Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Yet another lie debunked

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

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

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 To justify this claim and many other similar quotes, Obama’s administration cited a then-unpublished paper by criminologist Adam Lankford.

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

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

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

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

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

Does Lankford’s paper also have that problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Just another damned Drunkocrat-Socialist

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

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

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

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

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



Tom Knighton picks it up from there:

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Gun rights, explained

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Lost cause?

Yet still they persist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Do the math

You ain’t getting ’em, gun-grabbers.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

(Via MisHum)

Share

A rational reason to ban guns

Hey, when he’s right, he’s right.

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Toys!

Ace runs down a whole bunch of great ones from the 60s and 70s, but he leaves out one of the greatest of them all: the M16 Marauder, by Mattel. Our whole neighborhood had these things when I was a kid, and they were GREAT. Only trouble was, after packing fistfuls of dirt down the barrel a few times to make it smoke when you “fired” it—which naturally we all did—the big, realistic sound it originally produced was rendered kind of…umm, humble, shall we say. First thing we all did, right out of the box, was rip the silly orange tip on the muzzle of the weapon off and throw it away to facilitate said dirt-packing. Also because it just looked goofy.

It had a select-fire switch which didn’t function—it was full-auto only, which means it was no more a true assault rifle than are the semi-only AR15s the libs are all soaking their Underoos over today—and a charging handle which did. You racked the lever back, laid on the trigger, and the handle would tick along forward until it reached the stop and the “magazine” was “emptied.” I don’t recall ever counting individual shots to determine what the magazine capacity was (according to this ad, it was “over 50 rounds”). You easily could’ve, as the cycling rate was somewhat slower than a real-life Thompson M1A1*. It just never occurred to us to do it, that’s all.

The mechanism that made the sound also created a modest vibration along with it, thereby heightening the whole M16 experience to the delight of all. When the charging handle got all the way forward to the stop the shooting stopped too. Then you “reloaded” by racking back again and the fun started all over. You blasted away on full rock-and-roll until you finally ran out of rounds, resulting in your position being overrun by Victor Charlie or the NVA, the pus-nutted commie bastards. Then you’d be captured and hauled off to the Hanoi Hilton for years of torture both physical and mental, your very existence denied by the US government for ass-covering purposes. Eventually you’d break and sign a statement denouncing American imperialism, whereupon you would be released to “serve” the next 70 or 80 years as a duplicitous, arrogant, self-serving Republican US senator, perhaps. If you were lucky.

The only thing that might’ve made this thing more fun was if it had come with a detachable magazine, with a spare or two included. But we’d only have lost ’em pretty quickly, I guess, so maybe it’s just as well they didn’t.

A mere hundred and forty bucks on eBay, folks. Probably around ten brand new way back when, fifteen at most. Nowadays, you wouldn’t dare try to buy such a thing for your kid at all. If you expressed a desire to right out loud you’d be hustled off to a facility for some vigorous “counseling” regarding such egregious child abuse, your kids heavily sedated to restore their shattered psychological equilibrium before being packed off to foster care for good. You MONSTER.

This is what we call “progress,” see.

*Best subgun EVER, by the way. And yes, I have shot one, and know whereof I speak. Many times, thank you very much.

Share

Repeal the 2A? Why bother?

They already effectively did—by ignoring it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Lies, damned lies…

And damned liberals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that right there is what really drives them nuts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated updated! Turtles lies, all the way down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

THAT’S how you do it

What works. What doesn’t.

Texas allows school districts to approve “marshals” or “guardians” as the last line of defense against a shooter. Under this program, faculty members volunteer to keep a firearm within reach in case the unthinkable happens. They undergo mental health screenings and rigorous firearm safety training — in some cases they are held to a higher standard than police officers.

In an active shooter situation, law enforcement takes roughly three minutes to respond on a good day (through no fault of their own). It’s disturbing to consider the damage that can be inflicted in that amount of time. Only school marshals — who, contrary to the media portrayal, represent a select few trained and capable staff members — can deliver response times measured in seconds rather than minutes.

Coverage in the aftermath of Parkland has focused disproportionately on the AR-15. The gun has been established as a symbol of mass shootings, a device designed for wanton destruction. What use, we are repeatedly asked, could private citizens have for an AR-15? Texans like myself have been frustrated by this collective amnesia. On November 5, 2017, a private citizen heroically stopped the fleeing shooter of the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs using an AR-15.

The lesson is that guns are morally neutral. It is people who have the capacity to use them for good or evil. Those willing to kill the innocent in cold blood will hardly be hindered by a new gun regulation. They are, after all, willing to murder – it defies logic that they will respect a gun law. It stands to reason, therefore, that schools should be made a hard target, just like airports, stadiums and government buildings.

There have been no shootings, intentional or otherwise, at any participating districts in Texas. Teachers and students feel — and in fact are — safer coming into work.

A sign outside of Argyle High School, which has opted into the program, reads “Please be aware that the staff at Argyle are armed and may use whatever force is necessary to protect our students.” Is a would-be shooter more likely to target such a school or a “gun-free zone?” The answer is obvious.

Oh, considering that ALL these mass shootings happen in “gun-free zones,” I’d say it’s way on past merely obvious. But I can’t see any way that it helps to advance the Left’s agenda of total control and tyranny, so there’s no chance of their reacting to it with anything other than the usual sobbing, shrieking hysteria.

Update! Did somebody mention what DOESN’T work above? It’s actually not hard at all to deduce if one takes an honest look at the facts. Strangely enough, that’s another thing Progtards are ferociously against doing.

America does not have a gun crime epidemic. There are, however, epidemics in many locales and cities. Who do you think runs the vast majority of those cities?

NRA-funded Republicans?

