Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Bullets first

Schlichter sums up:

Show of hands. Who is up to give up your ability to protect yourself because the same people who celebrate us being murdered demand it? Anyone? Hello? Bueller?

Then, of course, the killing spree got stopped by the very thing that liberals insist doesn’t exist except for all the times it has existed – a good guy with a gun. A Texan exhibiting something liberals are unfamiliar with – manhood – took his rifle and went one-on-one with that walking chamber pot and put a round in him. The tubby terrorist, confronted with an armed American citizen instead of little kids, dropped his rifle and ran, gut shot. Let’s hope he suffered good and hard before he checked himself out like the coward he was.

So, let’s review. We’re supposed to demand laws that make it illegal for human suppositories like this to have guns, even though it was already illegal for him to have guns. We’re supposed to rely on government background checks to protect us even though the government keeps failing at that. We’re also supposed to disarm at the behest of people who know literally nothing about guns or existing gun laws. And we’re supposed to not believe that we have the ability to defend ourselves, even though normal Americans do so every day – here, an instructor from the NRA literally ended this bloodbath. But we should ignore that for reasons and because.

But wait, there’s more. We’re supposed to disarm in the face of people who celebrate when we are murdered. The Hollywood types, taking a break from molesting each other, didn’t exactly celebrate our deaths, but they couldn’t help spewing their hatred for our faith. I bet if we were disarmed, and a government controlled by liberals had a total monopoly on force, they’d be totally cool and respect our religious rights. I checked with Chet and he thinks so – it’s not like right now they want to bankrupt people for not baking cakes.

Here’s the sad fact – the people who want us disarmed don’t care if we get murdered. Not at all. Chicago has a slow motion Sutherland Springs every two weeks and the smarmy Democrats who run that hellhole don’t care. If they did, they would unleash the cops, who know exactly who the crooks are. Remember how liberals howled about “stop and frisk?” That took illegal guns off the streets, but progressive politics always take precedence. Our lives don’t matter except as a tool to be exploited when they want to take normals’ rights.

Our elite doesn’t want gun control. It wants us control.

Bingo, nailed it in one. But they have a big, big problem which, just as it always has, still boils down to this: from my cold, dead hands, bitches. I know they’d be fine with that as long as they could get someone to do it for them and all, but still.

Think I’m alone in that, or at best part of a tiny, statistically insignificant handful of radical, fanatical 2A extremists? Better think again, Poindexter:

In 2014, attorney and policy analyst Paloma Capanna filed suit on behalf of Rochester-based radio host Bill Robinson seeking data on NY SAFE Act compliance: specifically, how many assault weapons had actually been registered in the state.

Cuomo administration officials first ignored, then denied Robinson’s Freedom of Information Act request. But, on June 22, following two years of litigation, state police released the information based on a court decision which found that while the law forbade the disclosure of the actual registration forms, nothing precluded the release of aggregate data.

That data shows massive noncompliance with the assault weapon registration requirement. Based on an estimate from the National Shooting Sports Federation, about 1 million firearms in New York State meet the law’s assault-weapon criteria, but just 44,000 have been registered. That’s a compliance rate of about 4 percent. Capanna said that the high rate of noncompliance with the law could only be interpreted as a large-scale civil disobedience, given the high level of interest and concern about the law on the part of gun owners.

“It’s not that they aren’t aware of the law,” said Capanna. “The lack of registration is a massive act of civil disobedience by gun owners statewide.”

Oh, and did I mention their needing someone to confiscate ’em for them? Why yes; yes I did.

Opposition to the SAFE Act has been widespread across upstate New York, where 52 of the state’s 62 counties, including Ulster, have passed resolutions opposing the law. Upstate police agencies have also demonstrated a marked lack of enthusiasm for enforcing the ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. According to statistics compiled by the state Department of Criminal Justice Services, there have been just 11 arrests for failure to register an otherwise-legal assault weapon since the SAFE Act took effect in March 2013 and 62 for possession of a large capacity magazine. In Ulster County, where 463 assault weapons have been registered, there have been just three arrests for possession of large-capacity magazines and none for failure to register an assault weapon. Ulster County Sheriff Paul VanBlarcum has been a vocal critic of the law; he said he believed large numbers of Ulster County gun owners had chosen to ignore the registration requirement.

“We’re a rural county with a lot of gun enthusiasts,” said VanBlarcum. “So [463] sounds like a very low number.”

VanBlarcum said he had advised deputies to use their discretion when it came to making arrests for SAFE Act violations like unregistered assault weapons and he had no plans to undertake proactive enforcement measures.

“We are not actively out looking to enforce any aspect of the SAFE Act,” said VanBlarcum.

As I’ve mentioned before, I have friends and family who are cops; many of the customers at the Harley shop I used to work at are cops. And I can assure you based on my own conversations with these guys that there is absolutely ZERO enthusiasm among them not only for having to enforce these laws, but for the laws themselves in the first damned place. Their opposition to such laws, in other words, is based not on narrow concern for their own safety in enforcing an unpopular law, but on their personal firm belief in the right to keep and bear arms.

Too, they’re nearly all recreational shooters themselves; when I used to attend the bi-annual Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot every year, a goodly number of the attendees there were always cops. There are exceptions out there, of course, but on the whole these aren’t people who are going to be able to muster a whole lot of enthusiasm for personally going out to violate the Constitution on a door-to-door basis. In fact, they’re way more likely to refuse to do it flatly and without equivocation:

With more states passing stronger gun control laws, rural sheriffs across the country are taking the meaning of their age-old role as defenders of the Constitution to a new level by protesting such restrictions, News21 found.

Some are refusing to enforce the laws altogether.

Sheriffs in states like New York, Colorado and Maryland argue that some gun control laws defy the Second Amendment and threaten rural culture, for which gun ownership is often an integral component.

They’re joined by groups like Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, both of which encourage law enforcement officers to take a stand against gun control laws.

Lewis, who is running for re-election this year, said sheriffs have a responsibility to push against what he sees as the federal government’s continual encroachment on citizens’ lives and rights.

“Where do we draw a line?” he asked. “I made a vow and a commitment that as long as I’m the sheriff of this county I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my law-abiding citizens of the right to bear arms. If they attempt to do that it will be an all-out civil war. Because I will stand toe-to-toe with my people.”

If our 2A rights are ever to be fully restored—or even maintained as is, without further watering down or sneak-thief encroachments on it—we’re going to need as many like Sheriff Lewis as we can possibly get to help with it. As for non-compliance, it ain’t just New York, either:

While the recent experience in New York is strong evidence of the American public’s unwillingness to comply with firearms registration, it is only the latest instance illustrating the futility of these types of laws. In Connecticut, a 2013 law required residents to register certain types of semiautomatic firearms, and individual magazines with a capacity greater than 10, by January 1, 2014. Out of an estimated several hundred thousand guns and 2.4 million magazines that were required to be registered, by the deadline Connecticut gun owners had registered 50,016 firearms and a mere 38,290 magazines.

In March, the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, assembled by Governor Dannel Malloy “to review current policy and make specific recommendations in the areas of public safety, with particular attention paid to school safety, mental health, and gun violence prevention,” issued its final report. The commission suggested that Connecticut “Prohibit the possession… of any firearm capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading.”

Similarly, in 1989 California enacted a law requiring registration of certain semi-automatic firearms. According to a February 17, 1992 Los Angeles Times article, in the years since enactment only 46,062 semi-autos were registered. The article goes on to note, “The state Department of Justice has estimated there are 200,000 to 300,000. Others have calculated as many as 450,000 to 600,000.” The authorities attempted to bolster the lackluster compliance with a 90-day amnesty period at the start of 1992; this program only netted another 13,470 firearms.

The results of New Jersey’s semi-auto ban were comparable. An April 17, 1992 New York Times article titled, “Owners of Assault Guns Slow to Obey Law,” notes, “In New Jersey, which enacted an assault weapon ban in 1990, 2,000 weapons have been surrendered, made inoperable or registered as collectors’ items, according to the State Police. The state Attorney General’s office estimates that there are between 20,000 and 50,000 assault weapons in New Jersey.”

And those are just the ones they know about. But hey, given our history and national character, only in America would such personal defiance of tyrannical edicts be likely to occur, right? Wrong yet again:

Canada passed a strict gun-control law in 1995, partly in reaction to a 1989 shooting  at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique with a semiautomatic rifle. The law required universal regulation of guns, including rifles and shotguns. Proponents said the central registry would give law-enforcement agencies a powerful new tool for tracking guns used in crimes. They also claimed it would help reduce domestic violence and suicide.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

The bigger lesson of Canada’s experiment, Mauser says, is that gun registration rarely delivers the results proponents expect. In most countries the actual number registered settles out at about a sixth. Germany required registration during the Baader-Meinhof reign of terror in the 1970s, and recorded 3.2 million of the estimated 17 million guns in that country; England tried to register pump-action and semiautomatic shotguns in the 1980s, but only got about 50,000 of the estimated 300,000 such guns stored in homes around the country.

All of which brings us ’round to this delicious 2014 press release, from Connecticut Carry:

To Officials of the State of Connecticut: Either Enforce or Repeal 2013 Anti-gun Laws.
It’s time for the State to enforce the tyranny they passed or repeal it entirely.

For years, Undersecretary Michael Lawlor, the upper levels of the State Police, and Governor Dannel Malloy have sought to disarm those whom they fear. The laws they passed show that they fear constitutionally and lawfully armed citizens. Despite thousands of gun owners showing up at each legislative session expecting to be heard by their ‘representatives’, government officials seized upon public panic related to the Newtown Massacre, as a means to exert legislative and executive fiats intent upon disarming gun owners who have harmed no one. The Connecticut Executive and Legislative branches showed their cowardice when they installed metal detectors and armed guards at the entrances to the Legislative Office Building (LOB) only for firearms-related hearings.

Gun hating officials now have their laws on the books in Connecticut. They dreamed up those laws, in their tyrannical dystopias, but it was NOT the majority of the public that supported such laws. Despite all the severe legal language that the government passed, there is still no open discussion of enforcing those tyrannical laws, as they stand. Throughout the Legislature and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP), there is only talk of “amnesty” and possibly boiling the frog at a slower rate.

As many media sources have pointed out, there is very little compliance with the new edicts, and there is absolutely no way for the State to know who is obeying the law or not. State officials have made their bluff, and Undersecretary Lawlor has made his position clear, that the State will enforce the laws. We say: Bring it on. The officials of the State of Connecticut have threatened its citizens by fiat. They have roared on paper, but they have violated Principle. Now it’s time for the State to man-up: either enforce its edicts or else stand-down and return to the former laws that did not so violently threaten the citizens of this state.

