Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Looks like another one I’ll be stomping the whole concept of “fair use” over

Fortunately, it’s an unusually long ‘un, so I don’t feel quite so bad about it. Kurt sets the stage with an intriguing first-person recounting of the 1992 LA riots.

I was a first-year law student, back a year from the Gulf War, and I had just joined the California Army National Guard. My unit was the 3rd Battalion, 160th Infantry, and we got called up early the first night and were on the streets for three long weeks. Making it even more delightful was the fact that the unit was in Inglewood, which was pretty much on fire. They burned most everything around, except our armory – that would have gone badly for them – and the Astro Burger.

My battalion commander grabbed then-First Lieutenant Schlichter, and we went all over the city in his humvee as he led his deployed and dispersed troops. Our soldiers came, in large part, from the areas most effected by the riots, and they were notably unpleasant to the thugs and criminals who quickly discovered our guys had no patience for nonsense. One dummy discovered that the hard way when he tried to run over some Guard soldiers from another battalion; he had a closed casket funeral.

The city went insane. Order simply ceased to exist. It was Lord of the Flies. I remember a cop totally breaking down because everything was completely out of control.

But I had a M16A1 – a real assault rifle – and I had a bunch of buddies with M16A1s. The regular folks … not so much. The decent people of LA were terrified, and with good reason. See, the dirty little secret of civilization is that it’s designed to maintain order when 99.9% of folks are orderly. But, say, if just 2% of folks stop playing by the rules…uh oh. Say LA’s population was 15 million in 1992…that’s 300,000 bad guys. There were maybe 20,000 cops in all the area agencies then, plus 20,000 National Guard soldiers and airman, plus another 10,000 active soldiers and Marines the feds brought in. Law enforcement is based on the concept that most people will behave and that the crooks will be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of officers. But in the LA riots, law enforcement was massively outnumbered. Imposing order took time.

And until then, our citizens were on their own, at the mercy of the mob. Betting that the cavalry was going to come save you was a losing bet.

LA’s Korean shopkeepers knew that. They operated many small businesses in some of the least fashionable areas of Los Angeles, and they were already widely hated by activists, being scapegoated for problems and pathologies that long pre-dated their immigration to Southern California. So, they became targets for the mobs.

Bad decision by the mobs.

See, most of these Koreans had done their mandatory service in the Republic of Korea’s Army. Those ROK soldiers are the real deal – the Norks are not a theoretical threat and the South Korean army does not spend a lot of time talking about feelings. They were some solid dudes. So, when the local dirtbags showed up for some casual looting, they noticed the rooftops were lined with hardcore guys packing some serious heat, including the kind of scary rifles that the Democrats want to ban.

The Rooftop Koreans.

It did not take long for the bad guys to realize that the Rooftop Koreans were not playing games – they were playing for keeps. The mob went away in search of softer targets.

There’s a lesson there.

Boy, isn’t there. Isn’t there just. The denouement:

It’s your duty to be prepared to defend our community. Your duty. Yes, being a citizen of a free country is sometimes hard. Too bad. Tighten up and be ready and able to pick up a weapon. Whether it’s a riots and disaster, or whether it’s some scumbag who decides to shoot up your house of worship or a shopping mall, it’s on you.

You have a job to do when chaos comes – no shirking your responsibility and outsourcing it to the local police or the Army. Being a citizen is not a spectator sport.

Now, the left does not see things that way. The mere idea of a good guy with a gun makes them wet themselves. The left hates the notion that we citizens might take personal ownership of, and responsibility for, the security of our own country – that we might act like citizens. See, citizens are unruly. Stubborn. Uppity. We’re hard to control at the best of times. Armed, 300 million of us are impossible to control, unless we consent to it.

Now, the Founders, who enshrined the natural right of free men to keep and bear arms in our Bill of Rights preceded only by the rights of free speech and freedom of religion, knew this. To them, an armed citizenry that is prepared, mentally and logistically, to respond to threats to the people is a feature.

To the liberal elite, it is a bug.

And there’s a reason for that, too, which can easily be inferred from this picture of how the minions of exactly the kind of socialist shitrapy people like AOC, Buttplug, Omar, Obama, Pelousy, HILLARY!™, &C intend to inflict on us respond to even peaceably-expressed dissent:

Venezuela-victim.jpg


Gee, wonder if that poor bloody wreck at left might wish he and his fellow protesters had been armed.

Share

Dysfunction

To NRA or not to NRA, that is the question.

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Stop the NRA shutdown,” a “critical update” in the latest American Rifleman urges.”New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has launched an all-out crusade to destroy NRA and put us out of business forever.”

No doubt the insufferable totalitarian wannabe would like to try. But as events unfolded over the weekend, resulting for the short term with Oliver North’s ouster as association president, it appears the greatest danger comes from within.

Not that Wayne LaPierre prevailing, for now, is a “win” for membership. Nor would it be had North succeeded. This was a coup attempt by NRA’s long-term PR firm Ackerman McQueen to replace former gravy train riders with current ones. There are no clean hands here, and with the weekend battle “won” by current management, don’t expect dramatic changes in the way things are run as long as they’re in power.

That means concerns being expressed by an increasing number of woke and angry members will continue to be glossed over by Fairfax “leadership.” We’ll continue to see NRA endorsing “compromise” infringements, with carefully-crafted statements giving de facto green lights to bump stock “regulations” and “red flag” confiscations, and with just enough weasel-wording for plausible deniability damage control when things blow up. We’ll continue to see dishonest political grades and endorsements that come back and bite gun owners. We’ll continue to see deliberate indifference to holding those politicians accountable for the single greatest threat to future “legal” recognition of the right to keep and bear arms – the overwhelmingly Democrat-favoring “pathway to citizenship.”  And we’ll continue to see an organization that puts more energy into “Enforce existing Intolerable Acts” than it puts on “shall not be infringed.”

And of course, we’ll see continued appeals for money, no matter if the flacking is outsourced or increasingly done in-house. Someone’s gotta pay for the salaries and perks.

A meme that’s being increasingly parroted by the gun-grabbers as a way out is that NRA must “return to its sportsman’s roots.” Understand that this is being done by people who really do want to take your guns. Don’t think for a moment they’re saying this to be helpful, any more than Democrats urging Republicans to be more “centrist” are concerned with helping the Party regain appeal. Surrenders simply mean there will be fewer battles that the enemy (what do you think those who want to disarm you are?) will need to win.

Those calling for such a return want NRA out of politics and focused on being Fudds. They really just want to be able to pass disarmament edicts, elect gun-grabbing politicians and appoint anti-gun judges without any significant organized opposition. Curiously, although unintended by those offering such “advice,” returning to its roots is exactly what is needed.

Codrea goes on from there to make a strong historical case for the idea. Herschel, for his own part, seems pretty disgusted with ’em.

So first there is the issue of exactly how an elected board of directors along with an elected president can demand the resignation of a bureaucrat, and be rejected by said bureaucrat outright and that organization continue to function. It can’t. I assess that the NRA is a completely dysfunctional organization and has been for a long time.

Leaving aside the issue of Ackerman McQueen, and $200,000 of wardrobe purchases by LaPierre, the bylaws, people and organizational structure aren’t sufficient to rid the group of ne’er-do-wells, whether LaPierre or the cretins who are financial liabilities and parasites to the organization. A board of directors who doesn’t direct may as well quit and go home. If there are too many bad apples in the mix, then it’s appropriate for the entire group to go down in flames, suffering the personal, legal and financial loss attending their malfeasance. Membership on the board of directors means legal and fiduciary culpability, as it should on any board.

But can this situation be salvaged? Should it be salvaged? I said a few days ago that the NRA had supported the NFA, the GCA, the Hughes Amendment, the bump stock ban, and red flag laws. It’s all true. This is an incomplete list. Via David Codrea, this list adds to my own.

The real issue with the VNRA isn’t corruption or not doing enough to push rights. The problem is what the group actively does to violate rights. NFA ’34, GCA ’68, FOPA ’86. Everyone knows those. It shows how long the rot has existed.

They tried to keep HELLER from going to SCOTUS. They actively killed constitutional carry legislation in New Hampshire. They wrote an “assault weapon” ban in Ohio. They sabotaged an RKBA/free speech case in NH.

I had forgotten how many open carry fights the NRA has sabotaged, and it’s also true that the NRA didn’t want Heller going to the SCOTUS. I consider Heller only a partial win because of the wording Scalia put in there supporting gun control at the local and state level, and the weakness of it leading to McDonald, which still isn’t recognized by lower courts. But Alan Gura snatched a modicum of victory from the jaws of defeat.

The point is that in almost every case where retreat was possible, the NRA has led the way. Then oftentimes, as with Heller, they claimed credit for what small victory the SCOTUS gave us. In every exigency in life, a man must make functional judgments. Whom to marry, where to work, how much to save, with whom to be associated.

In this case, the analysis is quite simple. If an organization is working against your interests, it’s an easy decision to jettison support for said organization. It makes no sense to support people who intend harm to your liberties. If this is considered on a tactical level (retreat might be a good option now), then it is incumbent on our detractors to explain how said retreat will be reversed and good use made of it rather than sling accusations. I see a lot of hand-wringing, but I see no detractor channeling Sun Tzu. If you want to be a general, then learn to lead and learn to win.

Kinda makes one yearn for the great and glorious Charlton Heston, don’t it?



CA leaves little room for doubt as to where he stands on the NRA issue: he’s done with ’em.

The Lairds of Fairfax are Beltway critters, and have been behind every single major 2A infringement on the national level since NFA34.

Screw them all, then dump them into the Morbark.

He recommends a few alternative courses of actions to consider, too.

Share

No more talk

Just do it.