No.

Lobbyists for firearm manufacturers?

No.

The vast majority of those cities have been run by Democrats for decades upon decades.

Here are the top 20 cities with the highest gun murder rates in the U.S. per capita. Of these, every city except the last one, Tulsa, has a Democrat majority in the mayoralty and City Council or Board of Aldermen.

Here are the non-fatal shootings top 20 per capita. Notice the overlap of several cities; the cities on the non-fatal list absent on the murder list are also Democrat-run cities, except for the last one, Jacksonville.

Exhausted yet? There’s more.

And hoo boy, is there ever. Rich ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie with this one, and you need to read all of it. The numbers permit only one conclusion: we need ourselves some reasonable, common-sense Democrat control legislation.

For the children. IF EVEN ONE LIFE IS SAVED…

Ahem.

Share

Get in their faces!

THAT’s how you do it.

Angered by word of the disciplining of two Lacey High School students for a gun-related social media post, 200 parents, community members and other supporters of the Second Amendment on Monday let the Board of Education know they don’t want the district trampling on their rights or meddling in their home lives.

“You guys are reaching into our private life, the private life of our children,” said one parent, Lewis Fiordimondo, who has twins in pre-kindergarten and a daughter at the high school. “It’s not your place. It’s not the school’s place.”

Another dad, Frank Horvath, whose son is a senior at Lacey High, put things in blunter terms.

“It’s none of your damn business what our children do outside of school,” Horvath told the seven board members toward the end of a four-hour meeting, most of it occupied by speaker after speaker venting anger and frustration at school officials largely unable to respond due to confidentiality rules.

The unusually large turnout for Monday night’s board meeting in the high school auditorium was prompted by a five-day in-school suspension of two senior boys after one of them posted a photo of themselves with guns at a local shooting range, away from school property and not during school hours.

Of course, according to the libtards running America’s schools, EVERYTHING is their damned business. To wit:

This after the language of a district policy in the student handbook was quietly amended last week following a local uproar in the Lacey community and the threat of a lawsuit by the Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs of New Jersey, whose lawyer, Daniel Schmutter, was at Monday’s board meeting.

Before the policy was changed, it had stated that, “any student who is reported to be in possession of a weapon of any type for any reason or purpose whether on or off school grounds,” would be subject to penalties including up to a one-year suspension.

Now, the policy omits any mention of possessing a weapon off school grounds or the length of a suspension. The revamped policy also adds a note about school buses.

Bold mine, and simply outrageous. But hey, the personal is political, and very much vice the versa. Right, Lefty?

I hate to say it; I hate to even think it, truly I do. But it looks more and more like it will come down to actual, for-real killing in order to get these tyrannical liberal-fascist busybodies off our backs and out of our lives. That’s assuming we ever do, or can, that is. What’s for sure and certain is that they’ll never go away, they’ll never give up, they’ll never rethink their presumed right to rule with an iron fist, and they’ll never admit to error in even the smallest degree.

That leaves us with Glenn’s recommendation: “Punch back twice as hard.” Heh. Indeed.

Share

“We are living in a cesspool entirely of the left’s making”

Said a mouthful there, bub.

Not surprisingly, mature, responsible gun-owners have declined the left’s invitation to be caricatured and smeared as the scapegoats for where liberalism has taken us as a culture. As serious people, they don’t have much capacity for irrational, emotionally unhinged accusers pointing their fingers at those who not only did not cultivate the environment that has bred mass shooters, but also do not provide such people from their own ranks. The phenomena of unhinged “mass shooters” and the predictably vulnerable environments where they carry out their evil are unique byproducts of liberalism and its failures.

Generally speaking, law-abiding gun-owners are of a different time and culture. They are anachronistic. To lawfully own a firearm is a commitment to timeless principles of maturity, personal responsibility, individual freedom, and civic awareness. It is a trust, a right possessed by free people who exercise their freedom carefully and mindfully. It is not a masculine exercise, as men and women exemplify these qualities equally in their lawful ownership of firearms. It is rather a uniquely American exercise, which is why the left fully loathes it. When liberal commentators spontaneously declare themselves gun-owners for effect, it is unlikely that they are telling the truth, because the philosophical underpinnings of American gun ownership are anathema to them. In everything else they do, they shun and disclaim the America of individualism, honor and integrity. They show no other willingness in their words or actions to reject their liberal brethren so totally as to own what their paganism declares an object possessed of evil powers.

As true Americans, law-abiding gun-owners reject the illogic, dishonesty, and corruption that animate every aspect of liberal politics and social structure. They loathe the culture that celebrates intolerance and bullying of opposing views, indeed which goes so far as to turn a blind eye to physical violence when it is carried out by leftist assailants against Americans to coerce conformity and acceptance of poisonous ideologies. They reject the culture that both creates victimhood and then encourages the rage it causes, so that those who see themselves as victims feel personally and socially justified in doing harm to people who have done them no harm whatsoever. Truth is irrelevant; liberals look outward. Their enemy is always to blame.

Another piece I could happily just repost entire, a truly brilliant, no-nonsense, well-crafted blast of truth and reality. Read it all? Hell no; go luxuriate in every powerful word.

Share

Truth hurts

Oh, this is just too, TOO rich.

Pointing out inaccuracies in your opponent’s arguments is a cynical ploy to stop discussion. Or so I gather from Adam Weinstein, who just published a Washington Post op-ed taking gun control critics to task for “gunsplaining”—Weinstein’s name for when one is “harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner” after one makes some incidental factual error about guns, such as calling AR-15s “high-powered” or confusing clips with magazines.

We ARE more credible than thou, you fucking douchebag. As I always say: the libtards’ argument isn’t really with us. It’s with reality. Kinda tough on them. I do not give a single, solitary, trifling damn. Not even one.