There is nothing that will so completely destroy faith in those edicts faster than the State-provoked chaos and violence that will be required to enforce the 2013 anti-gun laws. Connecticut residents should not have to live in perpetual fear of “the jack boot” coming down on them. Unenforced, frequently repeated threats fall on deaf ears. By passing laws that they cannot or choose not to enforce, State officials tell the public that this State is ignorant, immoral, blind, and impotent in its legal and decision making processes. The passage of such foolishly conceived, insufferable laws is an affront to every law-abiding citizen. Every official who supports such legal foolishness mocks our State and the Constitution they swore to uphold.

“From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to shit, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur.” – Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta

I remind you, as incredible as it may seem, that this comes to us from…Connecticut. The state hasn’t repealed the abominable thing as far as I know, of course, but not for want of effort on the part of CC and Ed Peruta; good on ’em for slamming the dimestore dictators like this, valiantly continuing the never-ending battle for liberty in a region not exactly noted for being particularly hospitable to it. I can’t say I envy them their struggle; it’s one of several reasons I left NYC in the first place, although it pains me to have to acknowledge that where I live now ain’t exactly known for being bereft of liberals either.

Kudos, too, to all the doughty patriots there and elsewhere who defiantly—and courageously—rejected tyranny and upheld the spirit of our Founders by refusing to meekly surrender their weapons to an overreaching, grasping government. As I always make a point of telling each and every gun-grabbing liberal I argue the issue with: you’ll never get mine, motherfucker.

Who knows, if Trump can keep helping the Democrat Socialist collapse along, and the RINOs continue to offend red-blooded Americans with their now-exposed fraud and collusion, maybe the time may not be too far off when we can stop concentrating on merely holding the line and actually begin to roll the insidious project to deny the basic human right to defend one’s self, one’s family, and one’s home back.

Share

The real culprit

Once more for the libtards: your laws don’t work.

It should not matter if these incidences are occurring because of a political correctness stigma around mental health, or just dumb laziness. If federal employees cannot perform the simplest of tasks of enforcing laws already on the books meant to keep people safe, then those employees need to be released and their agencies eliminated.

The National Rifle Association and lawful gun owners are not involved in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. During the shooting in Texas, a former NRA instructor was instrumental in stopping Kelley’s rampage – a rampage that could have been prevented had our government not been asleep at the wheel again. But sure, let’s turn over our health care to the government now.

If our government cannot perform simple tasks like filling our criminal record forms and entering information into databases, then why in the world would we burden federal employees with new gun laws that do nothing but restrict the constitutional rights of citizens and vendors in full compliance with the law?

Start with enforcing the federal laws on the books before attempting one of those “conversations” about curtailing rights. When our government gets that right, then we can have a larger discussion about the Second Amendment.

Actually, no, we can’t. There is but one “discussion” of the Second Amendment, and it’s not particularly large, nor is it complicated or difficult to understand. It is merely this: SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED. Which can be translated, roughly, as: “you’ll never, ever get mine, no matter how many damned laws you pass.” Full stop, end of discussion—nothing more need ever be said.

(Via Insty)

Share

A comparison

Which yields a dismal conclusion. Several, actually.

In Vegas, there is no reason to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy tagged for it actually carried it out, because no one saw him do it.

In Texas, most of a church-full of people could tell you exactly who did it, and one of the people who saw him do it followed him with a rifle – after shooting him with said rifle – to the point when police finally arrived minutes later to take custody of the corpse.

In neither incident did the police do anything worthwhile in any way to deter, inhibit, nor end either shooting. Their sole contribution, as in 99.9% of shootings, is to unroll barrier tape, chalk outlines around bodies, and gather evidence and fill out reports for trials that will never happen. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Not one of 30,000 gun laws did one single thing to prevent or even delay either shooting.
Nor would any 30,000 more accomplish anything better.

The notionally presumptive Vegas shooter broke no laws until he knocked out windows and opened fire.
The Texas shooter broke every law imaginable, being legally prohibited from even so much as possessing any firearm. Shocking Every Clueless Barking Leftard Moonbat The Usual Suspects, a homicidal criminal breaks the law, exactly as the definition of the word “criminal” might imply to someone with an IQ greater than their shoe size. (Every politician with a (D) after your name, call your office…)

In both cases, those same Usual Suspects wasted not one moment before beginning their usual insane catcalls to punish everyone who didn’t do either crime, by banning more guns (again!), whilst gleefully dancing in the still warm pools of the blood of the victims to do so. Every one of them, from Congressbitch Shitweasel Gabby Giffords, to the retinue of Hollywood misogynist pedophile- and rapist-enabling celebutards, should be castigated verbally and egged  – by the dozen, please – physically, until they grow a verbal filter sufficient to shut their pieholes, pretty much until the grave takes over the task for them when they die of natural causes. They are shitlords of the lowest order, and there is no amount of public shaming – up to activating their dental plans, in a need for new implants sort of way – that goes too far in shouting them down and howling them into silence.

In both cases, the media engages in knee-jerk around-the-clock non-stop coverage, but only to gin up their well-deserved flagging ratings, and to service their own anti-gun agenda, while contributing nothing but ass-gas to the discussion, and shunting 50 more important daily stories into the dustbin, stopping just short of tying strings to the bloody corpses and using them as marionettes on live TV.

As I said, several conclusions are unavoidable here, none of them pleasant. But the most important one we can draw is an eternal one: liberals, statists, collectivists, fascists, whatever—your laws do not work. They have NEVER worked; they never WILL work. I ain’t just talking about gun control here, either. Your desire for absolute control over each and every one of us in order to engineer us into your ideal of a Perfect Man—itself a highly destructive, self-defeating absurdity—is a fantasy, a pipe dream. It isn’t going to happen, and the results you’ll get from the attempt are never going to be what you hope for or expect. Which failure is only to be expected from meager intellects pretending to superiority—from people who arrogantly deny God as “silly superstition” while trying to set themselves and their misbegotten Superstate in His place.

In sum: come and take them, you sniveling wretches.

I was in an e-mail conversation with CF friend and supporter Sam Sorenson earlier wherein I said that it seems as if liberals are smack in the middle of a sort of cosmic karmic comeuppance of late, suffering one humiliating pratfall after another as all their cherished shibboleths just keep blowing up in their faces one right after another. We were discussing it in the context of another issue which I’ll be getting into later, but the truth is I can’t think of a time when reality has bitten them harder than this:

Hero Who Stopped Texas Gunman: I Couldn’t Have Stopped Him Without My AR-15
The hero who stopped the gunman behind the deadly Texas church massacre said using an AR-15 enabled him to end the bloodshed. In an emotional interview with CRTV’s “Louder With Crowder” on Monday, Stephen Willeford described the gunfight and dramatic car chase that ensued to stop the shooter from slaughtering additional churchgoers.

“If I had run out of the house with a pistol and faced a bulletproof vest and kevlar and helmets, it might have been futile,” Willeford said. “I ran out with an AR-15 and that’s what he was shooting the place up with.”

“I hate to politicize that, but that’s reality,” he added.

A perfectly delightful pressing of nearly every gun-grabber button, that was: a heroic gun owner, who also happens to be a member in good standing of the perfidious NRA, uses an evil, deadly semi-fully automatic assault-weapon rifle gun to successfully halt a massacre all on his own, with no guidance, consultation, coordination, or permission from or with any State organ, bureaucracy, or agency—and shows no remorse for his inexpert and presumptuous audacity.

Meanwhile, the mad killer was in no way deterred or hindered by any of the more than 30,000 gun control laws already on the books and, as Aesop says above, would not have been stopped by 30,000 more. He got his weapons and gear in open defiance of them, after having eluded every legal and administrative roadblock the State could muster against him—after dodging every regulation, system, procedure, and doctrine designed to recognize, analyze, diagnose, persuade, re-educate, restrain, or otherwise neutralize him. He killed with perfect impunity until an armed citizen with a far more highly developed sense of responsibility, self-respect, community, and simple duty than self-righteous liberals will ever possess stepped up and did the necessary. This dauntless man didn’t “cower in place,” he didn’t wait until help arrived, he didn’t piss his pants or faint dead away, he didn’t tremble and quake in fear as they would prefer.

And he got the job done, where all their high dudgeon and legalisms failed miserably. Just as they always do. More, and worse, he did so in a most public way, so that the calm efficacy of his heroism and the relevance of his underlying beliefs cannot possibly be denied, and the futility and folly of their own was written in blood on the church-house floor. Worse still, the heroic law-abiding owner of this semi-fully automatic assault-weapon rifle gun had never heretofore hurt anybody with his deadly murderous man-killing machine of a weapon; it never once exerted its nefarious mind-control power to influence him to wantonly kill a single soul, and it never once hopped up out of his cabinet, rack, or safe to go out and do bloody mayhem on its own. Indeed, his legal ownership of this morally repugnant Weapon Of Mass Destruction would most likely never have been made widely known at all if he hadn’t used it properly to provide us all with such a shining example of toxic masculinity and the traditional manly virtues of courage, valor, self-reliance, daring, and selfless concern for his fellow citizens liberals despise so much, and have all but wiped from the shriveled souls and intellects of the weak, emasculated Pajama Boys they’re producing in job lots.

Making it all even more satisfying is the response their propaganda organs are even now being forced to report daily: all across the country, pastors with more concern for their flocks’ safety than for respecting the pious liberal mandate enforcing their cringing helplessness are declaring their intention to arm themselves, and are calling for their congregants to do likewise. The idea of these people taking the fundamental human responsibility of self-defense into their own hands by availing themselves of the most useful tool for doing so must have liberal “journalists” in a sweating, gibbering rage when they’re off-camera. Already, we have this lecture approvingly compiled by a gun-grabbing liberal writer who probably hasn’t seen the inside of a church in…well, ever.

“I think the religion of Robert Jeffress is not the religion of Jesus,” McBride told ThinkProgress in an interview. “I think it is becoming increasingly apparent that we have a practice of blasphemous Christianity by many so-called Christians. Jesus is the Prince of Peace in a world of war. Rather than continue to push for more instruments of death, which are unable to keep us safe, we must rather start to call for a more peaceful existence that limits the proliferations of instruments of death.”

“Unable to keep us safe”? Might want to ask the people who survived the slaughter exclusively because of the skillful wielding of one of those “instruments of death” how they feel about your so cavalierly condemning them to death by massacre instead, you addled-pated, despicable wretch.

He added: “Any faith leader that calls for an opposite of that…has a deep moral hole in their soul, and they should be ignored.”

Other critics of gun violence include Shane Claiborne, a prolific Christian speaker and writer who works with an initiative that literally melts down AR-15s–weapons similar to the one reportedly used by Sutherland shooter–and turns them into plowshares, in keeping with a biblical reference.

Note, please, that not one of these mass-murder events has ever been halted, disrupted, or forestalled by a plowshare. Not a single fucking one. But hey, you’re doing great work there, Rev. You’re really Making A Difference, you are. Guys like you are about as useless as tits on a boar hog. But hey, self-righteousness, egotistical preening, and pointless demonstrations of moral superiority are what Christianity is really all about, right?