On Tuesday, Democratic president candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell took aim at the NRA, taunting them that they wouldn’t debate him. But NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch had a swift and blistering response, quoting from Val Kilmer’s immortal performance as Doc Holliday in the film “Tombstone” and firing back, “I’m your huckleberry.”

Swalwell was responding to Loesch pointing out that Swalwell had “dodged legitimate questions about his gun confiscation-and-jail policy for quite some time.” Prior to that salvo, she had stated, “You said you would jail law-abiding gun owners if they didn’t turn in their lawfully owned firearms. How do you plan to confiscate guns?”

Swalwell responded, “Ms. Loesch — I see you’ve spent another day blowing up my Twitter. Thank you for following! But here’s the deal, you’re an @nra mouthpiece. I don’t aim down, so I don’t debate mouthpieces. But send me your president, @OliverLNorth. I’ll debate him anywhere.”

Good on Dana for stomping this asswipe and all, but my unalienable 2A rights ain’t up for debate—”SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,” remember?—and I care not one lonely damn with whom Swallowspunk might or might not prefer to flap his cockholster in public about the issue. No talk, little man. Come and take them, if you dare. We’re all out here…waiting. Practical advice for ya: better bring help. Lots and lots of it.

Swalwell, apparently afraid to take on Loesch, sidestepped, “Here’s a prediction: the @nra is afraid to have its president debate me. They talk so tough on Twitter, but when challenged to a debate to defend their advocacy for unrestricted weaponry it’s just crickets from @OliverLNorth. #NoFear.”

“Afraid”? Of the likes of you, and whatever sob-sister army composed of like-minded pissants you might scrape up? It is to laugh, until the floating ribs part from their moorings. I say again: come and take them. Here’s a helpful historical review of what you’ll find waiting.

Someone once asked how many men were needed to start a revolution.
Apparently, 77 is enough to get the ball rolling.

Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.” – Captain John Parker, Lexington militia

Throw down your arms, you damned rebels!” – British officer, 4th Regiment of Foot, on Lexington Common

And then the F**k-Up Fairy landed, someone pulled a trigger, and the genie was out of the bottle.

Tally at the end of the day:

Colonials:
49 killed
39 wounded
5 missing

British troops:
73 dead
174 wounded
53 missing

The British troops, formed of disparate clumps of men and officers from a dozen regiments (which made command and control even more tenuous throughout the day) after brushing aside what was always intended as token resistance at Lexington (the colonial militia was on the common, not blocking the road at all, and made no move to impede the far superior British forces, all the colonial leaders and stores of weapons having been removed or hidden long before the Redcoats’ arrival), marched on to Concord bridge, where they searched the town for weapons until noon, mostly to no great effect, but upon their attempted return to Boston got a much different greeting than at Lexington, and then began an all-day long fighting retreat that left every British officer from the original expedition injured or wounded and unhorsed, all of them exhausted, nearly out of ammunition, and all but surrounded and captured as they straggled back to the safety of Boston city limits. The British in Boston were subsequently surrounded and besieged by tens of thousands of enraged colonial militiamen, which troops then formed the seed of what became the Continental Army.

And with blood shed in strength by both sides, no way any longer to put back the cork to the genie’s bottle.

Lesser lights in modern times, agitating for both gun control and confiscations, and shilling for an open conflict in the midst of civil society, should learn a lesson or three about being careful for what you wish.

Yessirreebob they should. So…any time you feel froggy, Swallowspunk. Any. Fucking. Time. One of Aesop’s commenters brings up the amazing story of Samuel Whittemore as further food for gun-grabber thought.

On April 19, 1775, British forces were returning to Boston from the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the opening engagements of the war. On their march, they were continually shot at by colonial militiamen.

Whittemore was in his fields when he spotted an approaching British relief brigade under Earl Percy, sent to assist the retreat. Whittemore loaded his musket and ambushed the British Grenadiers of the 47th Regiment of Foot from behind a nearby stone wall, killing one soldier. He then drew his dueling pistols, killed a second grenadier and mortally wounded a third. By the time Whittemore had fired his third shot, a British detachment had reached his position; Whittemore drew his sword and attacked. He was subsequently shot in the face, bayoneted numerous times, and left for dead in a pool of blood. He was found by colonial forces, trying to load his musket to resume the fight. He was taken to Dr. Cotton Tufts of Medford, who perceived no hope for his survival. However, Whittemore recovered and lived another 18 years until dying of natural causes at the age of 96.

Let me reiterate that for you: at just short of 80 years young, this true American hero was still spry enough to be reloading after having been shot in the face, bayoneted, and left for dead. He wasn’t done with his enemies quite yet, see; aged as he was, gravely wounded as he was, having already done more than his part to resist, he was still unswervingly determined to have another go at killing as many of those Redcoat gun-grabbers as he possibly could, by any means he could contrive.

And if you think they just ain’t building Americans that way anymore, well, you just try us. You’ll learn, to your horror and dismay, that there are still a good few out here even yet. And they’re all done talking.

They’re out here…waiting.

Share

Gimme sanctuary

Oh, it’s a Red Flag all right.

More than two dozen counties in Colorado have taken a page from the left’s playbook by declaring themselves “Second Amendment sanctuary counties” in anticipation of the passage of a bill that allows local governments to seize people’s guns without due process.

In February, Democrats in the Colorado legislature introduced HB19-1177, commonly known as the Red Flag bill.  The law allows the government to seize firearms from a law-abiding owner after as long as a petitioner “establishes ” by a preponderance of the evidence that the gun owner “poses a significant risk to self or others.”

The subhed calls Red Flag “an insane idea ripe for abuse,” which it is. But abuse, of course, is the whole point.

The petitioner only has to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which is a lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. It basically asks whether the petitioner’s proposition is more likely to be true than not true. This is the same standard that kangaroo courts for campus sexual assault and harassment rely on, per the guidance of the Obama administration.

Second, the Red Flag bill ensures gun owners, not their accusers, bear the burden of proof, and makes it very difficult for the gun owner to defend his or her constitutional right to bear arms. The owner is completely unaware a petition has been filed against him until the police show up to confiscate all his firearms. Since a search warrant is issued at the same time a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO) is issued, the police may search the house even after the owner surrenders his firearms.

There’s more, and worse, from there. But then comes the good news.

In anticipation of the bill’s passing, more than two dozen Colorado counties, including Douglas County, the seventh-most populous county in Colorado, passed “Second Amendment Sanctuary” resolutions. Many did so at the request of their duly elected sheriffs.

These counties affirm their support for their sheriffs “in the exercise of his sound discretion to not enforce against any citizen an unconstitutional firearms law.” They also promise not to appropriate government funds to build storage facilities for firearms seized by law enforcement. More counties are either considering similar measures or, like Arapahoe County, the third-most populous Colorado county, waiting for the final wording of the bill to decide the best course of action.

Facing increasing opposition from counties, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weise, a supporter of the Red Flag bill, dismissed the resolutions as something that couldn’t override a state law.

But state law can override the US Constitution, huh? I see, I see.

He said sheriffs in those counties should resign if they refuse to follow the law.

As should all elected officials responsible for turning illegal-alien “sanctuary cities” and states into shit-strewn, disease-ridden Third World hellholes, amIright? Ohnononono, of course not. That’s diff’runt.

It’s interesting that the left now pushes back against gun sanctuary counties by using similar language to what conservatives have said about immigration sanctuary cities—”Our nation and state depends on the rule of laws” and “Everyone must obey the law.”  But there is a fundamental difference between sanctuary on the left versus that on the right.

The left supports illegal immigrant sanctuary because they don’t want to obey federal laws they don’t like. They choose to protect law-breakers who may pose security threats to communities and law-abiding citizens. The left supports the Red Flag bill and opposes the gun sanctuary counties because they oppose gun ownership and Second Amendment rights. Once again, they rely on a state law to disobey federal laws they don’t like.

Basically, the Left wants its way, and is perfectly happy to pervert, debase, and ignore any law, precedent, or principle to get it. They’ll deal with the chaotic dysfunction they create later—maybe. Just let ’em get us all under control first, then they’ll see about “fixing” things for us.

Colorado isn’t alone in this fight. A similar Red Flag bill is working though the New Mexico legislature right now. Twenty-nine out of 33 sheriffs there signed a letter disapproving of the bill, and 24 counties have passed a Second Amendment sanctuary resolution, affirming their support of their sheriffs not enforcing what they view as unconstitutional gun control legislation.

What’s happening in Colorado and New Mexico has national implications because similar Red Flag bills passed in at least eight blue states in the United States in 2018, including New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. In recent testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, David Kopel, a Constitution scholar at the Independence Institute, said “Nearly a third of such orders are improperly issued against innocent people.”

Conservatives in these blue states have been looking for ways to push back against aggressive gun control legislation that they believe infringes upon their constitutional rights. Now Colorado and New Mexico have shown them what they can do.

As good a move as this one is, I’m afraid we’re all going to have to step up and do a lot more before a whole lot longer. Until it’s shown to be painful—even fatal, most likely—for them to mess with us, they will NEVER stop doing so.

Share

Book burners gotta burn books

How you lose a war. Not that what we’re talking about with our endless War On Something Or Other in Muslim shitholes actually IS one, mind.

On January 7 of this year, I published an article at PJ Media about Amazon removing doormats featuring Qur’an verses from sale because the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) found them offensive. In that article, I asked:

How long will it be before Hamas-linked CAIR starts demanding that books that criticize jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others also be dropped by Amazon?

The answer turned out to be 51 days.

It’s the British government and the BBC, rather than CAIR, that are likely behind this, but Amazon has just dropped the book Mohammed’s Koran by the renowned British activist Tommy Robinson and Peter McLoughlin — and apparently only because its censors dislike Robinson. In the last two weeks, Robinson spectacularly embarrassed the BBC by exposing the bias and dishonesty of its reporter John Sweeney. The retaliation has been swift and severe: Robinson has been banned from YouTube and Facebook, and now his book has been withdrawn from sale.