“Gunsplaining,” Weinstein declares, “is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it.”

When one side’s position is based entirely on ignorance, fear, dishonesty, and sinister ulterior motives regarding the subject at hand, what you’re having ain’t much of a discourse. And…”bad faith”? You SURE you want to go there, gun-grabber?

The rest of the article is a good enough rebuttal, and worth reading. But it’s at best unnecessary. At this point, I maintain that the only “discourse” we need to be having with the fascist, gun-grabber Left consists of this: NO. You ain’t getting them. Not now, not ever. You want a fight over it? You’ll get one, for sure and certain. In the meantime, go fuck yourselves.

Period fucking dot. Full stop, end of story.

Your move, assholes.

Share

‘Nuff said

All the gun-control “debate” you’ll ever need.


gun control 23.jpg

Covers it all pretty well, I think.

Update! Aw crap, the image is tiny, and I can’t remember where I first saw it. Let me see if I can dig up a larger version for y’all. It’s a good ‘un, I promise.

Updated update! Blast it, every damned one I’ve found so far is the same dang size, indecipherable for us old folks even with reading glasses. Here’s a link that will hopefully work for ya. I’ll get busy with P-shop later on and see if I can’t embiggen the thing, for the benefit of all.

Share

No

Just…NO. Not now, not ever.

Show of hands: Who thinks this stops, even slows down, once those mean old not-actually-assault weapons get banned? That liberals have taken a hard stand in favor of cowardice does not exactly fill one with confidence that once we give up our Second Amendment rights that we’ll be safer or freer.

Nor should it, seeing as how neither “safer” nor “freer” are goals for them. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The liberal elite is using its social and cultural ties to those at the helm of big companies to essentially blacklist the NRA, and thereby the tens of millions of Americans who support gun rights. But oppression is oppression whether it’s done by a government bureaucrat or a corporate one, and our principle of non-interference in business assumes business stays out of politics. But now National, Hertz, and others are cutting ties to the NRA, and liberals are advocating banks do the same. Their intent is clear – what they can’t do in politics they will simply do by not allowing the representatives of people whose politics they don’t like access to the infrastructure of society. And we’re not supposed to do anything about it because, you know, free enterprise and stuff.  You know, our principles.

No. They are exercising political power. We have our own political power, and we need to exercise it – ruthlessly.

He has several good ideas on how to go about that, none of which are all that likely to happen because the Republicans—and, sadly enough, Trump—are not NEARLY as solid on this as he thinks they are.

Which is not to say that at least SOME of them aren’t solid as a rock, mind:



That’s Georgia’s Lt Gov talking there; kudos, kudos, and more kudos to the man for his strong, unequivocal stand here. He’s clearly smart enough to know what dicking around with Lefty always buys those who succumb to the fatal temptation, and he ain’t having any. The alarming 2A turnaround signified by Trump’s declared intention to “ban” bump stocks is…well, baffling:

President Trump on Tuesday directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to craft new regulations to ban firearm modifiers including the “bump stock” used in the Las Vegas massacre, amid bipartisan calls to strengthen gun laws in the wake of recent shooting rampages.

During an event at the White House, the president announced he signed a memo ordering the regulations on “bump stocks” and told Sessions he wants new federal guidelines finalized “very soon.

I’d love to be able to convince myself that this is just another Trumpian rope-a-dope to gull the Left into another stinging defeat—Lord knows we’ve seen him do exactly that again and again, to our great delight—but I’m having trouble doing it this time. Maybe it will yet prove to be so, I dunno.

Be that as it may, I can’t see anything at all to be gained from such a maneuver on this issue anyway. Yes, bump stocks are useless toys, good for a few minutes’ amusement on the range and very little else, as anybody who ever used one knows. Getting rid of them wouldn’t deprive anybody of a whole lot; certainly, it won’t accomplish one damned thing when it comes to preventing mass shootings. A case can be made that they aren’t a hill worth dying on.

Nonetheless: we all already know that not one of the thousands of laws already on the books has ever prevented a mass murder. We know that one more law isn’t going to somehow magically do the trick. We know that almost all of what the Left screams about regarding guns in America is arrant bullshit—sinister fabrication when it isn’t ignorant tripe, stuff and nonsense when it isn’t outright deceitful. Their facts aren’t facts, their statistics are spurious, and their proposals will not accomplish what they claim are their goals…which aren’t their real goals anyway.

None of which even matters all that much anymore, because we also all know what the Left really wants. The few left among them who are well-meaning but hopelessly, stupidly wrong are rendered irrelevant by the vast majority who harbor nefarious designs on Constitutional liberty. From here on out they need to be slammed down immediately, as hard as possible, each and every time they propose ANY new “gun-control” measures. As Schlichter proposes, they need to be informed, beyond any possibility of doubt, that we will give them not one more inch. This far, no fucking farther.

The “debate” with them over our gun rights—false and fraudulent as it’s always been—is over, the negotiations finished, the case closed, the court out of session. If they find the result unsatisfactory, that’s just too goddamned bad. They’ve hoodwinked the RINOs enough times over the years with phony “compromises” in which they got everything they wanted while giving up nothing that they ought to be able to grasp right away what we mean when we say: NO COMPROMISE.

None. No means no. No compromise, no making nice, no playing footsie with double-dealing Leftists out to win it all by hook or by crook. No backing down. No give, no wiggle-room, no do-overs. No deal. LEFTY. GETS. NOTHING. Marta Hernandez, bless her stout gun-totin’ heart, says it well:

I’m done with leftist, gun grabbing trash that is incapable of conversation about policy without emotionalist histrionics, and whose first reaction to anyone who doesn’t toe the gun-grabber line is to insult their lineage and intelligence.