“Jesus carried a cross not a gun,” Claiborne told ThinkProgress. “He said greater love has no one that this–to lay down their life for another. The early Christians said ‘for Christ we can die but we cannot kill.’ When Peter picked up a sword to protect Jesus and cut off a guys ear, Jesus scolded him and put the ear back on. The early Christians said ‘when Jesus disarmed peter he disarmed every Christian.’ Evil is real but Jesus teaches us to fight evil without becoming evil. One the cross we see what love looks like when it stares evil in the face. Love is willing to die but not to kill.”

Left unmentioned is the evil of failing to properly reverence and respect the sanctity of God’s gift of life by refusing to defend not only one’s own but that of others against the preventable or at least stoppable depredations of people who disregard it entirely. But it does dovetail rather nicely with the liberal clergy’s shallow ignorance, and the press’s cynical, willful, and underhanded misrepresentation of Jesus as a pacifist—a deception intended to undermine Christianity rather than honestly analyze or respect its teachings, from “journalists” who have spent a hefty portion of their careers railing against Christianity, insulting Christians, and demeaning religion generally (Eastern mysticism, Islam and a nebulous, adolescent, but specifically non-religious and undemanding “spirituality” excepted).

In any event, we can all expect more fawning reportage shortly from anything-goes urban liberal churches whose contemptible but insidious practice is to neglect Western theology in favor of proselytizing for “diversity,” “tolerance,” “outreach,” and a general supine pacifism to counter this crippling assault on their faltering narrative. Pastors whose enthusiasm for political correctness and whatever other thumbsucking sophistry is currently fashionable with Leftist “intellectuals” far outweighs their commitment to Christian dogma—and whose dwindling congregants will be heavily outnumbered by the “journalists” eagerly reporting on them—will be lauded for their courage as they launch various programs, marches, and councils to call for disarmament, understanding, openness, and “love.” These hapless sheep will be hailed as “heroes,” possessed of far more true courage and moral authority than the embarrassing rednecks who think self-defense is desirable, ethical, or even possible against the violent impulses of deranged lunatics whose madness has been exacerbated if not outright caused by the infantilization of the populace, the sense of futility and self-loathing it engenders, and the general social decay that are the diseased fruits of Progressivism. Steyn understands the rot, and what it must inevitably produce:

A republic requires virtue, and the decline of virtue is accompanied necessarily by the decline of the concept of evil, and its substitution by exculpatory analysis of the “motives” of evil. A more useful conversation would be on what it takes to remove the most basic societal inhibition – including the instinctive revulsion that would prevent most of us from taking the lives of strangers, including in this case eighteen-month-old babies. That inhibition is weaker in the dar al-Islam, because of Islam’s institutional contempt for “the other” (unbelievers) but also because of the rewards promised in the afterlife. Thus, violence is sanctioned by paradise. That is the precise inversion of our society, and yet the weakening of inhibition seems to be proceeding here, too. A church sealed off by yellow police tape: a shameful and astonishing sight, and yet one senses that it will neither shame nor astonish us for long, that something else will come along to make the records books and distract a couple of news cycles.

“Solipsistic psychos” and “feeble narcissism”: As I write, someone is on the airwaves promising that we will soon know the “motive” of the shooter. To dignify what drove this guy to do what he did as “motive” is to torture the word beyond meaning. But then our interest in the concept of “motive” is highly variable.

So, when a “Minnesota man” stabs mall shoppers while yelling “Allahu Akbar!”, the motive “remains unclear”: The befuddlement is nigh on universal …for years on end. But a fellow who thinks getting a bad-conduct discharge or falling out with your mother-in-law, or losing your job or being dumped by your girl or having your mom suggest that as you’re pushing thirty it might be time to move out of the basement, is a “motive” for shooting up a church or a schoolhouse or a movie theatre or an old folks’ home or whatever’s next, that guy we’re fascinated by, for weeks on end – and then months and years later on in all those “Inside the Mind of…”TV documentaries. They have church shootings in Egypt and Pakistan, too, but in service of cleansing the dar al-Islam of believing Christians, and leaving Islam king on a field of corpses. Our church shootings are in service of…what?

Texas officials now believe they have their “motive” – in their words, “a domestic situation going on in this family”; in my words, “the black void at the heart of the act”. It is a grim phenomenon, its accelerating proliferation is deeply disturbing, and it is not unconnected to the broader societal weakness in which Islam senses its opportunity.

Nope. And neither are those two things—sharing a connection made possible by the seemingly puzzling alliance of convenience between unchurched Western libertines and a primitive religion that would happily kill them all for their degeneracy—happening by accident, either.

Share

Let’s ban all the things!

Just give ’em time to figure it out. They ARE pretty thick, you know.

After Vegas, the gun control memes and myths come out. It doesn’t matter how wrong they are, they will echo in the mediasphere and then the talking points will leak into everyday conversations. 

“Guns are uniquely lethal.” 

Last year, a Muslim terrorist with a truck killed 86 people and wounded another 458. 

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, the Tunisian Muslim killer, had brought along a gun, but it proved largely ineffective. The deadliest weapon of the delivery driver was a truck. Mohammed, who was no genius, used it to kill more people than Stephen Paddock would with all his meticulous planning in Vegas.

Do we need truck control? 

Let’s not be giving the tiresome bags of fascist shit any bright ideas, Daniel. After all, they’re working as hard as they can to eliminate the combustion engine already.

Share

The ultimate National Conversation

Careful what you wish for, “liberals.”

I don’t agree with liberals often, because I’m not an idiot and because I love America, but when they once again say, “We must have a conversation about guns!” I still couldn’t agree more. And, since all we’ve heard is you leftists shrieking at us all week, I’ll start it off.

You don’t ever get to disarm us. Not ever.

There. It sure feels good to engage in a constructive dialogue.

Okay, I can see already that I’m getting ready to bend “fair use” over and give it the rogering of its young life. I just don’t see any way I can avoid lifting this most excellent of Schlichter rants almost entire.

Now, we should have this conversation because in recent years we’ve seen a remarkable antipathy for the fact that normal Americans even have rights among those on the left. We should have this conversation to clear the air before leftists push too far and the air gets filled with smoke. But we really don’t need to have a conversation about our rights to keep and bear arms. They’re rights. There’s nothing to talk about.

This goes for all our rights that the left hates, like the rights to speak and write freely, to practice our religion as we see fit, and to not be railroaded by liberal authority without due process. Leftists hate our rights because they hate us, and when we assert our rights it gets in the way of their malicious schemes to dominate and control us. It makes them stamp their little sandaled feet in rage when we normals just won’t cooperate and surrender our rights. But we love our rights – rights are wonderful things with which we were endowed by our Creator, and which our beloved Constitution merely reiterates. But the left, including its pet media, thinks that our rights were merely iterated, and that the left can take an eraser to the parchment and—voila!—no more pesky rights for you flyover people.

Nah. I think we’ll keep ‘em. All of them, unchanged. And there’s only one way we can lose them, unless a lot of leftists buy a lot of guns, conduct a lot of tactical training, and stop being little weenies. I’m not worried about any of those things happening, particularly the last one. So, as a practical matter, we only lose our rights if we allow ourselves to be shamed, threatened, whined, and lectured into giving them up by skeevy tragedy-buzzard pols, mainstream media meat puppets, and late night chucklemonkeys whose names and faces all blend together into one unfunny, preachy blur.

I just don’t see Jimmy Kimmel donning Kevlar to molon labe and risking his sorry carcass trying to separate normal Americans from their ability to defend themselves, their families, and their Constitution from the people who constantly tell us how much they hate us.

Well, not unless there’s about thirty of him surrounding one of us, as per the usual liberal-fascist MO. Otherwise, it’s doubtful he’d so much as lift a finger to prevent his wife and daughter getting raped and murdered in front of his very eyes. Probably by a gang of those “moderate Muslims” the Left is so enamored of, without ever being able to find a single living example of.

On the bright side, I DID manage to honor fair use by leaving out a few paragraphs there, which you’re going to want to go and read anyway. But then Kurt really cuts loose with the Clue Bat, fungo-ing huge, achy lumps onto those empty “liberal” heads:

So, let’s continue our important conversation. How about this? How about we continue to speak freely, saying whatever we want however we want, and you leftists just sit there and be offended? How about we practice our faiths however we want, even if that means some of us don’t end up validating every one of your preferred personal peccadillos (I checked under all of the penumbras and emanations in the Constitution and I can’t find anywhere that you have a right to have us high-five everything you do). And how about we insist that everyone accused of something gets due process and the chance to defend himself – or herself, or even xirself?

Yeah, we know that us having rights is inconvenient, but that’s too damn bad. Because we aren’t asking you for our rights. We’re telling you we aren’t giving them up.

See, we’re done walking on eggshells and playing your verbal minefield game. You’ll call us “murderers,” “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes” and every other kind of “phobe” you can invent no matter what we do anyway, and it’s all a lie. It’s also all meaningless. You don’t even believe it. It’s just a rhetorical weapon, and a lame one, but you’ve fired all your ammo. The chamber is empty. Keep pulling the trigger on your slanders, but we’re now woke to the scam and you’re just shooting blanks.

Anyway, let’s continue our conversation. You’re not going to pin the rampage of some scumbag on millions and millions of people who didn’t do it. You’re not going to leverage this spree into disarming us – which is your ultimate goal. We know how you hate the idea that we are armed and independent, that we hold a lead veto over your fever dreams of tyrannical rule over us. You know how important it is to us to be free citizens; you yearn to humiliate us by stripping us of our self-respect by taking away our means of keeping ourselves free from the tyranny of people like you.

You never cared that 59 people were murdered – some of you, as we have seen, cheered – and I gotta say, it’s a bad look to screech “I’m glad you crackers are dead, now heed my command to give up your guns!” If you really cared about 59 people being murdered, you’d demand that the Chicago PD flood the ghetto and stop and frisk until every punk with a gun was disarmed because 59 people get murdered there in a slow month. Oh, but wait – their rights! Gee, I thought that RIGHTS DON’T MATTER IF TAKING RIGHTS AWAY SAVES JUST ONE LIFE… I guess it’s really about whose rights, isn’t it?

So, let’s finish our conversation about guns. Where was I? Oh yeah. No.

BANGFUCKINGZOOM. I’m gonna leave out his conclusion too, which is another thing you won’t want to miss. I’ll close my own post here with a quote from the great Charlton Heston, directed at Al Gore at the time and still readily applicable to the rest of the gun-grabbin’ Left: from my cold, dead hands, motherfuckers. You jump on up and start the ball any time you think you’re ready to dance. We’ll be waiting.

Share

Just the facts

No wonder libtards hate ’em. But good on this one; hers is a remarkable story of true open-mindedness, of willingness to adjust one’s own beliefs when a careful examination of hard facts fails to unearth any evidence to support them.

