final status still to be determined; currently I’ve signed up for a one-year protest membership against the hypocritical, dishonest and self-serving politicians on both sides of the aisle, both locally here in Hartford, CT and in Washington) over at the NRA, here is the short version of Connecticut’s new gun law.

Parts of the law went into immediate effect on April 4th, but I had to wait for an email from the NRA to get a decent rundown of what the new law actually means for CT residents and gun owners.

I have a conflicted relationship with the NRA (I’m warming up to them, though), and at this point still will not recommend anyone to join, but will instead provide a link to Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL) for those who want to become active and/or support the cause locally. If you want to join the NRA I’m sure you can find them on the Internet on your own.

Here is the text of the legislative alert email I received from NRA-ILA (National Rifle Association – Institute for Legislative Action):

On April 4, Governor Dan Malloy (D) signed Senate Bill 1160 into law and, as expected, this law contains many onerous and damaging provisions that will only penalize responsible gun owners and sportsmen in Connecticut. Some provisions of this law are effective immediately, while others will go into effect in several months.

It is critical that you stay tuned to www.nraila.org to understand the impact of this new gun control law. Your NRA is doing everything in its power to reverse this dangerous law that has no affect on criminals and only impacts responsible gun owners and sportsmen in Connecticut.


  • There is an immediate ban on the sale or purchase of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
  • If you currently have a state Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers, you may only load 10 rounds into your firearm when carrying for self-defense pursuant to a Connecticut permit to carry pistols, even if your magazine has the ability to accept more rounds.
  • You may not carry a firearm for self-defense if the magazine “extend[s] beyond the bottom of the pistol grip.Many commonly owned handguns have magazines with floorplates that “extend beyond the bottom of the pistol grip, and could therefore be affected by the new law.
  • Due to physical characteristics, more than 100 firearms are classified as “assault weapons” and are banned immediately. Click here to see the full list.
  • With limited exceptions, individuals have to be at least 21 to purchase any semi-automatic centerfire rifle. This runs contrary to the current federal age limit of 18 to purchase any long gun.
  • All firearms sales, deliveries and transfers, regardless of where they take place, must go through a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer or through the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP).


  • Individuals over the age of 18 must obtain an “ammunition certificate” to purchase ammunition and magazines.
    • The fee (tax) for this certificate is $35 and must be renewed every 5 years.
    • You will be subjected to a criminal background investigation.
    •  If you already hold a valid state Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers or newly created “long gun eligibility certificate,” you are exempt from this additional requirement to obtain a separate “ammunition and magazine certificate.”
    • You can apply for this certificate beginning on July 1, 2013.


  • All currently possessed magazines that have the ability to hold more than 10 rounds must be registered with the DESPP no later than January 1, 2014 under procedures that are still to be determined.
    • Any non-resident who moves into Connecticut after January 1, 2014 will have 90 days to permanently disable, sell to a gun dealer or take out of state, any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds
  • Any semi-automatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has specific cosmetic features, certain semi-automatic pistols and certain semi-automatic shotguns are immediately classified as “assault weapons” and must be registered with the DESPP by January 1, 2014.
    • Any non-resident who moves into Connecticut after January 1, 2014 will have 90 days to permanently disable, sell to a gun dealer or take out of state, any firearm that is now classified as an “assault weapon.”
    • Click here to see if your firearm will need to be registered by January 1 under the new law.


  • Individuals must apply for a “long gun eligibility certificate” through the DESPP to purchase any rifle or shotgun. You are exempt from this requirement if you have a Connecticut permit to carry a pistol or revolver; a pistol or revolver retail sales permit; or a pistol or revolver eligibility certificate.
    • The fee (tax) for this certificate is $35 and must be renewed every 5 years.
    • You must complete a DESPP- approved firearms training course.
    • You must submit fingerprints with your application.
    • The DESPP commissioner will have 60 days after the receipt of your application to issue the “long gun eligibility certificate,” which can then be presented to a licensed firearms dealer to purchase a long gun.
    • You can apply for this certificate beginning July 1, 2013.

It also remains uncertain as to the total implications to out-of-state hunters or individuals traveling through Connecticut. Your NRA will continue to keep you updated as the egregious provisions of this poorly drafted and deeply flawed law are analyzed.

Virtual State Of The Union Speech – The Right To Self Defense

Food for thought. Not vouching for the statistics he quotes, but nevertheless interesting and a crafty way to state your case. I personally find it hard to disagree with a lot of what he says.