I’m done with ignorant statist Neanderthals who claim that you don’t need a gun because it won’t make a difference in a life-or-death situation, since after all Scot Peterson and his merry band of pusillanimous invertebrates had guns, and those guns didn’t help stop Nikolas Cruz, ignoring the fact that the bearer has to have the actual testicular fortitude to use said tools. I’m done with the hoplophobes sit on their high perch of cluelessness accusing those of us who disagree with them of disregarding the lives of children in favor of our so-called “toys” that don’t make a difference anyway.

They use traumatized children as tools to push their policies without regard for their lives or their safety, and then they have the raw nerve to accuse those of us trying to have an adult conversation about gun control of hating kids and not holding their lives dear.

So let me set things straight right here and right now.

I am the parent of two wonderful kids, both of whom are serving in this nation’s military. They both knew gun safety rules, and learned how to shoot by the time they were 8 years old. I certainly don’t need lectures from half-witted cock anvils who haven’t had the pleasure of raising responsible, intelligent children into independent, rational adults (mostly because they couldn’t get laid if they crawled up a chicken’s ass and waited) about how I should care for the lives of kids more than I do my guns.

I am a veteran, who has been deployed to a combat zone. I was never infantry, obviously, but I am skilled enough with firearms to have qualified with the M9, the M16A2, and the M4. I have also safely fired the SAW, the M2, and the M60 machine guns, as well as the M203 and the AT4. Most of us who have spent any time in the military have at some point, so I’m not anything special, but I’m pretty damn sure that I know more about firearms and their safe use than some screeching harpy, whose idea of serving its country is wearing a pussy hat on its pointy head and drinking box wine in solidarity with its wailing, shrieking, gibbering sister-shrews.

I’ve also fired Uzis, SKSs, AKs, M1 Garands, and simple shotguns safely and effectively as a civilian. An M1911 is my regular carry weapon, and believe me, I am willing to use it should my life or the lives of my loved ones be threatened by the violent goblins whom you strive to protect by disarming me and mine.

So let me set you straight on a few things, leftist gun-grabber trash.

Is my right to defend myself and stand up to tyranny more important than your invented “right” to “feel safe?” Damn straight it is!

She has plenty more—PLENTY—all of which you will very much enjoy reading. Her point is the only one we need to bother making from now on. It can be driven home with even more brevity, just as I did the other day. It is this: GO FUCK YOURSELVES.

You ain’t getting ’em. Period fucking dot.

Share

Dope, inside

More on the Broward Cowards. Much more…and worse.

I spent about 18 months in 2012, 2013 and 2014 investigating Broward and Miami-Dade school policies and how those policies transfer to law enforcement practices. My interest was initially accidental. I discovered an untold story of massive scale and consequence as a result of initial research into Trayvon Martin and his High School life.

What I stumbled upon was a Broward County law enforcement system in a state of conflict. The Broward County School Board and District Superintendent, entered into a political agreement with Broward County Law enforcement officials to stop arresting students for crimes. The motive was simple. The school system administrators wanted to “improve their statistics” and gain state and federal grant money for improvements therein. So police officials, the very highest officials of law enforcement (Sheriff and Police Chiefs), entered into a plan.

As soon as Miami-Dade began to receive the benefits (political and financial) from the scheme, Broward County joined on. The approach in Broward was identical as the approach in Miami-Dade. It’s important to remember, this was not an arbitrary change – this was a well-planned fundamental shift in the entire dynamic of how teenagers would be treated when they engaged in criminal conduct.

The primary problem was the policy conflicted with laws; and over time the policy began to create outcomes where illegal behavior by students was essentially unchecked by law enforcement. Initially the police were excusing misdemeanor behaviors. However, it didn’t take long until felonies, even violent felonies (armed robberies, assaults and worse) were being excused. The need to continue lowering the arrests year-over-year meant that increasingly more severe unlawful behavior had to be ignored. Over time even the most severe of unlawful conduct was being filtered by responding police.

We found out about it, when six cops blew the whistle on severe criminal conduct they were being instructed to hide. The sheriff and police Chiefs were telling street cops and school cops to ignore ever worsening criminal conduct. The police were in a bind.  They were encountering evidence of criminal conduct and yet they had to hide the conduct. There were examples of burglary and robbery where the police had to hide the recovered evidence in order to let the kids get away without reports.

The police would take the stolen merchandise and intentionally falsify police records to record stolen merchandise *as if* they just found it on the side of the road. They put drugs and stolen merchandise in bags, and sent it to storage rooms in the police department. Never assigning the recovery to criminal conduct. Stolen merchandise was just sitting in storage rooms gathering dust.

They couldn’t get the stuff back to the victim because that would mean the police would have to explain how they took custody of it. So they just hid it. To prove this was happening one of the officers told me where to look, and who the victim was.

At first I didn’t believe them. However, after getting information from detectives, cross referencing police reports, and looking at the “found merchandise”, I realized they were telling the truth. A massive internal investigation took place and the results were buried. Participating in the cover-up were people in the media who were connected to the entire political apparatus. The sheriff and police chief could always deny the violent acts (assaults, rapes, beatings etc.) were being ignored; that’s why the good guys in the police dept gave the evidence of the stolen merchandise. That physical evidence couldn’t be ignored and proved the scheme.

From 2012 though 2018 it only got worse. In Broward and Miami-Dade it is almost impossible for a student to get arrested. The staff within the upper levels of LEO keep track of arrests and when a certain number is reached all else is excused.