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

All of which adds up to make this bird (yeah, I said it) the most rare of rara avises. My cap is duly doffed to her for her integrity, at the very least.

Share

The milkman’s kid

Annnnnd it’s Muslims liberals both.

I don’t usually post on events like the Vegas atrocity in the early days for the simple reason that almost everything the newsies are talking about in the early going always turns out to be wrong. In this case, now that the media dust is starting to settle a bit, I feel comfortable in asserting a few things. One—what with photo and video proof that he had attended anti-Trump rallies and the like, plus the allegation that Antifa fliers were found on-scene—he was a Leftard whackjob. Two, there is at least some speculation on a link to ISIS.

Three: there is WAY more to this than meets the eye.

So “Mr. Not A Gun Guy” with no prior military service or training, rented two rooms, for three days, at weekend rates during a music festival across the street, from the highest vantage point, covering two different directions, in a hotel where 2/3rds of the rooms could never even see the venue because they face the wrong way, and had 30 weapons in total, including at least 10 recovered in the hotel, and had either illegally modified semi-auto weapons or legally purchased full-auto weapons (with a six- to eight-month wait for the BATFE approval on that) and ammunition sufficient to shoot something approaching 300 people, from mag after mag after mag, and took his time (several minutes) hosing down throngs of unsuspecting random strangers across the street before committing suicide, but he supposedly “just snapped”.

(cough)BULLSHIT!(cough)

This has to be about the most meticulously-planned mass-shooting in US history.

The woman “roommate” LVMPD was looking for was “coincidentally” in Australia when this happened; is a Phillipine immigrant who was formerly (or is currently, it’s unclear) married to a barking leftard moonbat; and the picture she claims was taken of her and Shooter “in L.A.”…

…was one she had previously tagged online as being taken in Dubai.

Show of hands: everyone who’s hooked up with a married émigré from a country with an ongoing Muslim terrorism problem, and who was with her in the world capitol region of Muslim terrorist problems, who’s retired, but blew $15-50K on weapons, ammunition, and a 3-day stay in the ideal sniper roost for a full-auto attack on a crowd of packed targets, coincidentally, with no one being the wiser, and for whom the FBI could rule out any terrorist connection entirely within 60 minutes of the incident, please raise a paw.

Sh’yeah, thought so.

“Just snapped”, my ass.

That’s just the first of a whole slew of posts from Aesop taking note of the distinct cow-pasture odor rising off of this one in waves. Which leads me to another thing I feel completely safe in asserting: Praetorian Media will milk this for any possible gun-control gains they think they can get out of it for another two-three days, then a pillow gets put over its head until it stops kicking, and the corpse gets crammed as deep down into the memory hole as they can stuff it.

Update! Rush handily dispenses with the gun-control angle—not that it will make a tin dime’s worth of difference to the irrational, childish hoplophobes of the Gun Grabbin’ Left and the cynical would-be despots stampeding them:

What law that we do not have that you could enact that would have prevented this guy from getting his arsenal, Senator Schumer? That really is the question. There isn’t a magic law you have out there. We have 59 people dead. We have laws against murder. People still get killed in America. Not even laws against murder stop it from happening. What law could you come up with here that would, quote, “prevent guns, especially the most dangerous guns, from falling into the wrong hands”?

The guy already broke every law on the book getting these guns. What’s another law gonna do? Automatic weapons are essentially illegal. Is the NRA advocating new laws to make them legal? Of course not. The NRA has no involvement whatsoever in trying to make the acquisition of illegal automatic weapons easier. What’s tough about this is this shooter had nothing in his background, at least that’s been reported, that would disqualify him from owning a gun. Not a thing. But even at that, he had to violate every law on the books to accumulate this kind of an arsenal.

What law, Senator Schumer, could you pass that would have prevented these weapons from falling into his hands? What does that even mean? We need a law to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. What does that even mean, falling into the wrong hands? This guy didn’t have anything fall into his hands. He went out there and got them, and he violated laws to do it.

I have had so many debates in private settings, not public, private settings with typical establishment liberal political types who just utter whatever they say on gun control because it makes them sound like they care. It makes them sound very sophisticated, but they don’t know what they’re saying.

And I’ve asked these leftists that I’ve had these debates with — one of them was at a dinner party on Fifth Avenue right across from Central Park. The guy was a former Treasury official in the Nixon administration. He was a dinosaur. This was in the mid-nineties, and he was a dinosaur then. I don’t even know if he’s still alive. And he’s giving me all the clichés the left has about gun control. And it’s all about gotta get guns out of the society, the murder rate, the guns, there’s no sense in having people have guns. It’s senseless, it’s cruel, it’s stupid. “Why don’t you conservatives join us,” he said.

So I pointed out to Central Park. And I said, “Mr. Dinosaur, if you can assure me that whoever’s over there lurking under the cover of darkness is also not gonna be able to get their hands on a gun, then we might have something to talk about. But, Mr. Dinosaur, the only thing you’re gonna do if you succeed is take guns out of the hands of innocent people who defend themselves with them, and you’re not gonna solve anything.”

You’re gonna make people more at risk, more vulnerable, the danger will increase, and in fact let me repeat this. These are stats from the American Enterprise Institute. From 1994, the percentage change in number of firearms versus gun homicides. The number of firearms since 1994 has increased 56%. That’s pretty substantial. Whatever the number is, it’s substantial. A lot of guns have been purchased since 1994. Fifty-six percent increase over what it was in 1994.

But what about the gun murder rate? Well, guess what? The percentage of murders, the gun homicide rate is down 49% in the same time frame. Now, the left says more guns equals more crime, more guns equal more mayhem, more guns equals more dead people, more guns equals more murder. No, it doesn’t. Fifty-six percent increase gun ownership, 1994, 49% decline in gun homicide rates at the same time. You could say that having more guns has reduced the number of gun homicides.

Yeah, but that’s counterintuitive, and far too complex a concept for minds already crippled by liberalism’s core illogic to grasp.

Share

The Trumpo-Hillarian Chasm

The break starts at gun control.

Obama of course blamed guns for the shooting deaths in Chicago. Can he really believe this? It is like the obese blaming spoons.

It is verboten to notice that crime with guns is heavily concentrated in particular groups. I grew up in rural Virginia where all the boys and Becky had guns, chiefly shotguns for hunting deer and rifles for killing varmints. Nobody shot anybody, either deliberately or otherwise. Murder wasn’t in the culture. We couldn’t understand why our guns should be taken away because criminals in the cities wanted to kill each other.

I once spent a week with the US Army in the slums of Port au Prince in Haiti, where guns were illegal. Nobody was shot. Instead brains were laid open and arms severed by machete. It was in the culture.

But of course gun control is only tangentially about gun control. The controllers detest gun owners viscerally as they imagine them, aging white Southern yahoos or Western cowboys with potbellies and third-grade educations who are probably werewolves, Republicans or even conservatives. Deplorables. Note that they never criticize the killers, the Islamoterrorists, the blacks in the cities massacring each other with abandon, or the Hispanic narcos engaged in auto-extermination. The controllers simply dislike white conservatives or, more profoundly, those who are emotionally independent and not of the mentality of the hive. Guns are innocent bystanders.

If a woman tells me that she favors gun control, I can with confidence predict that she favors unchecked immigration, sanctuary cities, affirmative action, banning the Confederate flag, suppressing Christianity, homosexual marriage, abortion, feminism, and the dumbing down–she will call it something else–of schools to avoid wounding the self-esteem of the usual suspects.

The question of guns demarcates a sharp dividing line between (those) who read the New York Times and those for whom it is the house organ of a class of people they detest. This is the Trumpo-Hillarian Chasm.

In Washington and New York, the Virulently Good who live in high-rises with security desks will react with horror at the thought of buying a rifle for self-defense. “How could the…?” “Why would anyone…?” “What is wrong with these…?” Their outlook rests on the belief that nothing really bad can happen. Which means that if it does, they will be toast. And that, in a morbid way, will be amusing.

It sure will. But the truly amusing thing is that the “really bad” that may happen is going to be mostly due to the proven-failure ideology most of them espouse, and the damage it’s done to the country the rest of us have to live in. And thus have the Left’s chickens come ever home to roost.

Share

Disgrace: defined

Fools, knaves, liars, and oxygen thieves.

Wednesday’s dramatic protest on the House floor over gun control was a powerful reminder of how dramatically the cable network’s role as the official chronicler of Congress has changed since its early years — and how technology has suddenly made C-SPAN less beholden to the congressional leaders who control its video feed inside the chambers.

It all unfolded quickly: When the sit-in began Wednesday morning, Republican leaders ordered the House into recess. And since only they, and not C-SPAN, oversee the camera, C-SPAN’s feed was cut off, as dictated by the chamber’s rules.

Normally, that would have been end of story.

You might think by “disgrace” I mean the childish Democrat Socialists sitting on the floor waving their chubby little baby-fists around until they get their way and throw out yet another Constitutionally-protected freedom to no good purpose whatsoever (not one of their precious gun people control measures would have prevented the Muslim Orlando or San Berdoo shooters from their “religion”-inspired mass slaughter, nor will they prevent any of the coming ones). That’s disgraceful, sure, but what more can you expect from these worthless brats? They’re commies, they hate liberty, they hate real Americans with a passion that often leads them into pits of irrational lunacy that they can’t seem to escape.

No, what I was referencing was this part of it:

Congress’ tight control over what its viewers see has long been a source of frustration for C-SPAN, which has been trying to get its own cameras on the floor of since 1984. But congressional leaders, whether Democratic or Republican, have maintained power over the cameras, the audio, the angles and when they’re turned on and off.

That all changed on Wednesday afternoon, when members of Congress themselves became the cameras, using their smartphones to broadcast the sit-in live directly to C-SPAN after the network’s access to video feeds from the House floor was cut, despite the fact there were dozens of Democratic lawmakers still there, making speeches and making news.

Speaker of the House Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) blasted the move, calling it a “publicity stunt.” His spokeswoman, AshLee Strong, said that because the House had gone into recess, the feed had to go. Rules are rules.

But C-SPAN soon found a way around those rules.

What in the world would cause Ryan to wish to protect his Democrat Socialist partners in crime from being exposed to the people as the treacherous, treasonous enemies of all free people everywhere that they truly, indisputably are? We all know by now what these filthy pusbags are, and as far as I’m concerned any time any Muslim fanatic wants to try his hand at blowing the House chamber to Hell and gone, they’re welcome to have at it. The more of those miserable worms drop dead from any cause at all—be it slow stomach cancer, a heart attack cause by an apoplectic fit over being denied the chance to assert their rapacious desire for tyrannical control, an ordinary street mugging by one of their beloved droolcase constituents, or being swallowed whole by an earthquake-caused sinkhole encompassing DC entire—the better I’ll be pleased.