This is an extremely ominous development. Amazon and Barnes and Noble — which is also not carrying this book — have a virtual monopoly on book sales. When these two giants refuse to carry a book, that book effectively does not exist. If they are now going to ban books that are critical of Islam and opposed to jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others, then an Islam-critical perspective will be almost impossible to find anywhere.

Which is the whole idea.

Mohammed’s Koran is critical of Islam’s holy book. It endeavors to illustrate how violent jihadists justify their actions by referring to Islamic texts and teachings — and that’s all. Robinson and McLoughlin call for no violence. Their book is accurate.

Anyone who has written a book that is critical of anything should read the writing on the wall and realize that once this censorship begins, it won’t end with Tommy Robinson or Qur’an-critical books. But they won’t. PEN, the international organization that is supposedly dedicated to defending the freedom of speech, is made up of hard-Leftists who won’t utter a whisper in defense of Tommy Robinson’s book, or a murmur of protest that it is not allowed to be sold.

They don’t realize that what is being done to him can be done to them. But it will be.

Ahh, but will it really? By whom, pray tell? Because I’ve seen little or no indication to date that the Fascist Left faces any opponent willing to turn their own despicable tactics back on them.

Update! Okay, so there are some admirable exceptions to that last statement of mine:

A rapidly growing number of counties in at least four states are declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, refusing to enforce gun-control laws that they consider to be infringements on the U.S. constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Organizers of the pro-gun sanctuaries admit they took the idea from liberals who have created immigration sanctuaries across the United States where local officials defy the Trump administration’s efforts to enforce tougher immigration laws.

Now local conservatives are rebelling against majority Democratic rule in the states. Elected sheriffs and county commissioners say they might allow some people deemed to be threats under “red flag” laws to keep their firearms. In states where the legal age for gun ownership is raised to 21, authorities in some jurisdictions could refuse to confiscate guns from 18- to 20-year-olds.

The sanctuary movement is exposing the rift between rural and urban America as much as the one between the Republican and Democratic parties, as small, conservative counties push back against statewide edicts passed by big-city politicians.

Kick it up to a national scale and that last paragraph provides as good a lesson as any on why we have an electoral college, and why it must be—MUST be—vigorously, even fiercely defended.

Share

They’re coming

Believe it.

So many times, the things we thought could never happen did. If gun advocates continue to respond to these tragedies with the answer, “do nothing,” then I would not be surprised if in a very short time, guns are seen differently than they are today, and making them all illegal becomes a possibility. The NRA is strong, but even the NRA can not spin these massacres and buy-off enough politicians, when we’re dealing with an endless pile of dead children.

People think guns will never be taken away. But there is a tipping point and I think we’ve reached it. The time for half measures is long gone. And now guns will be banned.

Making heroin and meth illegal hasn’t worked, why would it work with guns?

That feels like a silly talking point. Are guns addictive? Can high-speed, high capacity assault rifles be grown in backyards and fields like drugs? With no high level machining, manufacturing knowledge, and capital?

Comparing guns and drugs doesn’t work. It seems like this kind of “logic” is why gun owners have lost the high ground. We know that guns can be eradicated, because it’s been done before. Many countries have drastically reduced the amount of guns in the possession of both citizens and criminals, bringing death rates from gun violence to almost nothing.

“Many”? Name three, idiot. Hell, name one, for that matter.

No reason to bother fisking this tripe point-by-point, of course. She’s full of shit, we know she’s full of shit, and it ain’t like she or any of her kind will listen to a single factual, statistical, logical, or reasonable word refuting her spurious, tired, dishonest twaddle. We’ve done so countless times already, and still they go on. The facts don’t dissaude them. The Constitution certainly doesn’t. Any notion of an inborn human right to effective means of self-defense doesn’t; resistance to tyranny damned sure doesn’t, tyranny being their ultimate goal—a feature for them, not a bug.

So at this point, there’s nothing more to discuss, and no reason whatever to waste more time and effort trying. All’s any of us can do is gird our loins, stiffen our resolve, load our mags…and wait.

As WRSA says: These people are your neighbors. They are all around you—around your corner, down your block, across your street. And sooner or later, they will come.

Share

Wait, this blatherskite is still talking?

And here I’d thought all this time that Progressivists were all about Rule By Expert. Apparently not.

During an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, gun-control activist David Hogg claimed those who own AR-15s and similar rifles are not interested in self-defense but in hunting human beings.

“The truth of the matter is weapons like the AR-15 have an effective range of over 1,500 meters,” Hogg said. “If you’re using a weapon with an effective range of over 1,500 meters, you are not defending yourself. You are hunting a human being.”

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade group for the firearms industry, estimated last year that more than 16 million AR-15 and similar rifles had been produced or imported to the United States over the past 25 years. Still, Hogg said no civilians should be allowed to possess those kinds of firearms.

“I don’t think any civilian needs to have their hands on a military weapon like that,” Hogg said.

Aww, ain’t it adorable? This footling brat believes what he thinks means a damned thing to anybody except himself.

As for that “effective range of over 1,500 meters” horseshit, well…no. No, not quite. Might want to consider removing your foot next time before opening your fat yap about things you know absolutely nothing about, bright boy.

Share

“My answer would be, ‘It’s none of your fvcking business'”

Wrong answer. Mine would be: NO, I do not. It might be a lie, but when some meddlesome asshat is trying to pry into business not his own with me, I don’t feel the slightest compunction about telling said asshat anything at all, and let him try to sort truth from fiction if he can.

Boston city officials plan on pushing legislation requiring doctors to ask patients whether or not they possess firearms in their homes.

Mayor Martin J. Walsh’s administration said Wednesday that the step would be taken to help health care providers statewide “play a larger role in addressing gun violence” by identifying red flags or patients at risk of suicide or domestic violence.

“We’re just asking them to help identify ways to save lives,” Boston Police Commissioner William Gross told the Boston Business Journal, adding that the legislation won’t suggest that doctors should solve crimes and that owning guns won’t be included in patients’ medical records.

Yeah, you go straight to hell, y’hear? It’s a safe bet that the medical-records bit at the end is just a straight-up lie itself, or soon will be. Actually, if I’m not mistaken the AMA has been urging doctors to ask their patients the same thing for several years now, but I could be wrong about that. MisHum closes with:

Why not ask about knives, rope, cars, baseball bats, booze and pills while you’re at it.

Don’t worry, they’ll get around to it soon enough. Count on it.

Update! Bill explains why “none of your business” is a mistake:

Don’t tell your medico anything you don’t want the government to know about if you can help it.

My doctor in SF once asked if I owned any firearms.  I told him no, which was a flat lie.  But telling him it was none of his business would have told him too much.

Exactly. This is just one of the many horrible side-effects of socialist tyranny: the complete erosion of trust, even in places where trust can be vital, and ought to be a given. But then, the eventual degeneration of beneficial, healthy community relationships into Hobbes’s War of All Against All is another of those features-not-bugs baked right into the collectivist cake.

Oh, and it would seem my memory didn’t quite fail me just now on the asking-about-guns thing. Or not entirely, anyway.

Share

Definitions matter

And the contrived term “assault weapons” still means: all of them.

According to gun ban advocates, “assault weapons” have been claimed to include: air guns and paintball guns; most handguns; all semiautomatic rifles; most shotguns; all slide action shotguns; any semiautomatic the Secretary of Treasury wants to ban; guns listed by name; and guns with certain features, such as adjustable stocks.

The very heterogeneous group of so-called “assault weapons” has only two things in common. First of all, none of them are automatics or machine guns. Gun prohibition advocates have very effectively created and then exploited public confusion on this point. Second, none of the guns are “assault rifles,” as that term has been defined by experts from the Defense Intelligence Agency. An actual assault rifle is capable of selective fire, meaning that it can fire automatically or semi-automatically with the flip of a selector switch; examples include the U.S. Army M-16, the Soviet AK-47, and the German Sturmgewehr.

In short, “Assault weapon” is just an epithet to stigmatize the largest possible number of guns and gun owners—the breadth of the definition of the moment depending on the politics of the moment.

Yep. They won’t stop till they’ve grabbed ’em all, and they’ll use any trick they can to get it done.

Share

The divide

It’s real. And bridging it is neither possible nor desirable. First, a bit of old-school fisking for the Left side.

The wheels are not off the bus. The kids, and the rest of us, are going to be all right. Come the new year, the country will switch from the Trump Show, where our president hears voices on Fox TV and does what they say, and move to Court TV. That channel will play a police procedural akin to Law & Order where an elite squad of dedicated detectives, known as the Special Counsel’s unit, investigates especially heinous crimes and a team of attorneys prosecute the offenders. The rule of law, not the vagaries of politics or Ann Coulter, triumphs.

The rule of law has already been trampled by Mueller’s contra-Constitutional farce, and it’s the “vagaries of politics” that have driven it from the start.

In this setting, the president’s tweets can and will be used against him. Throw shade on law enforcement (they’re all enemies out to get the White House), poison the jury pool (Michael Cohen’s a rat, Michael Flynn’s a patriot), and otherwise flick sand into the wheels of justice (appoint attorneys general who’ve pre-judged the case), but justice will still grind on. There is always decorum in the court. One lie, much less 7,000, can send you to prison.

Oh, so Tweeting is illegal now, is it? The president’s tweets will be used against him right enough…and so will absolutely anything and everything else the Mueller Coup crowd can dig up, every bit of it well outside his “Russia collusion” mandate—itself nothing but a subterfuge. Law enforcement entire is not “out to get” Trump, which he knows quite well. But the corrupt FBI and DoJ most certainly are, a home truth that only a diehard-shitlib asshat could deny. Justice isn’t going to “grind on”; it’s going to be ground under the wheels of the Deep State juggernaut.