Well it didn’t take long for criminal gangs in Broward and Miami-Dade to realize the benefit of using students for their criminal activities. After all, the kids would be let go… so organized crime became easier to get away with if they enlisted high-school kids. As criminals became more adept at the timing within the offices of the officials, they timed their biggest crimes to happen after the monthly maximum arrest quota was made.

The most serious of armed robberies etc. were timed for later in the month or quarter. The really serious crimes were timed in the latter phases of the data collection periods. This way the student criminals were almost guaranteed to get away with it. Now. You can see how that entire process gets worse over time. Present corruption (the need to hide the policy) expands in direct relationship to the corruption before it.  This is where the School Police come into play.

Understanding the risk behind the scheme, it became increasingly important to put the best corrupt cops in the schools. *BEST* as in *SMARTEST*. Those SRO’s became the ones who were best at hiding the unlawful conduct. Again, over time, the most corrupt police officers within the system became the police inside the schools. These officers were those who are best skilled at identifying the political objectives and instructions.

Those “School Cops” also have special privileges.  It’s a great gig.  They get free “on campus” housing close to the schools they are assigned to etc.  They’re crooked as hell and the criminal kids how just how to play them. It’s a game. Also an open secret. A lot of it came out during an earlier *internal affairs* investigation. Unfortunately the behavior never changed because the politics never changed. It’s still going on. For years this has been happening and no-one cared. Crimes happen; students excused; victims ignored; etc. The Broward County School and Law Enforcement system is designed to flow exactly this way. It’s politics.

Only then a Parkland school shooting happened. For Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel this had to be an “oh shit” moment; but not for the reasons the media initially thought.

To adapt the old lady’s famous statement to fit this stinking, toxic shitpit of a scandal: it’s corruption all the way down. It’s also the reason we’ll never, ever give up our guns, no matter how fervently they shriek, wheedle, moan and try to deflect attention away from the real failure here.

During Wednesday’s horrible fiasco of a “Town Hall”, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel spelled it out:

What I’m asking the law makers to give police all over this country is more power.

I was sufficiently struck by the above to write it down – because it was clear even then that Sheriff Israel is an incompetent deployer of the power he already has. The scale of his department’s appalling failure in the Parkland massacre gets worse almost hourly. 

I said on Tucker’s show that the state had failed at every level – school district, county, federal. But Sheriff Israel’s performance is especially egregious. An honorable man would surely have tendered his resignation. On the other hand, sitting on stage, watching his voters jeer Dana Loesch and call her a “murderer”, the sleazy creep can be forgiven for concluding that with constituents this eager to be misdirected why not string along? Their fury should have been aimed at him – and he should have spent his hour on stage ducked behind a podium demonstrating the policy-compliant incident-long Broward County crouch.

I observed on TV that, given the situation with “refugees” in Germany and Scandinavia and so on, it was more likely that Europeans would rediscover their inclination toward self-defense than that Americans would surrender it. Any foreigners wanting to know why claims to leave it to an all-powerful state don’t resonate with half of America need look no further than Scott Israel.

Actually, it resonates with us quite powerfully—as an object lesson on the peril inextricably entwined with trading liberty for (false) security, as Progressivist would-be dictators demand.

Cry all you want, shitlibs. You aren’t getting them, not even one. That’s flat, and final. If you want them, you’re going to have to come and take them. Once more: we’re willing to die defending ourselves against you. Are you willing to die for your dreams of tyranny? Think hard—and then make your move, you whining, lying, gutless pussies. If you dare.

Our response to the phony, one-way “debate” over “gun control” has now been purified in the crucible of the Founders’ “long chain of abuses” to one very simple statement, a lone middle finger waved in defiance of the gun-grabbers: go fuck yourselves. There is nothing more that needs to be said.

Share

Should be seen and not heard

No, I do NOT mean only the proverbial “children” with that title. With Progressivists, there’s a whole host of things they’d just as soon we’d all pretend not to notice.

Unfortunately, Democrats and the media have the ability to focus national attention on whatever they desire because Republicans are pathetic and have no counter-narrative. They refuse to raise the issue of Democrats letting gun felons out of jail (and even agree with them on that), loosening sentencing, handcuffing the police, sanctuary cities, MS-13 gangs, and the drug crisis resulting from open borders. The criminal alien issue is 100 percent political and the result of bad public policy, not culture, because criminal aliens can and should be deported anyway. Yet Republicans agree with Democrats on the fundamentals of the issue and allow them to chain the national debate exclusively to school shootings and AR-15s.

Even as it relates to domestic crime, Republicans refuse to put Democrats on defense for the broader issue. Even with the devastation of school shootings over the past few years, the rash of blue city murders and handguns and knives are a much bigger issue than school shooters and semi-auto rifles on a national scale. Yes, it is a great national horror when we see 17 people killed in a school. But shouldn’t there at least be some focus when the same number of people are killed in a few days in places like Baltimore and Chicago – partly by draconian gun laws?

In reality, even with the rise in school shootings, 374 people were killed in 2016 by criminals wielding rifles, 116 of whom were killed in mass shooting events. Yet almost 11,000 others were killed in our streets by gun violence, mainly by handguns and most prominently in jurisdictions with tough gun laws. Moreover, five times as many people were killed by knives than by rifles in 2016. And while our political elites, the same folks peddling the gun control agenda, obsesses over every other measure of racial disparity, they don’t want to discuss the fact that 7,881 black people were victims of homicides in 2016. In other words, 1,305 more black people were killed than white people in 2016. That is simply an astounding statistic given that black people compose just 13 percent of the population. Some of this is due to culture, some of it is due to liberal crime laws, but none of it can be pinned on lack of background checks for purchasing guns. You need to go through a two-month licensing process just to own a gun in one’s home in Maryland, yet Baltimore is the king of homicide.