Why Ryan seeks to protect them from as much exposure as possible I just can’t figure out. Hats off, though, to this guy, who seems to have a better grasp of transparency in government than Ryan does:

With the cameras turned off, C-SPAN began broadcasting a Periscope livestream of the floor from Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), with the full graphics afforded to normal video feeds of the House floor. The network also switched at times to a Facebook Live feed from Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) and others. All three cable networks also picked up on portions of the livestream, but C-SPAN carried it for the entire duration and continues to do so as of this publishing.

Peters, speaking just off the House floor on an aide’s phone while his own kept up the broadcast, told POLITICO the idea for the livestream came from a young aide, who texted him the suggestions. Having never used the services before, Peters said he downloaded the Periscope app from the House floor and began broadcasting.

Technically, it’s against House rules to film from the House floor. But Peters said the sit-in was breaking the rules anyway, so he figured he’d keep going.

“This is a protest. If Rep. John Lewis is going to sit on the House floor, that’s against the rules, so I thought it’s better for people to know about it,” Peters said. “I think it’s appropriate as part of a protest. I really respect the rules of the House and don’t expect to break them, but today I think it’s appropriate for the American people to know what the heck is going on.”

Democrat Socialist or not—and his motives for wanting people to know just how badly their supposed “representatives” are beclowning themselves would certainly have to be suspect—he’s perfectly right about that. Let Duh Peepul see just what a clown show their government is. Let them see just who it is that’s willing to make utter fools of themselves at the very seat of it in order to steal another march against freedom and the Constitution. Let them see who views every deadly assault against ordinary Americans as an opportunity to advance a nefarious agenda, while refusing even to name the enemy and importing as many of them as they can get away with.

If Democrat Socialists want to broadcast their naked anti-American treason live on TV, Ryan ought to get out of the way and let them. He could more productively spend his time with a stout piece of rope, practicing up on his hangman’s nooses.

(Via Sarah Hoyt)

Update! How it really works.

For those of you who may still be laboring under the illusion that we live in something resembling the antiquated notion of a constitutional republic, allow me to enlighten you about how things have changed since your high school government class. Here’s how the legislative branch works now:

When the Democrats are in power they get everything they want, even if it means ramming through legislation in the middle of the night and twisting the rules until they are virtually unrecognizable. When the Republicans are in power, the Democrats still get everything they want because the Republicans basically just hand it to them to avoid being called racists or misogynists. When they don’t get what they want, Democrats throw temper tantrums and hold their breath until they get what they want. Either way, they win. Always.

This is definitely not how I learned it in government class, but trust me, this is how it works now.

If you’re envisioning Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. when you picture this House sit-in in your mind, you’d be way off. Think a slumber party with a bunch of 7th grade girls.

These are not serious people with serious ideas or strategies to get their policies implemented. These are emotional infants who have no respect for the rule of law and who scoff at the rules of the House. They think it’s noble to shout down their fellow members of Congress, when in fact, they’re subverting the very processes and system of government by which they’ve gained the civil rights they claim to champion.

Make no mistake. If this mob is allowed to essentially take over the House and these anarchists get their way, we are done as a country. Finished. In a few years we’ll all be reminiscing about our once-great country, talking about what a great run we had with this constitutional republic experiment.

“In a few years”? Where you been hiding for the last, oh, three or four decades, lady?

Bright side update! Molly Hemingway finds the silver lining:

But why focus on the negative? Democrats have voluntarily taken it upon themselves to grandstand in such a rule-breaking fashion that Republicans declared the House in recess. And that’s a good thing! The less time Congress is voting on bills, the less opportunity they have to take away our constitutionally protected freedoms.

Instead of complaining about Democrats’ anti-civil rights behavior, let’s celebrate it just this once. Let’s help them keep the House in recess for as long as they’re able. Could they keep it going through next year? We can hope!

Indeed we can. And must. Personally, I think a moratorium on any new legislation at all for, say, a year would be a fine thing. Nobody even knows how many laws, rules, and regulations they’ve passed already; just how many new ones can we possibly need? Let’s not make out like these assholes are doing work that is in any way vital to the well-being of the nation or anything. The only new legislation any of these oozing carbuncles ought to be discussing is repeal of most of the old ones.

Share

Gun control vs people control

Herschel comes right out and says it.

No one in the MSM has the guts to ask why someone who is a “terrorist” is allowed to be in America to begin with. It would force the executive to admit to all of his plans for social change, his open borders policy, the fact that none of these lists are subject to due process, no jury has decided on the fate of pitiful souls who have run afoul of the system, and all such souls are left to the devices of an out-of-control executive who doesn’t care, and sends their problems to judges who have been educated at Harvard, Yale and Emory.

Is anyone really surprised at this? After all, a Syrian immigrant who said 9/11 changed the world for good is a homeland security advisor. They will call light darkness and darkness light. If you believe that the second amendment is in place to ameliorate tyranny, you must be eradicated because you’re the enemy, a right-wing terrorist.

Or so they seem to think. And that’s the point, isn’t it? Guns are good, and they know it. They are wonderful machines, just like cars, stoves, and HVAC. But in the “wrong” hands they can prevent the grand social designs of the ruling class. Again, the goal isn’t to destroy the gun companies. That would mean no one had guns, and no one includes them.

The goal is to control whether you have them, and to do that they won’t be so obvious as to pass a law against all gun ownership. The Fuds in the hunting clubs will be left alone to purchase their shotguns for dove and quail hunting. They don’t want to anger the gentlemanly class.

They will go after you by the terrorist watch list, the no-fly list, and any other assortment of executive powers and decisions and regulations and rulings. They will never confiscate your guns. They will prevent you from renewing your driver’s license, your hunting license, your fishing license, your professional license, your bank cards, your concealed handgun permits, and in short, all the framework you have built your entire life as a law abiding, peaceable citizen. Then they will go after your wife and children and their ability to enroll in education. They will go after what matters most to you.

If you’re focused on guns rather than people and their relationship to the ruling class, you need to be recalibrated.

Damned near everything does.

Share

Oh, it’s obvious, all right

Again: so obvious only a liberal-fascist supergenius could possibly be so stupid as to fail to see it.

President Obama quickly grew political Thursday while speaking at a memorial site for the victims of the Orlando terrorist attack, attacking Republicans for voting against gun control laws.

“The notion that the answer to this tragedy would be to make sure that more people in a nightclub are similarly armed to the killer defies common sense,” Obama said. “Those who defend the easy accessibility of assault weapons should meet these families and explain why that makes sense.”

Gladly, you dumbass. In fact, I don’t have to meet them, I can do it from here:

PoliceOne, a private organization with 450,000 members (380,000 full-time active law enforcement and 70,000 retired), polled its members in 2013 shortly after the Newtown, Conn., massacre. Eighty percent of respondents said allowing legally armed citizens to carry guns in places such as Newtown and Aurora would have reduced the number of casualties. Another 6 percent thought the presence of legally armed civilians would “likely” have prevented the innocent casualties altogether.

According to police and prosecutors, there have been dozens of cases of permit holders clearly stopping what would have been mass public shootings. It’s understandable these killers avoid places where they can’t kill a large number of people.

It ought to be common sense — even the most ardent gun-control advocate would never put “Gun-Free Zone” signs on their homes. Let’s finally stop putting them elsewhere.

If Obama is too stupid to believe me (and those cops) maybe Howard Stern can describe it to him in terms he can grasp:

“The military – and they don’t mean it as a derogatory statement – but they look at the public as sheep. And think about it. We are sheep. Most of us sit around all day. We don’t know how to defend ourselves. We are in a flock. And we basically think everything’s OK. Except the wolves, the bad guys – whether they be ISIS or terrorists, homegrown or otherwise, ISIL, Daesh, the common thug, whatever. They’re wolves. They look at them as wolves.

“The military and police look at themselves as sheep dogs. They’re warriors, but they’re on the good side. You know, they’re protecting us…

“Now, I’m gonna tell you about the most gun-free zone on the planet. It happened during 9/11. It was on a plane. You know you can’t get a gun on a plane. It’s completely gun free. So what did the wolves do? They said, ‘This is great! We’ll just kill the sheep with box cutters. They went on the plane with box cutters, and all the sheep went, ‘Baaah!’

“Now if there had been an Air Marshal on that plane, a whole f—ing other thing would have gone down. There wouldn’t have been no 9/11.

“See, the wolves are always plotting. They’ll use box cutters. They’ll use an airplane and fly it right into a building. They don’t need AR-15s.

“Nazi Germany – which, by the way, didn’t happen 1,000 years ago – it happened within my dad’s lifetime. It’s not that long ago. Can you imagine if the Jews, at least when the Nazis were banging on the door, if they had a couple of pistols and AR-15s to fight the Nazis? If Anne Frank’s father had a f—ing gun? Maybe at least he could have taken a few Nazis out.

“Now why would the sheep say, ‘Oh, we’ve got an answer to all of the terrorism, all these bad wolves that are coming after us. We’ll just hand in all our guns. We’re gonna hand them in. Baaah. You know who will protect us? The government, or the police’?

“That’s a bad f—ing idea!”

Which just makes it of a piece with every other idea pResident Jugeared Moron ever had in his life. But here’s the real nut of it:

“But guess what? Most of your politicians all have private security…So they’re OK. Those are sheep that are very well protected. You, on the other hand, you’re a sitting duck. If you’re a sitting duck, do you want a fighting chance or not? I don’t understand it.”

Drudge hammers that essential point home:

Just months after Department of Homeland Security advisers claimed “the threat from right-wing extremists domestically is just as real as the threat from Islamic extremism,” DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson is now suggesting his department should be in charge of implementing gun control.

But media pioneer Matt Drudge reacted to Johnson’s comments with his own demand.

He insisted the DHS secretary give up his own guns first.

“Homeland Jeh says Give up Your Guns!” Drudge tweeted Wednesday. “You go first, Brah.”

This. Precisely this. We’ll consider giving up our means of self-defense—against not just ordinary lowlife predators but also grabby politicians and tyrannical “leaders”—the moment you scumbags come out from behind your AR15-wielding security details, take down those supposedly impossible-to-build walls around the gated compounds you live in, and face the same dangers as the rest of us do, with the same means of defense you insist we settle for: none at all.

And not one fucking moment before. Until I see Hillary or Ogabe or any other rich liberal gun-grabber walking around in public with security guards armed with nothing more than a hand with some skin on it, I will continue to repeat: come and take them, liberal-fascist assholes.

Share

More manhood

Will any of you folks be at all surprised when I tell you that the gutless, pathetic pussy I mocked here yesterday also happens to be a despicable liar?

Well, I mean, sure, he’s a liberal and all, so that means…of course he is. And we’ll get to that. But first, I wanted you to enjoy some of the finest in mockery of the panty-drenching pissboy, from his very own follow-up column.