With the first phase of police work just about over—the search for the real colluder, or colluders, hundreds of hours of FBI interviews with all the lying under oath that suggests, grand jury appearances, arrests and indictments, witness flips and plea deals—the main action moves to court.

The “real colluders” have already been found—Obama and Hillary. That “action,” alas, will remain closeted and is never going to “move to court,” although if we still retained anything resembling “rule of law” it assuredly would. “Hundreds of hours of FBI interviews” suggests not “lying under oath” but politically-motivated harassment of a despised outsider by a rogue, overly-powerful bureaucracy—an open attempt by DC Swamp creatures to preserve their undeserved power and privilege by nefarious means. Because, y’know, that’s what it is.

Problem for Flynn was that Sullivan can tell the difference between out-of-control prosecutors and Robert Mueller, who is completely in control. In the Trump investigation, all the misconduct is on the defense side, with the president’s unconscionable attacks on the FBI, cooperating witnesses, and Mueller’s staff, whom he labels as biased Democratic hacks.

It’s Mueller, whose very office is at best Constitutionally questionable, who is “out of control.” He long ago skipped gleefully over the boundaries of his limited official mandate and never looked back, now jailing people for things that aren’t even illegal (Cohen) and piffling, decades-old technicalities that previous Obama officials were guilty of but never questioned about at all, and which have nothing whatsoever to do with “Russian collusion.” “Biased Democrat hacks”? Nearly EVERY ONE of Mueller’s henchmen are, umm, Democrat-Marxist donors. Not party members, mind, but donors, and big-money ones too. They are the very living incarnation of “biased hacks.”

Sullivan won’t hear all Trump-related cases, but he’s involved in many. When he learned last spring that a mother and child were being flown out of the country while their case for asylum was pending, he ordered prosecutors to “turn that plane around.” And he threw a wrench into Trump’s unilateral changes to our asylum laws at the end of December.

There are complex rules for refugees and asylum-seekers, both national and international. The US is under no legal obligation whatsoever to accept them (or anybody else) willy-nilly, according to the whim of weepy liberal media propagandists, without reference to those procedures. That was so before Trump, and it’s still so now, no matter what some sniveling, hankie-soaking Citizen Of The World might wish were the case.

Trump will soon find himself as burdened by the law and order as he is by Democrats refusing to build his wall. His foundation has been charged in New York as a slush fund that took money in but gave not much away.

*cough cough* Clinton Foundation *cough cough*

Although our founding fathers were unlikely to imagine a frequently bankrupt casino mogul as president, they protected us against him. They didn’t stop at two branches of government. In their enduring wisdom, they created a third, which sits astride the law and punishes those who think they are above it but are not.

Sorry, but the Founders were not only LIKELY to imagine the bloated, tyrannical abomination insidious termites like Carlson have replaced legitimate government with, they actually DID. They spelled out their abhorrence of the kind of government favored by shitlibs starkly and unequivocally…in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, among many other writings.

As for the courts, they aren’t supposed to “sit astride the law.” Neither are they supposed to alter it, modify it, or make it up from any “emanations and penumbras” that suit them. Their role, strictly and specifically limited as are those of their co-equal branches, is to interpret it: in the case of the Supreme Court, to ponder its concordance with Constitutional requirements, and either approve it or strike it down as is appropriate. In the lower courts, to apply it fairly and without bias. That’s all.

I could easily dismantle this wet-brained liberal balderdash further, but enough of the bint’s tiresome, specious nonsense. There’s no point in bothering further with it; like the rest of her ilk, Carlson is wholly divorced from reality, not amenable to or interested in logic, truth, or reason. Instead, via Doug Ross, let’s have a look at some 24-karat truth from the other side of our Great Divide:

Trump was elected not based on any single issue, but because Americans believe that we are no longer citizens of a republic; that we are subjects of an elected aristocracy, composed of a self-absorbed and unaccountable permanent political class, which serves international interests at the expense of the American people.

They maintain their authority by an ever-expanding and increasingly intrusive government and use a compliant media to manipulate public opinion in order to maintain the illusion of democracy. The size and pay scales of the federal government now exceeds much of the private sector but is unconstrained by regulation and, ever more frequently, by legality.

It is not a contest between the Democrat and Republican ideologies driving the inanity emanating from Washington, D.C., but a battle between the entrenched power of the bipartisan political establishment versus the freedom and well-being of the American people.

It is a conflict between those who want to adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law and “they,” who wish to continue the practices of political expediency, crony capitalism and a two-tiered system of justice.

It is a choice between a government of the people, by the people and for the people or “elective despotism” when lies, corruption and tyranny are embraced by the political-media establishment.

The election of Donald Trump was not the consequence of colluding Russians tapping on keyboards in darkened basements, but one of hope based on a single proposition, the possibility of honest, representative and effective government.

Three years before the start of the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said a government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free — that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Likewise, a government separated from the people cannot stand.

Nor should it. That’s the burden of responsibility the Founders laid on We, the People. That’s the test we’ve failed, by tolerating the ongoing Leftist campaign of undermining, uprooting, and destroying instead of crushing the pestilential insects when they first infested the national garden.

These two posts are perfectly adequate and accurate summations of the viewpoints balefully staring each other down across the Great Divide. Can any reasonable person possibly imagine a way to reconcile them that doesn’t amount to capitulation and defeat? In light of the relentlessness and duplicity demonstrated by the Left, can any but a purblind, dimwitted naif hold out hope for an acceptable compromise with them? Kurt hammers the point home:

Every day that they refuse to allow the man we elected president to fulfill the most basic function of a national government – securing its national borders – they make a deliberate choice to accept more dead Americans. Oh, and more crime, poverty and welfare costs too. They are willing to let it all happen because their power means much, much more to them than your prosperity, your security, or your life.

In a country where the ruling class gave a damn about those it governs, the scumbag who murdered Corporal Singh would never have snuck in, and if he had, he would have been tossed before racking up two DUIs. But he wasn’t. California is a sanctuary state. It’s just not a sanctuary for citizens like you.

When they want to strip American citizens of our Second Amendment rights (and, not coincidentally, our ability to resist them), they howl that disarming all of us would be worth it if it saved just one life. It’s a stupid talking point with regard to the Bill of Rights, because even if rights were subject to a costs/benefits balancing test (they aren’t), the fact is that only a fraction of a fraction of the 300 million-plus arms that our citizens keep and bear will ever be used in a crime.

But what about saving just one American citizen’s life from murderous foreigners who, as opposed to our freedom-preserving weapons, are not even   supposed to be here? Unlike the American patriots exercising their gun rights, every single illegal alien is a criminal just for illegally entering and/or remaining. Then they also need fake IDs to function. Identity theft is a crime, at least for you and me. Then there’s the voter fraud, the welfare fraud, the property crimes, and the violent crimes. Oh, not all illegals are violent criminals, but every single one spits on our laws, laws we the people enacted via our elected representatives.

So what do you call it when the government ignores the law, which is the will of the people expressed through the legislature we voted for? It’s sure not “a republic.”

In order to keep those illegals flowing in, our miserable elite is as willing to let democracy die as it is to let you die.
Who thinks this will end well? Anyone?

The American people are not blind. They see the truth, and they are not going to be denied justice forever. The election of Donald Trump was not the worst case scenario. It was the first case scenario. What comes next, if the elite keep denying the will of the people, will be even more disruptive, even more divisive. They might win today’s skirmish over the wall, but tomorrow there will be new corpses and greater anger.

The elite’s selfish and cruel sacrifice of the lives and lifestyles of America’s citizens risks tearing apart the United States.

So? That’s a-okay with them; their plan all along was to dismantle and replace it anyway, and to replace its uncooperative patriots, the ones the brainwashing didn’t take root with, by whatever means they find convenient.

Either a bloody, desperate fight is coming or we resign ourselves to slavery, oppression, and injustice. It’s a godawful fix we’re in, but I can’t see any other alternatives left to us other than those two.

Share

“How Much Blood Would Leftists Be Willing To Shed To Disarm Patriotic Americans?”

ALL of it, of course. They’d prefer that anyway.

My question for Congressjerk Eric Swalwell is pretty simple: “How many Americans would you murder to achieve your goal of disarming us?”

It’s a fair question. 

Now, we know that some Americans would resist this kind of tyranny. People all over the world are resisting the elite’s commands. The Brits Brexited. The French are rioting because they don’t want to sacrifice their livelihoods on behalf of the global elites’ weird weather religion. And a decree that the Second Amendment is not a thing anymore would certainly provoke some serious pushback here.

The Brits ain’t “Brexited” shit yet, and aren’t likely to, more’s the pity. The French, on the other hand, look like getting their act together at last, on which I hope to have more in a bit. But I still think Kurt is right about the likelihood of at least some pushback in the event of a serious gun-grab, although whether it would end up with full-on insurrection is something I’m not quite as confident of as I was before Black Tuesday.

Rep. Swalwell, some people are going to fight rather than cave in, so what’s the number of bodies you would be willing to pile up to win? Let’s put aside the right or wrong of resistance; it’ll be a thing. It’ll happen. You’re from near San Francisco, so you don’t know any real Americans, but even though I am from that hellhole too, I’ve met a few Americans in my travels. They are an ornery people who don’t give in to the kind of bullying you advocate. So, you’re going to have to kill some people to do what you want, and I just want to know how many you’re prepared to off to achieve your goal.

After all, it’s not as if you Democrats don’t already have a history of killing people for having guns you disapprove of.

Remember Waco? The raid on David Koresh’s compound was because his weird band of misfits allegedly had scary, outlawed guns. That’s why Democrat Janet Reno initially decided to send in the troops. The government got four of our ATF agents killed, then slaughtered the resisters, including women and kids.