Focusing on AR-15s and school shootings is the equivalent of Democrats seeking to define the broader immigration/border issue by illegal immigrants who are valedictorians or serve in the military. Yet anyone with half a brain understands that the broader issue of immigration is a crisis of crime, gangs, poverty, welfare, and drugs that is killing Americans.

The same applies to the entire Democrat thesis on crime and guns. Leftists seek to destroy all tough-on-crime laws except for taking guns away from law-abiding individuals. They refuse to recognize the connection between the two – that the ubiquitous daily violence in blue cities is essentially the result of gun-free zone policies. Realize that 98.4 percent of all mass shootings since 1950 have taken place in gun-free zones.

Gee, how surprising. Must be a coincidence. Elsewhere, Schlichter offers a handy primer for refuting Lefty gun-grabber arguments, point by point. They’re all good, but the brass tacks are embedded in Number 6:

Our rights are not up for debate. But, as a courtesy, because talking is the way a free people should endeavor to solve problems, we should debate them anyway. Rational discussion beats the alternative – many of us are vets who saw the alternative overseas – even if the other side prefers emotional blackmail using articulate infants to bum rush their anti-civil rights policies. So, here are seven (it could have been 50) of the most annoying – and dishonest – arguments you will hear, and how you can fight them.

6. No One Wants To Take Your Guns!
This is another classic lie. In fact, that’s exactly what liberals want to do. How do we know? They tell us when they think we are not looking – and, with more frequency, when we are. It’s fun when they say they don’t want to take your guns, then say you have to give up your ARs. If your opponent is getting wistful about Australia’s gun confiscation, he wants to take your guns.

Let’s get serious. They all want to take your guns. Why? Two reasons. First, it takes power from the citizenry. Liberals love that. Second, gun rights are important to normal Americans because the fact we maintain arms means we are not mere subjects. We are citizens, with the power to defend our freedom. Liberals hate that we have that dignity; taking our guns would humiliate us, and show us who is boss. They want to disarms us not because of the gun crime – name a liberal who wants to really do something about Chicago as opposed to hassling law-abiding normals – but because they hate us and want to see us submit.

Annnnnd bingo. As Kurt says, he could just as easily have cited 50, but that one right there is where the rubber meets the road. It’s the one on which all the others rest, based as it is on 1) their unquenchable longing for totalitarian tyranny, and B), their ignorant hatred and terror of guns in any hands except the minions of their Almighty State. Which is almost astoundingly ironic, given this:

trump-hitler.jpg

Share

What works, what doesn’t

As I warned yesterday: shriek all you like, you libtards ain’t getting our guns. Not now, not ever. Even worse for you, your fantasy of disarming the American citizenry won’t accomplish your stated aim of “making us all safer” in the first damned place—quite the opposite, in fact. Here’s just one of the myriad lessons you’re too pigheaded to heed.

Gun rights advocates contend that the way to stop mass shootings is by ensuring that there are always well-armed citizens present who can neutralize the shooter. As NRA chairman Wayne Lapierre always says, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. A bedrock of the NRA’s philosophy is that criminals will always acquire guns illegally, and draconian gun laws only render law-abiding citizens defenseless.

Enter Israel: When the knife intifada erupted in September 2015, the Israeli government’s response was to ease the process for the civilian populace to obtain weapons. After a particularly bloody Jerusalem shooting attack that killed four, then-Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan drastically changed the gun laws in order to significantly raise the number of armed civilians on the streets. Instantly, graduates of Special Forces units and IDF officers with the rank of Lieutenant and above were permitted to purchase guns at their will, security guards were allowed to bring their guns home after work, and the minimum age for a license was reduced from 21 to 18.

Erdan explained that “civilians well trained in the use of weapons provide reinforcement in the struggle against terrorism”, while Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat called for every resident to carry a gun, and was even photographed traveling the city carrying a Glock 23.

In addition, the overwhelming majority of terror attacks in Israel are stopped by armed civilians, not law enforcement. For example, the terrorists in the 2016 Sarona market attack were stopped by armed passersby. A pistol-carrying tour guide put an end to the 2017 ramming attack in Arnona that left four soldiers dead.

Bold mine, natch—which underlines another home-truth disruption of liberal-fascist delusion, one reducible to a bumper-sticker slogan: cops ain’t bodyguards. Or try this: call for a cop, call for an ambulance, call for a pizza. See who gets there quickest. Want another? When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Beyond LaPierre’s succinct and undeniable line and the others I quoted above, we got a million of ’em, Lefties—every last one of them nothing but the plain and simple truth, boiled down to short phrases even you ought to be able to comprehend.

And yet. Meanwhile, back in the real world:

Gun control has been proven to be a dismal failure in Israel. The Israeli Arab communities are rife with illegal weapons, with some police estimates putting the number of unlicensed weapons in the Arab sector as high as 500,000. Think about that for a second: The most heavily guarded borders in the world and a highly professional Shin Bet are still not enough to prevent criminals from obtaining illegal firearms.

When terrorists attacked a school in Maalot in 1974, Israel did not declare every school a gun-free zone. It passed a law mandating armed security in schools, provided weapons training to teachers and today runs frequent active shooter drills. There have been only two school shootings since then, and both have ended with teachers killing the terrorists.

Which is EXACTLY what any sensible person would expect.

Best give it up, libtards, and with a quickness. You have neither logic, nor facts, nor history, nor integrity on your side. You’re liars, you’re treacherous, you’re snakes; after years and years of hearing you falsely deny any desire to eliminate the 2A, obscuring your real intentions with fork-tongued blather about “common sense gun control,” we know it now, and will never, ever trust you with anything at all. Certainly not with something as important as our unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

You aren’t getting our guns. Not now, not ever. Better back the fuck off before you get hurt.