“Hey there Cupcake!” wrote Gary Haney. “I have never subscribed to the idea of ‘gender confusion,’ but after reading your article on the AR-15, I’m a believer because there is no way you and I are the same gender. You should surrender your testicles to the Department of Girlymen. I’m not sure where it’s located, but your girlfriend Barack does!”

Others sent me videos of 7-, 10- and 12-year old girls firing the same weapon I fired — except these kids were smiling. And I wear it as a point of personal pride that conservative darling Erick Erickson posted a story on The Resurgent with the headline, “My 10 Year Old Daughter Is Tougher Than Gersh Kuntzman, Author of the Stupidest Thing on the Internet Today.”

“You f–king pussy,” wrote Sam Markota. “If you have a man card turn it in immediately. You might be better served writing about feminine hygiene products!!!”

And that’s just the printable stuff. To summarize, this line of argument suggests that I’m not a real man because I am frightened by the awesome power of an AR-15, which, despite however you willfully misread my story, can discharge dozens of rounds in mere seconds.

Yes, this weapon scared the crap out of me. And it should scare the crap out of all of you, too. An AR-15 is a weapon of mass destruction, a tool that should only be in the hands of our soldiers and cops, as Rep. Seth Moulton wrote in the Daily News on Tuesday. I don’t think there’s anything unmanly about pointing out this fact.

Besides, if masculinity is defined by the power to commit violence on a wide scale, I proudly choose femininity.

Oh, that’s plain enough, Peaches. Funny you should think declaring your femininity is an adequate assertion of masculinity, though. But enough mockery for now; let’s move on to the lying.

My email and Internet trolls won’t believe me, but I support the Second Amendment.

Woof. I ain’t even gonna bother with that one. It’s certainly a common ruse used by the gun-grabbing Left, and anybody who buys it by now is an even bigger fool than Cuntman is.

And I even agree with one letter writer who pointed out that hammers can kill people, too, but we don’t ban them.

But what if a weapons manufacturer could fashion a handgun that would fire a nuclear blast — an atomic version of an AR-15, if you will. It would look like a gun, but it could kill thousands instead of dozens. Like a rifle, it’s one of many arms that we are allowed to keep and bear. But would we really stand idly by as people buy a nuclear gun in the name of the Second Amendment?

“It’s just a gun,” you might say. “It’s my right. Trade in your man-card, you wimp.”

Well, not exactly; no, it wouldn’t be “just a gun.” That would be more accurately defined as a “weapon of mass destruction,” a WMD, which a lot of people would agree isn’t what the Founders were concerning themselves with in the 2A. Although there is certainly disagreement about that too. See, that’s part of that debate you lied about us “denying” your right to participate in earlier in this piece.

Yes, I’m a wimp. I simpered because my experience with the AR-15 bruised me, body and spirit. But there’s nothing unmanly about reminding my readers that mass murder is much easier to commit with a semi-automatic killing machine than it is with a hammer.

If that makes me a girl, well, maybe we should have a girl running the country.

We already have one, thanks, no need for another. That liberal “MUST DO” box has already been checked, so to speak. But I’m gonna give him a pass on this one too, since I want to jump straight to the most egregious of the lying, for which we’ll have to segue over to an honest writer.

Kuntzman’s original report appears to have blatantly misconstrued what the gun dealer said.

Following his original report’s publication, the gun shop he visited posted on Facebook saying:

To our knowledge we did not know that Mr. Kuntzman would completely turn things around and make our establishment look like one of anti-gun advocates…

I can assure everyone that we do not support mental health screenings like they do in Europe and we don’t think that government officials should take away guns from people as it was portrayed in the article.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, there will always be some who abuse the right. Omar Mateen was one of those, unfortunately.

Gersh Kuntzman abused the First by presenting a gun store as being on his side, and then he doubled down by claiming those who have insulted him are interfering with his freedom of speech.

That’s because lying liberal-fascists like Cuntman oppose both the 1a and 2a, along with all the rest of the Constitution…even while insisting that they support it when they feel it’s politically necessary for the subterfuge to be bolstered. Which, as the lies they routinely traffic in go, just might be the most egregious and sinister of them all.

And now, for a palate cleanser, let’s jump back over to mockery, with Larry Correia:

After the wildly successful feature where ace reporter Gersh Kuntzman gave us the straight scoop on what it is like to shoot the terrifying AR-15 “Black Mamba Star Killer Base” rifle, we here at the New York Daily News are happy to present our new feature ASK KUNTZMAN!

Join us as Gersh Kuntzman gives valuable life advice. Send us your questions, from lifestyle choices to product reviews, and together we may peer deep into his earth mother like wisdom. From his lilac scented crying pillow to you, rejoice as Gersh Kuntzman let’s you know what’s really going on in the world.

Dear Kuntzman, big fan. I am trying to go green in order to save the Earth. Dying polar bears make me sad. Should I buy a Toyota Prius?

– Carbon Neutral in Carson City

Dear Carbon, I drove a Prius once and it changed me forever. As soon as I climbed inside the minimalist brutalist interior of this carbon fiber Japanese death machine it was as if I was driving a monster truck. I pushed start. The engine was a throaty roar like a thousand nuclear jet bombers. I immediately soiled my trousers to prevent this beast of the land of hentai from raping me. Tentacles are NOT OKAY. In my haste to escape, I touched a lever, and the windshield wipers began beating like a reaper’s sickle threshing horror. Trying to reach the escape handle, I struck a phallus-like pole, and lights began to blink. Blink. Blink. A light. A terrible, red, light! BLINK BLINK! Shrieking and flailing, I clutched desperately at the door, and tumbled, helpless, into the street. In the cold New York City rain, I lay there helpless and soiled in the gutter. The terrifying Prius looming over me, asserting its alpha dominance, and I crawled away. Forever.

Also, you may want to check out the new Nissan Leaf.

You’ll enjoy reading the rest of it. But not as much as you might, perhaps, after the realization hits that this really is the way some of these people talk, and think. And in that moment, it suddenly ain’t nearly as funny. Although it does point up just how good Correia is, that he can still dig deep to parody people who can scarcely even be parodied anymore, having descended so far into self-parody on their own, with no help from anybody.

Share

DIY defense

Your government will not defend you. You will have to do it yourself. Ironically enough, the one thing the government IS willing to do is try to prevent that, by ignoring the plain words of the Constitution and denying you your God-given, natural right of self-defense.

It’s time to fight back. No more gun-free designated massacre zones. If there had been armed people with concealed carry permits inside the Pulse nightclub, the zealot who had pledged allegiance to ISIS could have been stopped. Dozens of lives could have been saved.

I say that as a gay man who has himself carried a weapon for protection.

Let’s get one thing very clear. Gun control advocates disarmed the victims at that night club. Florida law states unequivocally that even a concealed carry permit “does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose.”

ISIS has been killing gay people in Syria and Iraq in the most gruesome of ways. Now they’ve targeted America, and gay people are high on their list of people to slaughter. If they’re coming for us, I, for one, want to be ready. They say that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. That’s too long for me to wait. It’s time to stop inviting killers to legally mandated gun-free murder zones.

It most certainly is. Be sure to read the rest of it; the final, most bitter irony is contained in the brief author bio appended to the piece:

Palmer was one of the original plaintiffs in the successful Heller Supreme Court case that affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms and the lead plaintiff in the successful Palmer vs. District of Columbia case that affirms the right to bear arms. After winning the case, he was denied a concealed carry permit by the District of Columbia.

If that doesn’t offend and outrage you to your very marrow, you are probably a liberal-fascist idiot.

Share

Unspeakably vile

Eat shit and die, liberal-fascist scum.


NYDNFrontPage.jpg

Leaving aside that I can’t think of a single instance, ever, of an NRA member being involved in any sort of Muslim terrorist attack in this country or anywhere else—come and take them, you despicable, cowardly bastards. Stop your whining and just go ahead and try it. The only way you citified pussies will ever get any gun of mine is lead first. I am by no means alone in harboring that sentiment.

And while we’re pointing fingers of blame, try this on for size: it’s YOUR political correctness; YOUR refusal to look squarely and honestly at the ugly reality of Islam; YOUR mulish insistence on open borders and unrestricted immigration, with little to no vetting of immigrants; YOUR refusal to admit some difficult home truths about just how firm American resolve is to take the fight to the Muslim world, that is far more directly responsible for bringing this war into the very streets of our nation. Not my guns, the guns of law-abiding patriots, and not the fucking NRA. YOU.

I repeat: before we can have the slightest realistic hope of fighting back vigorously and ending the scourge of Muslim terrorism, we will have to do the same to liberal-fascism. I further repeat: eat shit and die, liberal-fascist scum.

Come and take them.

Update! Nailed it.

This is why they never seem to lose focus on their causes, no matter how many times their cause has been rejected. Disarming the sinners, the bad whites they imagine are holding up the final ascent into the promised land, is a defining goal. After the Civil War, they wanted to murder all the bad whites. They still do, but they need to get the guns first. That’s what matters, not the dead gay guys lying on the dance floor or the Muslim lunatics running loose in the country.

It’s one reason the Left always wins. They never quit. Like all fanatics, they cannot be reasoned with or bargained with, because they can never accept anything but 100% of their goal. Getting within ten miles of the promised land is no better than being a million miles from the promised land so they break whatever deal they made and demand to get a little closer and then a little closer. Before long normal people are getting thrown in prison and having their property confiscated because they did not show enough enthusiasm for sodomy.

It’s an important lesson. There can be no deal struck with these people. There’s no truce to be had or a balance to be struck. What defines American liberalism is an unquantifiable hatred of the sinner, the bad whites they see as the reason the prophesies have not been fulfilled. When you define yourself by the moral distance between yourself and the bad people, you can never embrace the bad people. You can never accept them. You can only lie in wait, for your chance at revenge and glory. That’s why they spring to action right after these events.

I’m fond of pointing out that civilization exists in the space between barbarians on one side and fanatics on the other. The fear of the barbarian forces civilized people to do what they must to keep the fanatics under control. America has lost control of the fanatics and they are running amok at a time when barbarians are pouring over the border, abetted by the fanatics who see an advantage. Exploding Mohameds are a symptom of a greater disease, the disease of Modern Liberalism.

And now the people they’re getting killed with their damnable lunacy are some of their own. If there’s a possibility of a bright side to this atrocity, maybe it’s the prospect of at least some of them waking up from the fever dream, the utter self-destructive psychopathy, of Modern Liberalism. We can only hope.

Share

The best conversation: short and sweet

To Leftmedia liar and simpering hoplophobic loon Katie Couric, from Mitch Berg:

As we discussed last week, you got busted doing something that, in my day (and yours) would have gotten any young reporter unceremoniously fired; you edited a story specifically to invert the history, record and fact in an interview with a group of Virginia gun rights activists, expressly to mislead the public and drive your chosen narrative.