I’d guess Kurt wouldn’t much like this sentiment, but I can’t say the loss of the ATF agents in the course of doing their “duty” of murdering men, women, and children at the behest of Leviathan is anything I ever lost any sleep over, or ever will. And while we’re at it, abominable government hitman Lon Horiuchi ought to have been pushing up daisies a long time ago himself, instead of looking forward to a nice cushy federal pension after he retires as a true FBI “hero.”

Now, Congressman Strangelove properly took a lot of grief for suggesting nuking fellow Americans, but even if you accept his backtracking about how this was a joke – nothing’s funnier than suggesting the mass murder of fellow Americans! – he only put nukes off limits. What killing systems are still on the table? Infantry? Artillery? Bombers? Because his answer assumed that he would support prosecuting a war against those who failed to obey and submit to arrest.

So, Congressman, what means of destructions are still on the table to use against fellow Americans who refuse to allow you to strip them of their Second Amendment rights because you Bay Area liberals want to show those hicks in Jesusland who’s boss? Is shooting them okay? Shelling them? Bombing them, just not with nukes?

Again: all of it, plus whatever else it might take to get the job done. This is why:

Understand that the leftists with Swalwell’s mentality are not driven by notions of justice or reason, but by cold hatred for Normal Americans. We’ve been disobedient. We’ve been defiant. We’ve refused to surrender our means of defending our own sovereignty to our elite overlords, and that is intolerable.

Exactly. Which is why, as Kurt concludes, anybody who still thinks of them as “our fellow Americans” needs to get woke, and fast. There are a lot of Swalwells out there—a LOT, probably more than any of us dare to imagine—with government schools churning out more of them every day.

Share

Mask, off

One of them finally said it, so Correia runs the numbers in response, and it’s truly a thing of beauty.

Last week a congressman embarrassed himself on Twitter. He got into a debate about gun control, suggested a mandatory buyback—which is basically confiscation with a happy face sticker on it—and when someone told him that they would resist, he said resistance was futile because the government has nukes.

And everybody was like, wait, what?

Of course the congressman is now saying that using nuclear weapons on American gun owners was an exaggeration, he just wanted to rhetorically demonstrate that the all-powerful government could crush us peasants like bugs, they hold our pathetic lives in their iron hand, and he’d never ever advocate for the use of nuclear weapons on American soil (that would be bad for the environment!), and instead he merely wants to send a SWAT team to your house to shoot you in the face if you don’t comply.

See? That’s way better.

We are so divided it’s like we are speaking two different languages. Hell, on this topic we are on two different planets. And it is usually framed with a sanctimonious left versus right, enlightened being versus racist hillbilly, unfailing arrow of history versus the knuckle dragging past sort of vibe.

But basically it boils down to one side making the argument: The idea of the 2nd Amendment resisting a tyrannical government is obsolete, because the federal government is too overwhelmingly powerful, and has too many advanced technologies.    

Which, especially in light of Kill ‘Em All Swalwell’s oops-did-I-say-that threat to nuke 2A-supporting Americans, pretty neatly provides confirmation of everything we’ve been saying all along. But never mind that right now, on to the really good stuff.

First, let’s talk about the basic premise that an irregular force primarily armed with rifles would be helpless against a powerful army that has things like drones and attack helicopters.

This is a deeply ironic argument to make, considering that the most technologically advanced military coalition in history has spent the better part of the last two decades fighting goat herders with AKs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Seriously, it’s like you guys only pay attention to American casualties when there’s a republican in office and an election coming up.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama launched over five hundred drone strikes during his eight years in office. We’ve used Apaches (that’s the scary looking helicopter in the picture for my peacenik liberal friends), smart bombs, tanks, I don’t know how many thousands of raids on houses and compounds, all the stuff that the lefty memes say they’re willing to do to crush the gun nut right, and we’ve spent something like 6 trillion dollars on the global war on terror so far.

And yet they’re still fighting.

Okay, so let’s say Congressman Swalwell gets his wish, and the government says turn them in or else. And even though the government has become tyrannical enough to send SWAT teams door to door and threaten citizens with drones and attack helicopters, rather than half the states saying fuck you, this means Civil War 2, instead we’ll stick to the rosiest of all possible outcomes, and say that most gun owners comply.

In fact, let’s be super kind. Rather than a realistic number, like half or a third of those people getting really, really pissed off and hoisting the black flag, let’s say that 99% of them decide to totally put all their faith into the government, and that the all-powerful entity which just threatened to kill their entire family will never ever turn tyrannical from now on, pinky swear, so what do they have to lose? And a whopping 90% of gun owners go along peacefully.

That means you are only dealing with six and a half MILLION insurgents. The entire active US military is about 1.3 million, with about 800,000 reserve. Which is also assuming that those two Venn diagrams don’t overlap, which is just plain idiotic, but I’ll get to that too.

Let’s be super generous. I’m talking absurdly generous, and say that a full 99% of US gun owners say won’t somebody think of the children and all hold hands and sing kumbaya, so that then you are only dealing with the angriest, listless malcontents who hate progress…  These are those crazy, knuckle dragging bastards who you will have to put in the ground.

And there are 650,000 of them.

To put that into perspective, we were fighting 22,000 insurgents in Iraq, a country which would fit comfortably inside Texas with plenty of room to spare. This would be almost 30 times as many fighters, spread across 22 times the area.

And that estimated number is pathetically, laughably low.

In one of the bluest states in America, the New York SAFE Act only has like a 4% compliance rate. And that’s mostly just people choosing to ignore an onerous law. Because the further you get away from the major cities, the more people just don’t give a crap about your utopian foolishness. Its benign neglect, and most Americans are happy to ignore you until you mess with them. You start dropping Hellfire missiles on Indiana? Fuck you, its game on. And that 1% is going to turn into 50% damn quick.

So just by the numbers, it’s an insurmountable problem, but we’re just getting started with how stupid this idea is.

And, incredible as it seems considering the level of stupidity already dispersed and put to rout here, Larry’s right—he is just getting started. Really, though, this bit is what it mostly boils down to:

In something that I find profoundly troubling, when I’ve had this discussion before, I’ve had a Caring Liberal tell me that the example of Iraq doesn’t apply, because “we kept the gloves on”, whereas fighting America’s gun nuts would be a righteous total war with nothing held back… Holy shit, I’ve got to wonder about the mentality of people who demand rigorous ROEs to prevent civilian casualties in a foreign country, are blood thirsty enough to carpet bomb Texas.

You really hate us, and then act confused why we want to keep our guns? But I don’t think unrelenting total war against everyone who has ever disagreed with you on Facebook is going to be quite as clean as you expect.

Probably not, no. It certainly shouldn’t be, anyway.

But that’s what we’re dealing with here, isn’t it? It’s a completely child-like, petulant, spiteful outlook, one wholly divorced from anything resembling reason or reality; it wants what it wants, because reasons, and it expects to get it toot fucking sweet, too. Or else.

Believe it or not, Larry has plenty more yet, and it’s…well, it’s reassuring, is what it is—more so than anything I’ve come across since Black Tuesday, in fact. Disastrous and dark a portent as the midterms were, some small hope still remains to us, a hope tightly interwoven with America’s gun culture and its 2A devotees. Which, I can’t think of anything more fitting, more right, than that. Conclusion:1““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““1

To pull off confiscation now you’d have to be willing to kill millions of people. The congressman’s suggestion was incredibly stupid, but it was nice to see one of you guys being honest about it for once.  In order to maybe, hypothetically save thousands, you’d be willing to slaughter millions. Either you really suck at math, or the ugly truth is that you just hate the other side so much that you think killing millions of people is worth it to make them fall in line. And if that’s the case, you’re a sick bastard, and a great example of why the rest of us aren’t ever going to give up our guns.

No reason it can’t be both there, Larry. But it ain’t just math they suck at; as I always say, it’s reality that’s always been their biggest problem.

(Via WRSA)

Share

They lie

When it comes down to the nut-cuttin’, they’re all the damned same.

AUBURN, Wash – On Sunday, Jordan Waits walked up and down Auburn streets canvassing for the Yes on I-1639 campaign.

“It’s important to me as citizens and voters that we contextualize our rights and do the things that are best for our community,” said Waits.

“Contextualize our rights”? Rights that are “contextualized” aren’t rights at alll; they’re privileges.

Waits served in the 1st battalion twelfth Marines from 2010-2014. He was a motor vehicle operator, fire team leader, and a line non-commissioned officer.

“I’ve seen what happens when somebody that takes six rounds to the chest,” Waits said. “I’ve seen what someone looks like after they take one or two rounds from an AR-15. It’s not a joke.”

Izzat so? Because last time I looked, the AR-15 was not an issue rifle in any branch of the US military. In fact, the ammo for the AR isn’t compatible with the issue M4s and M16s; if I remember right (and I’m certainly no expert and could well be wrong), 5.56 barrels can run .223 rounds without problems, but not so vice the versa. So it would seen that if this guy truly has seen the aftermath of one or two AR rounds in the chest, it surely wasn’t while he was on deployment with the Corps.

“I’ve seen the incredible devastation that weapon can cause,” he said. “And I own several firearms myself. I’ve had thousands and thousands of hours of firearm training. And I firmly believe that that’s not something that we should hand to an 18-year-old without a background check and without training.”

Sorry bub, gonna have to call bullshit on this one. “Thousands and thousands of hours of firearms training”—as a vehicle-pool truck jockey, no less? I’ll let Tom Knighton run the numbers:

That’s a load of male bovine excrement if ever I’ve heard it.

Let’s do the math, for a moment.

If Waits is to get the benefit of the doubt, his “thousands” is the bare minimum to be pluralized, meaning just 2,000 hours of firearm training.