(Via CDB)

Update! Not getting them. Period.

The Florida House blocked an attempt to take up a bill that would ban assault rifles. The vote came on the same day survivors of the Stoneman Douglas High shooting traveled to Tallahassee to plead with legislators for gun control reform.

As the post says, it wasn’t even close: 71-36, with 13 abstentions. Serious kudos to the Florida legislators for refusing to be stampeded.

(Via Aesop)

Share

Any time you’re ready, pissants

Feeling froggy yet, Lefty?

Liberals love to fantasize about confiscating every gun in America. It may be their most beautiful dream. Liberals get control of the Supreme Court and ignore the Second Amendment; Washington makes gun ownership illegal; almost all the guns come pouring in or are destroyed; a few hapless Jim Bobs who won’t get in line get shot up by the cops and then the government is free to do anything it wants and if people don’t like it, well, what are they going to do about it without guns?

Let me suggest a less happy, but probably more accurate version of how an attempt at gun confiscation would likely go. Liberals get control of the Supreme Court and ignore the Second Amendment followed by Washington making gun ownership illegal. So far, so good, right? Then the vast majority of police departments across the country refuse to do more than accept weapons that are turned in and, of course, very few citizens actually hand over their weapons. At this point, D.C. would have no choice other than to accept that gun confiscation is impossible, which would be the most likely outcome.

Oh, I don’t see things going THAT way at all. Yes, there are certainly a very large number of cops who will drag their feet in any way they can if ordered to implement such a tyrannous edict. There are plenty of others who will openly and straightforwardly refuse to cooperate at all, including some who have already sworn publicly to it; I know some of both stripes in my own neck of the woods personally, in fact. I know a good few cops, a handful of them for many years, but I couldn’t name a single one who anticipates such a development with anything but dread, horror, and revulsion.

But it must also be acknowledged that some of them will go along with it, and those who don’t will probably be looking for other employment shortly thereafter. And the idea that Lefty will ever accept that gun confiscation is impossible is, frankly, laughable. It ain’t. Gonna. Happen. If we should have learned anything at all about Progressivists by now, it is that they NEVER give up, they NEVER abandon their totalitarian ambitions, they NEVER stop digging into the foundation of American liberty in hopes of toppling it at last. Never. Any moves they make seeming to accept such a thing are nothing more nor less than deception, a hudna.

To get rid of guns on a scale widespread enough to matter in the United States, you’d need to go house to house and search because most people would claim their weapons were stolen or lost. Doing that with millions of up-to-that-point law-abiding citizens would be considered tyrannical and it would produce a violent backlash that hasn’t been seen in this country since the Civil War. If you want to turn ordinary American citizens into “freedom fighters” against an abusive government, try to take their guns and it will work about as well as anything else you can imagine.

I still say, as I have all along, that there is no other issue, no other Leftist transgression, that would be more likely to spark a revolt against them culminating in Civil War 2.0 than the 2A issue. I hasten to add that I don’t consider it all that likely, and I certainly don’t consider it desirable. But if Leftists continue to delude themselves about their ability to pull off gun confiscation without catastrophic consequences, for them and for all of us, that’s how it will happen.

Which brings us round to this old but evergreen blast from Charles Cooke—who, as completely misguided as he is about Trump, always was one of our best and brightest on 2A issues.

When the likes of Rob Delaney and Bill Maher and Keith Ellison say that we need to get rid of the Second Amendment, they are not speaking in a vacuum but reflecting the views of a small but vocal portion of the American population. And they mean it.

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

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

You’re going to need a plan. A state-by-state, county-by-county, street-by-street, door-to door plan. A detailed roadmap to abolition that involves the military and the police and a whole host of informants — and, probably, a hell of a lot of blood, too. Sure, the ACLU won’t like it, especially when you start going around poorer neighborhoods. Sure, there are probably between 20 and 30 million Americans who would rather fight a civil war than let you into their houses. Sure, there is no historical precedent in America for the mass confiscation of a commonly owned item — let alone one that was until recently constitutionally protected. Sure, it’s slightly odd that you think that we can’t deport 11 million people but we can search 123 million homes. But that’s just the price we have to pay. Times have changed. It has to be done: For the children; for America; for the future. Hey hey, ho ho, the Second Amendment has to go. Let’s do this thing.

When do you get started?

“When” indeed (via AP):



Why, in light of this, it almost seems as if the Democrat Socialists are playing this issue in the exact same fashion their Vichy GOPe/Uniparty junior partners did Obamacare: as one they can raise a great base-energizing hue and cry over (along with plenty of campaign contributions), but that they have no real intention of ever trying to actually do something about.

All of which brings us right round in turn to the greatest damned song ever written about all this:




Pay special attention to that first verse; it’s a killer, and really does say it all.

Update! Aesop takes a good, hard look:

The Second Amendment only constrains government (and we see how well that’s working, 30,000 deliberate infringements later) by design, from interfering in any wise with a natural law right to self-defense, and its means by the most practical current expedients. It’s an unalienable right. That means it’s irrevocable, untouchable, and baked into your DNA, in perpetuity. It predates the US Constitution by millenia, is wholly untouched and unconstrained by it, and entirely and permanently beyond the jurisdiction of such paltry authorities (by contrast) as the President, Congress, or the Supreme Court to touch, alter, grant, revoke, or deny.

Game. Set. Match.

You can repeal the entire US Constitution, beginning to end, and it still doesn’t mean I have to give up my guns. Not even any one of them.

But the attempt, let alone the actual accomplishment, to repeal the amendment would have a very beneficial effect: it identifies the would-be repealers as unmitigated tyrants, and leaves me a clear conscience henceforth when I undertake to send them to Hell, on a shutter.