“I can understand the objection of people who did have an issue about it,” Couric said. (The “it” here is the deliberate falsifying of the truth). “Having said that, I think we have to focus on the big issue of gun violence. It was my hope that, when I approached this topic, that this would be a conversation-starter.”

Here is the “conversation” about guns – the entire conversation: as law enforcement targets gun criminals, gun crime is dropping, even as the number of guns in the hands of the law-abiding skyrockets. The only exception is in inner cities, where it’s not the law-abiding citizens doing the shooting. Discuss.

There. There’s your conversation.

But I have a better conversation. Let’s talk about when the media became the PR wing of the America left.

And that’s fine, to a point – most of us have come to accept that, to one degree or another; it’s part of America’s intellectual background noise.

So let’s “converse” about this…

And then he goes on to REALLY let ‘er rip. Although I would beg to differ slightly with Mitch on one thing: his conversation is about statistics and crime and fails to address the truly central issue—which exists far upstream of Mitch’s contentions, all of which admittedly are fine within that limitation. The real “conversation” about guns, boiled down to the barest bones of it, is exclusively this:

It’s in the Constitution, explicitly and unequivocally. It’s a bedrock human right and foundational principle of this nation, made perfectly clear by every word written by every damned one of the Founders in which the topic is brought up, up to and including the how-to manual to the Constitution, the Federalist Papers. Last but by no means least: come and fucking take them, if you dare. See what happens. I promise you won’t like it.

THAT’S your conversation. Arguing further with lying liberal-fascists is a waste of time, and nothing more needs to be said.

Share

MAN BITES DOG!

Better sit down for this one. It’s an article in the New York Times by a trembling, soaked-diaper liberal gun-grabber, but it actually has a little bit of truth in it.

FOR those of us who argue in favor of gun safety laws, there are a few inconvenient facts.

More than just “a few,” bub. In truth, all of the facts are “inconvenient” as hell for those of you supporting the anti-freedom position. But then, that’s the case for more than just the issue of the right to self-defense.

We liberals are sometimes glib about equating guns and danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.

Then there are the policies that liberals fought for, starting with the assault weapons ban. A 113-page study found no clear indication that it reduced shooting deaths for the 10 years it was in effect. That’s because the ban was poorly drafted, and because even before the ban, assault weapons accounted for only 2 percent of guns used in crimes.

Move on to open-carry and conceal-carry laws: With some 13 million Americans now licensed to pack a concealed gun, many liberals expected gun battles to be erupting all around us. In fact, the most rigorous analysis suggests that all these gun permits caused neither a drop in crime (as conservatives had predicted) nor a spike in killings (as liberals had expected). Liberals were closer to the truth, for the increase in carrying loaded guns does appear to have led to more aggravated assaults with guns, but the fears were overblown.

One of the puzzles of American politics is that most voters want gun regulation, but Congress resists. One poll found that 74 percent even of N.R.A. members favor universal background checks to acquire a gun. Likewise, the latest New York Times poll found that 62 percent of Americans approved of President Obama’s executive actions on guns this month.

So why does nothing get done? One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate. A classic of gun ignorance: New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less.

And every time liberals speak blithely about banning guns, they boost the N.R.A. Let’s also banish the term “gun control”: the better expression is “gun safety.”

Actually, the best expression is the one the Founders used, for any circumstance in which the fundamental natural rights of citizens enumerated in the Constitution are abrogated by a greedy, grasping, too-powerful government: tyranny.

In short, let’s get smarter. Let’s make America’s gun battles less ideological and more driven by evidence of what works. If the left can drop the sanctimony, and the right can drop the obstructionism, if instead of wrestling with each other we can grapple with the evidence, we can save thousands of lives a year.

Translation from the Liberalese: if all of us, both Left and Right, can just agree to drop the Constitution and any pretense towards individual liberty, we can do something that will make liberals feel better and less irrationally frightened of inanimate objects but will stop not one crime or terrorist offense–but will assuredly render every one of us incapable of defending ourselves against those things without being wholly dependent on government assistance. Which, in the end, is what this is REALLY all about.

Share

The big picture

Jonah provides a snapshot:

The whole objective of the early New Deal was to cartelize the economy so the government could form partnerships with Big Business. When Clarence Darrow wrote his final report on the success of the National Recovery Administration he concluded that in “virtually all the codes we have examined, one condition has been persistent…In Industry after Industry, the larger units, sometimes through the agency of…[a trade association], sometimes by other means, have for their own advantage written the codes, and then, in effect and for their own advantage, assumed the administration of the code they have framed.” 

What’s interesting about this situation is the unintended nature of it. There’s no way Obama likes gun manufacturers any more than Democrats in the 1990s liked big tobacco. But the result of all of the big tobacco regulations of 20 years ago, government — I should say “governments” —  is now in bed with big tobacco and is much more hostile to small tobacco companies that didn’t sign on to the master settlement.

I don’t know a huge amount about how the National Rifle Association and other gun groups handle their relationships with gun manufacturers, but I suspect they provide a service few appreciate. If guns were widgets, you would expect Big Widget to cut deals with the government that screw the little guy and create “moats” around their businesses. Uncle Sam could say something like, “If you stop selling retail, we’ll guarantee you sales to law enforcement and military of X,” or some such. But gun manufacturers probably can’t do that. In part because of liberal hostility to firearms. But a bigger reason is probably that the gun lobby would have a zero-tolerance policy for compromises that undermined gun rights in America.

At least since Liberal Fascism if not before, Jonah G has been one of the very best there is at connecting the dots that together form the ugly picture of Progressivist corruption, dishonesty, and depravity.

Share

“Opinions and ideologies make a pretty thin shield against the bullets of a madman”

Talking sensibly to people with no sense at all: a waste of breath, as always.

TO THE man I sat next to on my way in to Boston:

When I boarded the commuter rail, you were already in the midst of a spirited phone conversation and didn’t seem to care about how loud you were talking. You were talking with someone about the Paris train attack and the growing epidemic of gun violence in America.

You spoke about the “murderous NRA” and “bloodthirsty gun nuts” who were causing our schools to “run red with blood.” You spoke profanely of the Republicans who opposed President Obama’s call for “sensible gun control,” and you lamented the number of “inbred redneck politicians” who have “infiltrated Capitol Hill.”

I found myself amazed at the irony of the situation. While you were spewing your venom, I sat quietly next to you with my National Rifle Association membership card in my wallet and my 9mm pistol in its holster. You were only 12 inches away from my legally owned semiautomatic pistol. I suppose I didn’t look like the “bloodthirsty gun nut” you thought I should be. It apparently didn’t register to you that I could so cleverly disguise myself by wearing a fleece coat, Patriots hat, and khakis.

So, to the angry liberal who sat next to me on the commuter rail: I don’t hate you. I don’t have any ill feelings toward you. I don’t wish to do you harm. And I don’t regret sitting next to you. On the contrary; I feel bad for you. It must hurt carrying that much hate inside of you.

And as predictably as this morning’s sunrise, the comments section explodes with a frothing spew of hatred and inchoate fear, as the good Boston “Strong” mouthbreathers declare themselves absolutely terrified that there might be a legal and properly handled gun in their midst, and accuse the stout gun owner living in the cauldron of such irrationality of being a “coward” and a delusional victim of “paranoia.”

Hopefully not too many of the bleating, cringing sheep will be slaughtered before the men with guns get there to save them the next time some boiling-point nutcase goes off like a grenade in their local gun-free zone. I say hopefully, because inane “hope” is all they have to defend themselves with.

But speaking strictly for myself, I wouldn’t care a whit if the next Tsarnaev wannabe gunned down every liberal in the Boston metro area. He could take all year about it before I’d lift a finger to stop him, were I unfortunate enough to live among such useless, despicable fools.

They’ve certainly come a long, long way from Lexington Green, that’s for sure. In light of that sad, pathetic fact, the author is going to have to rethink his misplaced sympathy for them sooner or later; they’re more to be censured than pitied, seeing as how they won’t rest until we’re all rendered as contemptible, dependent, and helpless as they are. He’s extending them a courtesy and a humanity they in no way deserve, and they surely wouldn’t grant the same to him.

To hell with them all.

Share

“America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem”

I decided there was no way to improve on Daniel’s title.

Lanza and Newtown are comforting aberrations. They allow us to take refuge in the fantasy that homicides in America are the work of the occasional serial killer practicing his dark art in one of those perfect small towns that always show up in murder mysteries or Stephen King novels. They fool us into thinking that there is something American about our murder rate that can be traced to hunting season, patriotism and bad mothers.

But go to Chicago or Baltimore. Go where the killings really happen and the illusion comes apart.

There is a war going on in America between gangs of young men who bear an uncanny resemblance to their counterparts in Sierra Leone or El Salvador. They live like them, they fight for control of the streets like them and they kill like them.

America’s horrific murder rate is a result of the transformation of major American cities into Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda and El Salvador. Gun violence largely consists of criminals killing criminals.

As David Kennedy, the head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, put it, “The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It’s a fact.”

America is, on a county by county basis, not a violent country, just as it, on a county by county basis, did not vote for Obama. It is being dragged down by broken cities full of broken families whose mayors would like to trash the Bill of Rights for the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs.

Obama’s pretense that there needs to be a national conversation about rural American gun owners is a dishonest and cynical ploy that distracts attention from the real problem that he and politicians like him have sat on for generations.

America does not have a gun problem. Its problem is in the broken culture of cities administered by Democrats. We do not need to have a conversation about gun violence. We need to have a conversation about Chicago. We need to have a conversation about what the Democrats have done to our cities.

But…but…but…how the hell is THAT going to help get more Democrat Socialists elected?

Share

Prescription: more ditches

You’ll have to click on through to see what my title refers to.

Obama’s gun-control executive orders today, and the left’s latest call for full citizen disarmament, are acts of desperation. The left feels its grasp of my life slipping from its fingers, causing their envy and resentment to reach levels of insanity. Their depression in these coming months will reach critical levels, and I hope their physicians will make the necessary calls to the government in order to stem the tide of lefty/jihadist lethal attacks against innocent life. People’s lives matter more than the survival of the Democrat Party.

Do they ever. But it’s increasingly clear that the two are antithetical, at least if the people we’re talking about intend to live in freedom.

Via WRSA, who also throws in this bonus image:

Obamacrying

Let him “cry” for all me, phony as his tears are. The more unhappy he is, the better off America will be.

Share

Boiling it all down

These just might be the best, most succinct two paragraphs on the rights protected by the 2A you’ll ever read:

Does everyone who uses a firearm to protect himself survive? Of course not. But as a free man, I do not consider my inalienable rights to be contingent upon my ability to exercise them successfully. I may debate freely, even if I am destined to lose the argument. I may enjoy a jury trial even if I am guilty. And I may defend my life and my liberty even if I eventually succumb.