Now, assuming eight-hour training days, that means Waits spent 250 days of training on just using and understanding firearms. If you assume a five-day work week, which isn’t out of line for most military duty outside of a war zone, then he spent 50 weeks doing nothing but firearm training.

That’s a year of non-stop training on nothing but firearms. Nothing else. No sexual harassment training, no diversity training, nothing but gun stuff.

Now, any veteran can tell you how little actual firearm training goes on in the military. While infantry and special ops get the lion’s share, even they don’t get a whole lot of trigger time considering what they do.

And bear in mind that he said firearms training. Not training where he was issued a gun, but actual weapons training. That’s an important distinction because just walking around with a weapon while you’re learning something else isn’t the same as detailed instruction on how to use a firearm.

But wait, there’s more.

And there is—more, and worse.

Hate to say it and all; you folks already know I have several close friends who are either active-duty or former military, mostly Navy and Marines. I have tremendous respect and love for all of them. But now and then you get one for whom the training just didn’t take, or who just doesn’t get it—even in the Corps, bless their crusty black hearts. Anybody remember notorious ex-not-former-Marine John Murtha, perchance? It happens. It’s rare, but it happens.

In any event, this guy went through boot, served his term honorably, got his DD214 in due course…and somehow came out the other end a gun-grabbing Democrat, with only a nodding acquaintance with truth and the concept of Constitutional rights, just like the rest of them. At the very best, he’s extremely poorly-informed and relying on hype and exaggeration to overstate his experience and knowledge, which in itself wouldn’t be exactly unheard of in the ranks of former sailors and Marines. In his own words:

Waits says many of his fellow Marines disagree with his viewpoint and he welcomes dissenting voices.

“I joined the Marine Corps because I care about my community, I wanted to protect my community, I want to make things better for Americans. And that doesn’t stop when you take off the uniform. I’m just doing the same thing on the street here.”

His welcoming of dissent is to his credit, unlike his fellow gun-grabbers. For the rest of it…well, he’s at best misguided. I really, really want to give this guy the benefit of the doubt here, I truly do. But—well, I’ll let Knighton state the inescapable conclusion, sorry as it is:

Then again, Waits isn’t just some objective veteran who is acting based solely on what his experiences tell him. He’s a Democrat who is spouting the typical anti-gun line of his party and using his veteran status to work to disarm legions of his fellow vets.

As a veteran, I know that there’s a technical term for that: Blue Falcon.

Waits is a blue falcon of the highest order, all for political gain. Pathetic.

It’s depressing, that’s what. In the end, I’ll just repeat my Mark-1 Mod-0 response to all such: come and take them, asshole.

Share

Yet another lie debunked

Related to the last one, yes, but Ithought I’d break it out into its own post anyway.

The claim that the US has by far the most mass public shootings in the world drives much of the gun-control debate. Many argue that America’s high rate of gun possession explains the high rate of mass shootings.

“The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world,” President Barack Obama warned us. To justify this claim and many other similar quotes, Obama’s administration cited a then-unpublished paper by criminologist Adam Lankford.

Lankford’s claim received coverage in hundreds of news stories all over the world. It still gets regular coverage. Purporting to cover all mass public shootings around the world from 1966 to 2012, Lankford claimed that the United States had 31 percent of public mass shooters despite having less than 5 percent of the population.

But this isn’t nearly correct. The whole episode should provide a cautionary tale of academic malpractice and how evidence is often cherry-picked and not questioned when it fits preconceived ideas.

Lankford’s study reported that over the 47 years there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. Lankford hasn’t released his list of shootings or even the number of cases by country or year. We and others, both in academia and the media, have asked Lankford for his list, only to be declined. He has also declined to provide lists of the news sources and languages he used to compile his list of cases.

These omissions are important because Lankford’s entire conclusion would fall apart if he undercounted foreign cases due to lack of news coverage and language barriers.

Lankford cites a 2012 New York Police Department report which he claims is “nearly comprehensive in its coverage of recent decades.” He also says he supplemented the data and followed “the same data collection methodology employed by the NYPD.” But the NYPD report warns that its own researchers “limited [their] Internet searches to English-language sites, creating a strong sampling bias against international incidents,” and thus under-count foreign mass shootings.

Does Lankford’s paper also have that problem?

Of course it does, as Lott and Weisser go on to explain. Via the below-cited Tom Knighton, who adds:

Additionally, the fact that Lankford won’t release his list of mass shootings seems to indicate that he knows his study is crap but doesn’t want anyone to figure it out.

It’s unlikely that this study will get a whole lot of play. It goes against the anti-gun narrative to such a profound degree that it’s guaranteed to cause some serious cognitive dissonance. Anti-gunners will reject it outright, not because of bad methodology or anything, but simply because they don’t like the outcome. They prefer the poorer study that confirms their beliefs. Confirmation bias to an extreme.

But the truth is, we’re not some mass murder mecca.

That truth, along with a whole lot of others, is inconvenient to the gun-grabber agenda. So as Knighton says, it won’t get much play. That being so, I repeat: come and take them, you rotten rat-bastards. Stop whining, stop play-acting, stop lecturing, and make your fucking move. Let’s just see what it gets you.

Given how many armed Americans there are who are deadly serious about their God-granted 2A rights, and given what those people know Leftists to be, it’s a wonder there aren’t a lot more shootings in America than there are, really. A testament to the cool, calm forbearance of American gun owners, that is. Or their sense of charity and tolerance for the terminally stupid, maybe.

Share

Just another damned Drunkocrat-Socialist

One of Ace’s Moron Horde unleashes an amusing comment about Ted Cruz’s opponent, Beto “Blotto” O’Rourke, having been pinched for crashing his car while drunk as a boiled owl, then trying to flee the scene.

Old take: Beto is so dreamy, why he’s almost a Kennedy!
New take: Wait, fleeing a drunk driving accident and using his connections to get out of trouble? O’Rourke my ass, he IS a Kennedy.

Heh. Meanwhile, Ace also notes that Trump has his own plans for an assist in the Texas Senate race:

I will be doing a major rally for Senator Ted Cruz in October. I’m picking the biggest stadium in Texas we can find. As you know, Ted has my complete and total Endorsement. His opponent is a disaster for Texas — weak on Second Amendment, Crime, Borders, Military, and Vets!

Good on ya, Mr President—and good on Cruz too, for a righteous two-barrel blast of double-ought truth right into smarmy Democrat-Socialist faces:



Tom Knighton picks it up from there:

The O’Rourke supporter let the mask slip. He had no problem responding that the anti-gunners will want to come and take our guns away because we know that deep down, that’s the end game. That’s the goal.

Luckily, this is in Texas. I don’t care what the polls say about how close the race is; I don’t see a rabid liberal like O’Rourke winning against someone like Ted Cruz. In part, it’s because O’Rourke and people like this guy want the guns. They want them all, and they won’t be happy until they get them all.

That’s not Texas. Texas is a state deep in the heart of gun country. While some anti-gunners undoubtedly live there and like living there, the majority of the state supports the right to keep and bear arms, as a matter of heritage if nothing else.

Cruz’s response was perfect. He’s right that it summed up the campaign perfectly. That’s what this campaign season is really about. The Democrats have gone full-on gun control with their candidates. They expect to retake Congress, then take away our guns to some degree. Then they’ll start working to take more of our gun rights away, inch by inch.

They most certainly will. They will never, ever stop, either, until the RKBA is a long-gone memory. At this point, desperately hanging onto our ever-dwindling God-given rights is what EVERY election season is all about, really. Ted Cruz was no more than telling the simple truth about these statist, liberty-hating assholes…which is the most damaging thing anyone can ever do to them short of killing them outright.

Share

Gun rights, explained

A state AG and a judge who get it—and ain’t afraid to say it, bless his heart.

“As a practical matter, when a firearm is kept in a home for self-defense, it is always ‘in use,'” Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette wrote in his brief. “Criminals never take a day off, and they never call ahead. To serve its self-defense purpose, a gun must be readily accessible whenever its owner believes he might possibly need it.”

Though U.S. District judge Paul Maloney dismissed a similar case brought by another couple, he ruled that the Johnsons’ case could move forward against the request of the state agency.

“Storing firearms in an inoperable condition makes them useless for the defense of hearth and home, which implicates the Second Amendment,” Judge Maloney wrote in his order. “The need for self-defense rarely comes with advance notice; it occurs spontaneously, often at times specifically chosen for the expected vulnerability of the intended victim.”

Read the rest for the backstory, which is both chilling and infuriating.

Share

Lost cause?

Yet still they persist.

Placing all of this into context, the actions of the Obama State Department and the lawsuits by the Democrat attorneys general have merely demonstrated once again the utter futility of gun control. DD’s software is only the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Not only is it and other similar software already in the public domain and readily available for use by one and all, there is no way to recall it. That fight was over in 2013.

Moreover, individuals have been making their own firearms in this country since the founding of the Republic. Today it is possible to make high quality, fully functioning lower receivers for firearms such as AR-15s, AK-47s, and handguns using simple hand tools. As long as they are not sold to others, it is perfectly legal to make firearms with no serial numbers and no means of tracing them. This state of affairs exists because there is no way that the government could ever hope to effectively regulate or prevent such private manufacture of firearms that is ongoing in homes, garages, and machine shops across the nation.

While DD sells a so-called Ghost Gunner computer-controlled milling machine that will speed up the process of making lower receivers for AR-15s and model 1911 pistols, the same job can be and has been done using hand tools such as routers, drill presses, and electric drills. The number of such privately made firearms is estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands.

But the private manufacture of firearms is the least of the challenges facing gun control advocates. They must contend with the fact that there are over 90 million law-abiding Americans who legally possess over 300 million firearms and who pose no demonstrable threat to their fellow citizens.