Its accomplishment, should such somehow come to pass, immediately nullifies any notional claim to legitimacy on the part of the US government, rendering such claim not only spurious but, to wit, actionable. In fact, it’s not only rendered actionable, either; as flatly stated in the Declaration of Independence, action is demanded of any people presuming to call themselves free men under a just and legitimate government. The Founders, bless them, were quite specific and unequivocal about what action is demanded too, both in their deathless words and in their own ensuing deeds. They left exactly ZERO margin for error, anyplace you preening pinheads can bring yourselves to look.

I’m all in with Aesop: you liberal-fascist sons of bitches will never get mine, and I don’t give a good God damn how many fucking laws you pass. Period, full stop, end of story. At the end of the day, it comes down to this: the right safeguarded by the 2A is one I’m willing to die to retain. So tell me: are YOU dimestore dictators willing to die taking it from me? Because the moment you decide you are, come and take them, you slope-shouldered, diaper-dragging, snot-nosed little eunuchs.

Unless and until such time arrives, do us all a favor and shut your fucking yaps about it. Your empty sniveling may go over big with your base, but it’s a good bit less than impressive to the rest of us.

Your latest round of bug-eyed hysteria demanding we relinquish our unalienable rights—after YOUR precious Almighty State stumblebums failed utterly to put so much as a speed bump in the path of a damaged psychopath created by YOUR witless social engineering—has lifted the veil once and for all. We know who you really are. We know what you really want. You aren’t going to get it. Not without a fight you ain’t—a fight that’s going to leave you with way worse than just a few bumps and bruises. Count on it. Period fucking dot.

Aesop has plenty more, by the way, all of it every bit as bang-on good.

Share

Buy Remington!

Dismaying news.

Remington Outdoor, the second-largest U.S. gunmaker has suffered a “rapid” and “sharp” deterioration in sales and a similar drop in profits since January, and faces “continued softness in consumer demand for firearms,” credit analysts at Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings said in a report Friday.

Bill says:

The decline may be accounted for by a growing feeling among potential buyers that President Trump, unlike his predecessor, has no intention of trying to erase the Second Amendment and take their guns in the process.

From what I’ve read, gun sales are in fact down across the board since Trump took office, for most all manufacturers and types. Of course, that’s after years of record-shattering highs during the Obama regime, despite his professed deep and abiding affection for hunting and skeet shooting. Of course, shooters know a gun-grabber when they see one, and such phonus-balonus claims are always one of the telltales.

In any event, one truly hates to see Remington suffer, especially after this:

Remington announced a plan for a new state of the art plant in Huntsville, Alabama on February 17, 2014. Remington moved two production lines from the Ilion, New York as a result of the fallout from the New York Safe Act which restricted gun ownership. Huntsville is now building the AR-15/Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) from Bushmaster, DPMS and Remington Remington R-15 and 1911 style R-1 pistols in the new AL plant which is an $87 million boon for Alabama’s economy. The new plant consolidates Remington’s production to promote efficiency and lower production costs. Experts in the gun industry believe that it is only a matter of time before Remington completely abandons its New York roots for states that are more gun friendly and pro business.

As Bill says, they did the right thing when it counted, as did Taurus back when Bill Clinton sent Albert “Second Shakra” AlGore to threaten them with undefined repercussions unless they started including free trigger locks with every product sold. Taurus, you may recollect, told Gore to get bent in no uncertain terms by including a free year’s NRA membership instead.

I always had a soft spot in my heart for ’em after that. In fact, one of the best guns I ever did own was a Taurus PT92, which I had for a decade or so and put literally thousands of rounds through without a single burp or hitch. I still have an affection for their Millennium .45, which is somewhat dampened by a rumor that their quality control has taken a severe nosedive of late for some reason.

At any rate, if you’re in the market for a boomstick this Christmas, please do consider Remington. They have a long history of making quality hunting and sporting arms behind ’em, and are deserving of our support. It’d be a damnable shame to see them lost as an unintended consequence of not having a gun-grabbing liar infesting the White House anymore.

Share

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

UNPOSSIBLE!

Yet another example of something the gun-grabbing, lying Left asserts never happens.

Today’s mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, was only halted after an armed Texan “engaged” the killer and put an end to the rampage, the Texas Rangers reported.

Freeman Martin, a major in the Texas Rangers and a spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, says the suspect dropped his rifle and fled after being confronted by a local man who had grabbed his rifle.

I was out of town yesterday and today for a show, and didn’t know anything about this story until I got home earlier. As such, I don’t know if the liberal media has been trying their usual subterfuge and portraying this killer as a RightWingFascistNaziExtremist™ or not, but I naturally assume that they have—and that they’ll drop this one like a hot rock as soon as his Democrat-Socialist campaign contributions, fondness for Bernie!™, and photos of him at an anti-Trump or BLM rally wearing a Pussy Hat surface. Y’know, of course, and as usual.

For now, it’ll suffice as a reminder that the only way—the ONLY way—these crazed mass killers are ever stopped is when a good guy shows up with a gun. The longer that takes, the more people die. Each and every single time.

From our cold, dead hands, Libtards.

(Via Insty)

Update! Drip, drip, drip.

UPDATE:  There are several reports circulating on Twitter, based on purported screenshots of Kelley’s FB page, to the effect that he was a member of the Bernie Sander’s support group Together We Rise.  There are also rumors that he was an Antifa member/supporter.  Also, that he was interrupted and possibly even killed by an armed citizen with a rifle.

This would, if true, obviously be a nightmare for the alt-left in America.  But none of it has been confirmed, as of yet.

Nah, no nightmare. They’ll just ignore it, and get real busy pretending none of it ever happened.

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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

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

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

All original content © Mike Hendrix