It is from this understanding that all conversations must proceed. The Second Amendment is not “old”; it is timeless. It is not “unclear”; it is obvious. It is not “embarrassing”; it is fundamental. And, as much as anything else, it is a vital indicator of the correct relationship between the citizen and the state and a reminder of the unbreakable sovereignty of the individual. Unless those calling for greater restrictions learn to acknowledge this at the outset of any public discussion, they will continue to get nowhere in their deliberations.

Anyone who would live free can only hope so–and be fully resolved to do absolutely anything and everything he deems necessary to keep it that way.

Share

Calm, rational, logical…and true

Larry Correia does it again.

Most people just want to fix problems. However, the buzzards? They don’t care. There’s a crisis, they want to get something out of it. Stimulus, response. Strike while emotions are high. Some want control. Others just want to posture. Since their proposals would actually make things worse, they’re scum.

Every member of the gun culture watches these things unfold and thinks, hell, here we go again. Want to know something sad? I promise at most of the gun stores around America the news was on, and everybody in there was listening, thinking some variation of please don’t be somebody the news can somehow make out to be like me… Even though the vast majority of the time the shooter isn’t one of us, has nothing to do with us, and in fact, people like us are the last line of defense against them, it doesn’t matter. We know we’re going to get blamed.

Then they’ll attack us, hound us, insult us, legislate against us, and if they can, disarm us in more ways and places… So we can be even more incapable of defending ourselves the next time somebody who isn’t us does something evil. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

Then they revealed who the shooters were.

Immediately the same exact people who’d just been screeching about evil Tea Party, racist, hate monger, right wing, ciswhitehetero male phantoms, began urging calm, saying don’t jump to conclusions. It isn’t fair to tar the big group because of the actions of a few. Watch out for that hateful rhetoric, because you might inflame people.

Sure, they had no problem making sweeping generalizations and “inflaming” half the country a few minutes ago… But that’s okay. Because when the left talks about how violent and blood thirsty the right is, they’re just virtue signaling for their tribe. If my people were a fraction as evil and hateful as they portray us, they’d never say a word. They do it because they know it is safe to do so. Christians aren’t going to saw their heads off. The Tea Party isn’t going to set off a car bomb in front of their house. Ever notice how to the media talking about radical militant Islam is islamophobia, but there’s no equivalent media buzz word for being irrationally terrified of half of America?

We all saw the idiotic meme floating around with the thing about how there had been something like three hundred and fifty something mass shootings this year. The only problem? It’s crap. It isn’t the FBI’s definition of that particular crime. They changed the definition to anything where multiple people got shot, so it’s mostly gang violence, drug crime, and even includes things like family murder suicides. Worse, it looks like some of those “mass shootings” never even happened. For my low population, heavily armed, but really low crime state, they list like half a dozen! A friend of mine went through them, found most were regular crimes, and couldn’t even find a single news report about one of the supposed events.

Even then most of those three hundred “mass shootings” took place in jurisdictions with extremely strict gun control laws, like Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington DC. They usually happened in cities that haven’t elected a republican in generations. So who gets blamed? People in red states where we own piles of guns and have crime rates similar to Canada. I hate to break it to you but no matter how many restrictions you put on gun ownership in Nebraska, people in Chicago are still going to get shot.

In reality gun ownership is at an all-time high and violent crime is way down. In a country of three hundred million people we have some mass shootings, but they’re actually very uncommon. However, they get a huge amount of news coverage. I talk about it in great length at the link above, but breathless, panicked, 24/7 media come aparts bestow instant celebrity and infamy, which actually spurs on and motivates one particular type of mass killer.

And San Bernardino? Straight up terrorism. Like dictionary definition terrorism. Like the kind that the prog vultures all railed against George Bush for being so naïve and awful with his “fighting them there rather than here” approach. We certainly ended that imperialistic strategy. So how’s that working out for you now western world? If you think three coordinated, body armor wearing, bomb building, planned in advance, Go-Pro wearing, shooters just suddenly sprung into existence as “workplace violence” because of an argument at a Christmas party, you’re smoking crack.

No amount of gun control matters to a militant jihadist. In the other article I talked about how criminals, by definition, don’t care about the law. Terrorists are criminals on steroids, and militant Islamic death cultists think they’re bringing about the apocalypse and they’re cool with that. Militant Islamic radical terrorists aren’t going anywhere. They’re in it to win it.

But hey, let’s make even more places gun free zones! That’ll show them.

As is always the case with Correia, it’s a long piece, it’s perfectly argued and very well written, I could really just repost the whole thing and be happy doing it, and you’re going to want to read all of it. But if I had to reduce it to a bottom-line summary quote, it would be this one:

This administration is a bunch of clueless screw ups who can’t concentrate on real problems because they’re too busy freaking out about imaginary ones, and most of our media exists to provide them cover, yet your solution is to make them the only line of defense?

Bingo. Oh, and that other article Larry mentioned above? It’s here. I’m sure I probably linked and excerpted it here back when it was fresh, and I’m also sure it would be well worth re-reading.

(Via Insty)

Share

Another “national conversation”

Speak up, Progtards.

So let’s talk about “common sense gun laws.”

California has very restrictive firearms laws, probably the most restrictive in America. The laws are so restrictive that gun manufacturers have to make gunsspecifically for California. Many gun dealers or manufacturers just don’t do business in California at all. It’s a pain in the ass. Here’s a great piece discussing the firearms laws in California by Brian Doherty at Reason.

If these two murderers passed background checks and waited the 10 days that are required according to CA law, what other “common sense” laws could we consider? One important “common sense” law we do have here in America is the prohibition against murder. That law didn’t stop these killers, why would we think more gun laws would be respected?

But when pressed for specificity about “common sense” restrictions on firearms, we don’t hear much about a plan to stop gun violence. Following the California paradigm, where most assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines are straight out illegal, what additional restrictions are we missing? A longer waiting period? Background checks that include more information? What kind of information other than criminal history should be included in a background check?

So really? What’s the plan? You know, the “common sense” one that doesn’t involve a total ban on firearms?

As we all know by now, the total ban and confiscation IS the plan. That’s the real goal of every single one of them, from Barky and Hitlary on down to the least wispy-bearded, balding, doughboyish Lesbian/Transgender/Sheepfucker Studies prof, although they’re way too chickenshit to ever say so except under their breath or among themselves.

Likewise, though, it’s simply not true to say that there is no gun law that stands any chance of preventing or mitigating these Moslem atrocities. There IS one–and only one–and CapLion knows what it is.

NOW whatcha gonna do, Poindexter update! Headline from a screaming fascist ninny: “My Right to Safety Outweighs Your Right to Own a Gun.” No, actually, it does not, you gutless pussy. And your right to delude yourself into thinking you’re safe while abdicating your obligation to take responsibility for your own safety most certainly does not outweigh my God-given right to effective means of self-defense as specifically and clearly enumerated in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution–still the supreme law of the land, if merely nominally and observed almost totally in the breach nowadays.

In short: wring your hands, mewl, even cry if you like. Wave your chubby fists around and throw as many high-dudgeon journo-tantrums as you feel are called for. Hold your breath till your soft little cheeks turn amusing shades of indigo under your little hipster-douchebag faux-lumberjack beard. When you’re done, see if you can work up the guts to come and take them.

Failing that, shut the fuck up and continue farming out your security to better men than you’ll ever be. Your lack of dignity and self-respect, and your pathetic and contemptible campaign to shame law-abiding citizens who have committed no crime and harmed no one at all out of theirs will continue to have absolutely no effect on anyone or anything except your own ego.

Failing that, move to Canada already. Better yet, Paris. You’ll no doubt feel much safer in the bosom of that Gun-Free (snicker) Zone, and will enjoy the added benefit of being able to assuage your bruised Feelings by marching in many cutesy parades, one after another, to show “solidarity” with the smoldering corpses left in the streets by the latest Moslem massacre. Then you can all have a good cry together, holding hands as you Tweet various plaintive hashtags pleading with your killers to Stop The Violence while you tremulously wait for the next massacre. Light a candle, cast your teary, bleary gaze to Heaven, and meekly await your turn on the slaughterhouse floor. It surely cometh, and that right soon.

In even shorter: fuck you, and every least benighted soul who “thinks” like you.

I repeat yet again: come and take them, if you dare. You won’t get them, except bullets first. Not ever. Not you, nor any army of any size you can ever assemble. There are still millions of us out here who have no intention of getting killed for lack of shooting back, and we don’t give a good goddamn how many of you precious, twee Little Lord Fauntleroys don’t like it.

Share

Just another gun-grab

And speaking of con jobs:

Having overwhelmingly lost the public debate about whether the Obama administration’s Syrian refugee screening policy should be enhanced, Democrats have retreated to more comfortable rhetorical ground: demanding more gun control.

Their new secret weapon? A bill that would ban anyone whose name appears on a terror watch list from buying or possessing a firearm. The idea sounds reasonable enough until you dig into the details and realize that the proposed Democratic legislation is a shocking assault on the constitutional right to due process. What makes the proposal even worse is that the Democrats’ assault on due process isn’t necessary to accomplish what they say is their only goal: preventing “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm.

The huge problem with this expansive new power is that there are precisely zero statutory criteria for inclusion on this massive list. In fact, when statutory authority for the centralized government database was first codified into law via the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress gave all authority for determining criteria for inclusion in the watch list to unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrats. If some faceless Beltway bureaucrat decides you might be a terrorist, then you’re a terrorist. End of story.

It gets even worse, though. If your name erroneously appears on that watch list, which as of 2013 included nearly 900,000 names, the Democrats’ proposed legislation renders you virtually powerless to find out why your name is on there, let alone to have it removed. And having your name erroneously or fraudulently added to that list isn’t as far-fetched as you might think.

Under the Democrats’ proposal, the government doesn’t have to tell you why your name is on the list. The proposed law allows the government to keep that information secret. And if you decide to take the government to court over it, the Democrats’ bill creates a brand new legal standard that tilts the scales of justice against you.

Remember, you don’t have to be convicted of any crime whatsoever to end up on the terrorist watch list. You don’t even have to be charged with a crime to lose your constitutional rights under the proposed law. If this proposed legislation were to become law, some DHS bureaucrat–perhaps the type of bureaucrat who wrote earlier this year that “right-wing terrorists” pose the biggest threat to American national security–only needs to snap his fingers and add your name to the blacklist in order to immediately deprive you of your Second Amendment rights and yourconstitutional right to due process. You don’t even get to review the entirety of the evidence against you.

So? Those are all features, not bugs, for the Goosesteppin’ Left. They get to A) continue to ignore Moslem terrorism, B) brag that they’re “fighting” Moslem terrorism, and C) destroy the 2A and disarm more law-abiding Americans. For a gun-grabbing liberal fascist, what’s not to like? There’s even more to it than what I’ve highlighted here, as you might expect if you know the dishonest swine behind efforts like this “close the due-process loophole” swindle; I suggest you read it 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



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