In addition, there are untold millions of firearms in the hands of our very large criminal population. These individuals don’t undergo FBI background checks to buy their guns. They use straw purchasers with clean records to do the buying. Or they get them in back alleys or on street corners from other criminals. In many places, they can even rent a gun to pull a job or commit a murder. Neither restrictions on the ownership of guns nor their traceability through serial numbers are of concern to these predators.

The bottom line is this: there is and can be no such thing as effective gun control. Just as there is no way to recall and quarantine DD’s software, there is no way for the government to meaningfully restrict possession of the millions of firearms in civilian hands. Not even a governmental decree to confiscate all firearms is feasible. Putting aside the mandate of the Second Amendment, are 90 million Americans to be turned into outlaws by legislative fiat? And how are these newly minted criminals to be stripped of their firearms?

If even a fraction of that 90 million were to resist confiscation of their weapons, does the government have the police, military, judicial, and penal resources to search, disarm, arrest, prosecute, and punish that vast legion of otherwise law-abiding citizens? Would the law-enforcement establishment willingly undertake such punitive actions? We have already seen substantial numbers of gun owners in Connecticut and New York openly defy hastily enacted antigun laws imposed in the wake of the Sandy Hook school tragedy. Faced with other more pressing threats to public order, police and sheriffs’ departments in those states have wisely elected not to risk the mayhem that could very well result if they attempted to arrest and disarm defiant gun owners. And, even if the government somehow managed to confiscate all 300 million legally owned firearms, what about the uncounted millions of firearms already in the hands of the underworld?

The gun control advocates may not realize it, but they lost the fight long ago. It’s all over but the shouting.

Well, if they can just arrange things so that shooters can expect to be arrested for ever actually USING a gun in self-defense (more on that later, perhaps), or doing much of anything at all with them besides burying them in the backyard, they’ll consider it a win. And they won’t be entirely wrong about that, either. Nor can we quite say they’ve lost, given the thousands upon thousands of gun-control laws already on the books.

Share

Yet another brilliant Tweet

He’s no way smart enough to know it, but Little Adolf just got PWNED, as the kids say these days.

Continue reading “Yet another brilliant Tweet”

Share

Yet another brilliant Tweet

He’s no way smart enough to know it, but Little Adolf just got PWNED, as the kids say these days.


Continue reading “Yet another brilliant Tweet”

Share

Do the math

You ain’t getting ’em, gun-grabbers.

The foregoing math on the roughly 20 million semi-auto rifles is not the full extent of the problem for the gun grabbers. Additionally, there are at least 50 million centerfire handguns that would be suitable for resistance warfare. (And another 3 million being made or imported each year.) There are also perhaps 40 million scoped centerfire deer rifles in private hands. The vast majority of those have no traceable paper trail. Fully capable of 500+ yard engagement, these rifles could be employed to out-range the tyrants and their minions.

Then there are the estimated 1.5 million unregistered machineguns now in the country.  Except for a 30-day amnesty in 1968 that generated only about 65,000 registrations, they have been contraband since 1934. Their number is particularly difficult to accurately estimate, since some semi-autos such as the M1 Carbine, HK91/93/94 series, and AR-15 are fairly easy to convert to selective fire. Similarly, nearly all “open bolt” semi-auto designs are easy to convert to full auto. Large numbers of conversion parts sets have been sold, with little recordkeeping. Some guns can be converted simply by removing sear springs or filing their sears. Just a trickle of unregistered full autos are seized or surrendered each year. This begs the question: If Federal officials have been unable to round up un-papered machineguns after 84 years, then how do they expect to ever confiscate semi-autos, which are 15 times more commonplace?

As evidenced by the 1990s wars in the Balkans, when times get inimical, contraband guns get pulled out of walls and put into use. We can expect to see the same, here.

Now, to get back to the simple mathematics, here are some ratios to ponder:

  • NRA members (5.2 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 63-to-1 ratio
  • Military veterans (20.4 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 249-to-1 ratio
  • Unregistered machineguns (1.5 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 18-to-1 ratio
  • Privately owned semi-auto rifles (40 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 485-to-1 ratio


The mathematics that I’ve cited don’t bode well for the gun-grabbing collectivists.

He has a lot more, and I do mean a LOT. It all adds up to total nightmare for fever-dreaming totalitarians, who really ought to find themselves better uses for their time.

(Via MisHum)

Share

A rational reason to ban guns

Hey, when he’s right, he’s right.

After all, like much of the Constitution, the Second Amendment relied on a responsible citizenry to safely use such a powerful device as a gun. In the right hands, a gun can defend a citizen’s family and property. In the wrong hands, however, it can massacre a school full of children. After decades of the Left’s assault on traditional American values, is there any private American citizen out there who is truly responsible enough to handle a firearm?

Responsibility and accountability have not only taken a beating in American culture over the last several decades, but the entire culture has abandoned those concepts in favor self-destructive beliefs. The things we once valued as the basis of healthy society, like marriage and child-rearing, are now devalued at alarming rates.

The erasure of liberty and its replacement by state control has been the primary mission of the American Left for over a century. As Diana West aptly analyzed, we’ve experienced the “death of the grown-up” in the United States. Children are individuals who lack the responsibility required for living independently. Today, most Americans are treated as overgrown children by the Left. Only instead of needing adult supervision, they are in need of government oversight. Thus far, most Americans have done little to disprove the Left’s disgusting assumption about them (as evidenced by the data cited above).

Perhaps the Left is correct when it demands that all ordinary Americans surrender their arms to the state. After more than a century of the Left’s “long march through the institutions,” maybe the Left has succeeded in making the American people nothing more than overgrown children. If that is true, and Americans are no longer responsible enough to be trusted to use their Second Amendment rights properly, why end with banning guns? Face it, the Left has managed to slowly decimate our liberty by destroying our culture.

Of course, Weichert is deliberately overstating the case a bit here to make a point; it isn’t quite as bad as he makes it sound—quite. There most certainly are plenty of Americans still responsible enough to own guns. We haven’t all been reduced to overgrown, helpless, feckless children just yet. But that ain’t for want of trying by the Left.

Share

Bottom line

This is it.

Liberals want you defenseless. You know all those countless stories of good guys with guns who protect people, you know, the ones that the New York Times tells you don’t exist and not to believe your lying eyes about? Liberals would prefer those stories go, “A mother was murdered in front of her kids today” rather than, “A mother capped an ex-con with a ‘born to lose’ tatt on his forehead when he threatened her and her kids.”

That’s the consequence of the nightmare they seek to impose upon us. Liberals, who (inept gaslighting aside) really do want to take your guns, want you to be without a means of defense. And this necessarily means they are willing to accept the risk of death (yours, not theirs) that comes with being defenseless. That is, they are totally cool with you taking the risk of encountering someone who doesn’t care that guns are illegal, or who is just plain stronger than you, and who wants to hurt you or worse. In short, liberals are eager to accept the risk of you being killed in order to attain their gun-free utopia.

To analyze it a little deeper: a gun-free utopia is the necessary first step on the way to the larger, more comprehensive liberal “utopia.” Then they won’t mind building a border wall nearly as much as they pretend to now—a la Berlin.

Or, more precisely, they want a utopia where Normals are gun-free, and where the liberal elite maintains a monopoly on force. You think their security is disarming? Michael Moore chance. Plus, you citizens being disarmed strips you of your last straw veto over oppression. That disarming Americans means that you are also rendered defenseless against liberal tyranny is a feature, not a bug.

Of course it is. That “monopoly on force” business is key, and a dead giveaway. Or, to put it another way: we’ll give up our AR15s when Hillary’s and Obama’s bodyguards give up theirs.

Now, if liberals really wanted to do something to stop gun killings, they would empower the cops in the big blue cities to sweep through the gang-infested warzones of Chicago and the like and rid them of criminals. But they won’t. Because they don’t hate the guns or the gangsters. They hate you. 

They surely do. The Trumpening has at last flushed them out into the open, though, and everyone can now see what they are—and begin the long-overdue process of learning to requite their hate, in full measure and with bells on. If they’re ever to be brought to heel, that’s where it has to start.

Share

Can they be stopped?

William Gensert doesn’t think so.

In seeking and executing a warrant to search the offices and home of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal attorney, leftists have abandoned all pretense that they are not prosecuting civil war against Americans who disagree with them. They have decided that we represent an existential threat to the America they envision would exist under their tutelage. They won’t let us mind our own business, raise our children, protect our families, be productive citizens, and be left alone. That won’t do – they have plans for us. They want this war, and they will force this fight upon us.

In the scheme of things, America is a young country. Yet its brief history is replete with people who underestimated Americans. Progressives are in the process of doing that today. It is a mistake that will cost them dearly.

To succeed in fundamentally transforming the United States of America, the left must accomplish two things:

  • Impeach President Donald Trump.
  • Disarm Americans.

The left, in a national fit of pique, refuses to accept the fact that a majority of the country rejects its “new America,” as personified by its hero and god, Barack Obama. He started the transmogrification, which leftists had planned to extend and codify during the reign of Hillary Clinton. Then Donald Trump came along, and their plan fell apart, hence the necessity for the usurpation of the nation’s constitution and the will of the people.

The signs are there that Americans are going to fight this. There is a real possibility of blood in the streets. Regular Americans are tired of the Democrat elite telling them what they must accept.

Leftists feel that they are right: America shouldn’t have a choice. In effect, people should not be allowed to vote for anyone leftists do not approve of, and they certainly do not approve of Donald Trump.

They didn’t approve of George W Bush or McCain either. But when they turned bland, middle-of-the-road milquetoast Mittens Romneycare into a RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST monster—then Paul Ryno, for that matter, pushing Granny off a cliff—the writing was on the wall for all to see. Lefty has modified Sherman’s famous quote and put it into practice: if nominated, Republicans will not be allowed to run. If elected, they will not be allowed to serve.

And since they are on the side of what is right and just, anything they do, no matter how illegal, how immoral, how outwardly and obviously unfair and biased, is justified because the arc of history bends toward justice…or some such nonsense.

There are an estimated 300 million firearms existing in America today.  And I wager that that figure is low.  I would also wager that most armed citizenry would be loath to voluntarily give up their guns – as well as being even more resistant to giving them up under duress.

So there you have it: the left wants to wage war against the most heavily armed populace ever to exist on this planet, and as weapons, leftists are going to use rhetoric and clever metaphors, mellifluously delivered, à la Barry the brilliant.  When Charlton Heston said, “They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands,” it wasn’t a threat; it was a promise.

It strains credulity that they are using every trick in the book, from opposition research in the form of the Steele dossier to Sally Yates, Bruce Ohr, Andrew McCabe, Strzok, Page, and probably Barack Obama himself, conspiring to sabotage the candidacy and later the presidency of Donald Trump, and they think there will not be a fight from a well armed populace?

Remains to be seen, I guess. I have no doubt that the Founders would have been shocked, dismayed, and angered to see what we’ve quietly surrendered already. As the bumper sticker says, they would have been shooting already. I’m sure there’s any number of doughty old-school Brits who are equally appalled at how far their once-mighty nation has sunk into the mire of ignominy and degradation, without there being any visible signs of righteous uprising there. At some point it’s just too late, and there’s no longer anything left worth the effort of trying to save.

Over here, Hillary!™ was as “moderate” a candidate as the Left will ever accept, and even at that they greatly preferred Bernie the Red—and would have gotten him too, had he not been swindled out of the nomination by the dirtiest, most brazenly corrupt political machine in American history. From here on out, any and every Republican must expect to be savaged and undermined by any and all means Progressivists can contrive, with the active connivance of the Deep State apparatus itself.

The Left probably doesn’t actually want a shooting war, not really. Rather, they don’t expect to get one, and will be surprised indeed if they do. This expectation, right or wrong, means their collective psychotic break over Trump was only the beginning; the response to their next defeat is going to be worse, much worse. Gensert’s conclusion is spot on: this will NOT end well. Not unless these screwballs suddenly discover a wisdom and restraint they’ve shown no sign whatsoever to date of possessing, it won’t.

Share

Repeal the 2A? Why bother?

They already effectively did—by ignoring it.

Make no mistake about it: in the hands of the American left, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not safe. For that matter, virtually nothing wise or precious or sacred or holy or otherwise good is safe with those corrupted by a liberal worldview. Whether marriage, the family, the church, life in the womb, education, small businesses, fossil fuels, law enforcement, the military, or the Constitution, time and again, liberals have proven themselves to be on the wrong side of the truth.

What’s more, in the hands of today’s leftists, the Second Amendment – and anything else in the U.S. Constitution with which modern liberals are unhappy – is in jeopardy whether or not it is “repealed.” As most now well know, John Paul Stevens – a retired associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court – recently gave his direct endorsement to the shockingly foolish – but increasingly popular among Democrats – idea that the Second Amendment should be repealed.

Few should be surprised by Stevens’s position in this matter. With the way too close Heller decision a decade ago, he almost got his wish. In 2008, liberals were a mere one vote short of effectively killing the Second Amendment. In a republic that properly respected and understood its Constitution, Heller wouldn’t have been necessary, and under the absurd circumstances that such a case should make it to the highest court in the land, the vote to uphold the Second Amendment wouldn’t be close.

In their efforts to remake America into their image of a leftist utopia, rarely never (FIFYA—M) have liberals let the Constitution stand in their way. For decades now – whether as public executives, legislators, or judges – liberals have conveniently ignored the Constitution or “interpreted” it beyond recognition.

Any “right” whose exercise requires a government license or permit can’t properly be called a right at all. All in all, this seems like a good time to re-link and re-excerpt Charles Cooke’s pitch-perfect challenge from 2015.

That being so, here’s the million-dollar question: What the hell are they waiting for? Go on, chaps. Bloody well do it.

Seriously, try it. Start the process. Stop whining about it on Twitter, and on HBO, and at the Daily Kos. Stop playing with some Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google. Stop jumping on the news cycle and watching the retweets and viral shares rack up. Go out there and begin the movement in earnest. Don’t fall back on excuses. Don’t play cheap motte-and-bailey games. And don’t pretend that you’re okay with the Second Amendment in theory, but you’re just appalled by the Heller decision. You’re not. Heller recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That “right of the people” means “right of the people,” as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious Heller “interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself. In other words, it would be exactly what you want! Man up. Put together a plan, and take those words out of the Constitution.

Cliff’s Notes version: come and take them, you lame fascist fucks.

Share

Lies, damned lies…

And damned liberals.

Here’s the deal – everything the liberals say about guns is a lie. Every. Single. Thing.

Oh, it ain’t just guns, boyo. You coulda just left “about guns” right out of there.

It’s a lie when they scream that you can hit the Guns-2-Go drive-thru and buy yourself a fully semi-automatic assault machine gun with high-powered 5.56 mm rounds, because glorified 5.56 mm rounds are “high-powered” on their planet, faster and quicker than you can call an Uber.

It’s a lie when they say an armed citizenry would be powerless in the face of a leftist government equipped with tanks and artillery and bombers – though their assumption that a leftist government would use tanks and artillery and bombers on the American people seems like a pretty good reason for having an armed citizenry.

It’s a lie when they say they only want to have a “conversation” and seek only “bipartisan compromise.” Foamy Marco Rubio got suckered into that grift just like Chuck Schemer suckered him into pushing amnesty, and they’ve been ritually disemboweling him ever since.

Which brings us round to one of the best lines on the topic I’ve seen yet. Bold mine, because it merits the emphasis:

Liberals constantly sneer that we are “insecure about our masculinity” and “need guns to feel like men.” Leaving aside the millions of gun-owning women out there who don’t seem to fit within that stupid paradigm, and the irony of leftist doors opining on manhood, liberals miss the point.

We don’t need guns to be men. We need guns to be free men.

And that right there is what really drives them nuts.

Update! Who you gonna believe, us or your lying ears?

Did you hear? They’re talking about repealing the Second Amendment. It started with former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley. And it sure does seem like those calls prompted skeptics of American gun culture to echo their remarks. Turley and Stevens were joined this week by op-ed writers in the pages of Esquire and the Seattle Times. Democratic candidates for federal office have even enlisted in the ranks of those calling for an amendment to curtail the freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Of course, this is just the most mainstream invocation of anti-Second Amendment themes that have been expressed unashamedly for years, from liberal activists like Michael Moore to conservative opinion writers at the New York Times. Those calling for the repeal of the right to bear arms today are only echoing similar calls made years ago in venues ranging from Rolling Stone, MSNBC, and Vanity Fair to the Jesuit publication America Magazine.

Are you sitting down? You might be surprised to learn that none of this occurred. It’s only your vivid or, some might go so far as to say, fevered imagination. Rest assured, CNN host Chris Cuomo insists that “no one” is calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. And even if they are, as Justice Stevens most certainly is, he’s a “boogeyman” who commands no influence or respect. Apparently, to suggest that anyone is calling for such extremist measures, and not universally beloved “common-sense” restrictions on firearms ownership, amounts to swatting at phantoms. Cuomo retreated into a familiar, well-fortified rhetorical trench—a place where other liberals can be found whenever basic firearm-ownership rights are called into question. Essentially, his contention boils down to this: You didn’t hear what you thought you heard.

You might also have heard conservatives complain about a double standard applied to students who survived the Parkland shooting and emerged as prominent gun-control activists. Those conservatives claim that when they take these students seriously and engage with their ideas or criticize them for unfairly smearing their opponents, they are accused of issuing personal assaults on the character of near-defenseless children. Well, you’ll be happy to learn that this, too, is a figment of conservative imaginations.

It is a “straw-man argument,” suggested the New Republic editor Jeet Heer, to claim that liberals have reacted with anything other than friendly disagreement when student activists are criticized. The left’s only visceral objections arise when figures on the right accuse these students of fabricating their identity or experience—which, unfortunately, has occurred. The mere suggestion that the left has done anything other than welcome respectful and legitimate criticism of the Parkland students amounts to “conspiracy theories,” according to Rewire New editor-in-chief Jodi Jacobson. Anyone saying otherwise is “scared” or peddling a “weak case.”

That’s good to know. I was concerned for a while there that liberals had deliberately conflated substantive disagreement with personal attacks on the Parkland activists.

Don’t worry, folks; if you don’t like any of those lies, they have plenty of others.

Updated updated! Turtles lies, all the way down.

For baseball players, it’s “Keep your eye on the ball.”

For fighter pilots, it’s “Lose sight, lose the fight.”

Different ways of saying the same thing:
History’s gut pile is assembled from the body parts of the witless and clueless.

At its root, the Parkland shooting, except for the dozen-and-a-half unfortunate victims, was nothing surprising or newly dreadful, and nothing functionally different than any of the other mass shootings enabled by the concentrated stupidity of Gun Free Victim Zones. It’s what happens when you ring the dinner bell, chum the water, and push tourists into the pool with predators created by the Left, sharing the same amoral outlook as hungry carnivorous sharks.

FFS, that’s been the entire point of the exercise, indeed the very raison d’etre for the Evil Party to enact it: precisely to keep up a steady supply of outrageous acts, to feed their Political Hate Machine with a never-ending supply of still-warm victim’s blood, for their faithful party hacks to always be dancing in, until they achieve their goal:

the total disarmament of anyone who would oppose their totalitarian control of the population.

Whoot, there it is. Plenty more at the link, of which you should read the all.

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine." - Joseph Goebbels

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix