Alison Aires, thanks for sharing

Featured

I have pinned this post to the top of my blog. It is to remind people of what many of our opponents want. Alison Aires wants a tyrannical government. They want summary execution for private possession of firearms.

This is why we have a Bill of Rights. This is why I created Boomershoot.

Continue reading

Quote of the day—Steven B. Gerrard

A semester’s worth of readings, from John Stuart Mill to selected Facebook posts, as well as speakers representing a multitude of perspectives, and serious and civil class discussion. My students came to see that free speech protects everyone, especially the oppressed, and includes those who share their leftist views.

So it was with all this in mind that I went into a faculty meeting to present the free-expression “pledge” with the idea that we would have a productive discussion. Then reality hit.

As I stepped up to the lectern in one of the college’s elegant Federal-style halls, students marched into the room, bearing a letter naming me an “Enemy of the People.”

In the spirit of liberal openness, I read their letter aloud. This is what it said: “‘Free Speech,’ as a term, has been co-opted by right-wing and liberal parties as a discursive cover for racism, xenophobia, sexism, anti-semitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and classism.” The letter reserved special scorn for liberalism: “Liberal ideology asserts that morality is logical — that dehumanizing ideas can be fixed with logic and therefore need to be debated.” But, it added, “dehumanization cannot be discussed away.”

Steven B. Gerrard
September 9, 2019
The Rise of the Comfort College: At American universities, personal grievances are what everyone’s talking about.
[Via email from Chet.

There is more good stuff in the opinion piece. I especially “liked” (emphasis added):

In response, students sent a letter to the trustees declaring that “We hold the truth of discursive and institutional violence to be self-evident.”

Self-evident. Refusing to consider evidence goes against the tenor of all three previous colleges. (Even the Christian college studied arguments for the existence of God.) We might at first dismiss this as (literal) sophomoric bravado. However, in a meeting for faculty of color called by the dean of the faculty, one professor asked for evidence of “violent practices.” Another professor responded that “to ask for evidence of violent practices is itself a violent practice.

This reminds me of something Ann Landers once said. These people must be confronted. They are crazy. Allowing this to stand is to invite the destruction of rational thought and civilization.—Joe]

Threepers in the news

After Mike Vanderboegh died discussion of Threepers pretty much disappeared off my radar until yesterday when there was an article in the Seattle times:

The talk at the Yelm Prairie Christian Center was of frustration and anger — and of what to do about Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

So intense is the distress over new firearms regulations in the state and Ferguson’s support of them that a group of 35 or so came together to discuss what many saw as a constructive next step: Go to court to file citizen complaints against Ferguson or maybe even attempt a citizen’s arrest of him.

Many wore insignia of the Washington Three Percenters — a group whose website says its goal is to “utilize the fail safes put in place by our founders to reign (SIC) in an overreaching government and push back against tyranny.”

I had my say about Threepers a little over 10 years ago and rereading it, and my comments to the post, I don’t see there is anything I would change with the most recent attention from the Times. I would, however, add that I see a citizen’s arrest of Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson as counterproductive.

Quote of the day—Aishu Sritharan

The only way to meet the challenge of gun control is to meet it with the boldest possible proposal that will save the most lives and that will tell the opposition that we are not backing down on this issue.

Aishu Sritharan
October 19, 2019
Democratic Debates, the Media, and Gun Control: Why the Needle Isn’t Moving on a Critical Issue
[This seems to be a very naïve viewpoint. Let me suggest a proposal along those lines and see if it works:

No more infringement of our specific enumerated rights! Abolish all gun control laws. Government subsidies for people who can’t afford a gun!

Prosecute those who conspire to infringe upon our rights.*

There. So, what do you think Aishu? Will that help move the needle on this critical issue? Enjoy your trial.—Joe]


* Added at the suggestion of Tirno.

Quote of the day—Roberta X

You are surrounded by dangerous primates, the single most deadly species on the planet, proven killers; and you’re safe because for nearly all of them, harming you is simply too much bother.  You’re in far more danger, orders of magnitude more danger, from the things they do carelessly than any deliberate act.

Roberta X
September 27, 2019
Most People Are Basicially Lazy, Which Is Why They’re Good
[There’s more than a little truth to this. But I’m a little bit more optimist than what is could be concluded from the truth of Roberta’s insight.

People help other people even with no expectation of the favor being returned or compensation. There is something either in the gene’s or in the socialization, perhaps both, that makes most people feel good about helping others rather than just grabbing their stuff and continuing on when someone else is down.

Perhaps I’m more of an optimist than I should be but it’s hard to know for certain.—Joe]

Rebellion is about winning hearts and minds

Sean points out the failure of the Extinction Rebellion to convince people of the righteousness of their cause by disrupting their lives. Mob action is a form of direct democracy. Democracy has its dark side.

It’s easy to demonstrate Extinction Rebellion claims are almost for certain in error. But even being 100% correct in your facts, logic, and principles doesn’t guarantee success. If your position is only shared by one out of every 10,000 people your position isn’t getting adopted.

Get more people on your side. Take a new shooter to the range. Invite them to Boomershoot as a spectator. Encourage people to take a firearms class with a focus on personal protection.

Win the civil war without mob violence or firing a shot in anger.

Quote of the day—muricatoday.com

Look, this is really simple.

All you have to do is comply and you won’t get hurt by cops. When they tell you to get down, you get down. When they tell you to turn in your guns, you turn in your guns. When they tell you to get in the boxcar, you get in the fucking boxcar. Why in the hell is this so difficult to understand people?

Tusky_Share_Media_20191014_072259

muricatoday.com
Via Rabbit Chasing @Chasing_Rabbits on September 22, 2019.
[muricatoday.com has been down when I have tried to visit. Perhaps your luck will be better than mine.

Beto doesn’t expressly say this but it’s implied. And if he doesn’t actually think things through far enough to arrive at this conclusion there are lots of other Democrats who have and wish he wouldn’t have “spilled the beans”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Carl Bussjaeger

I would like Swalwell, Biden, O’Rourke, and Harris to note that what US gun owners consider play time is what a major news outlet can mistake for a major military offensive by the Forces of a NATO nation. Tell us again how resisting a tyrannical government is futile.

Carl Bussjaeger
October 14, 2019
Overwhelming Military Force
[This was in regards to what I posted about yesterday: Layers of fact checkers.—Joe]

USPSA shooting on a Segway

I shot in a USPSA match yesterday and one of the guys in my squad, Loke, brought his Segway. He mostly used it to move from stage to stage. But on one stage, after shooting the stage for real, he shot it while riding the Segway. I have my own video but this is better and is already posted on YouTube with this comment by the shooter:

After owning and using a Segway Ninebot for a few months, I got to shoot one of the stages for fun on it. It was a blast. You can see me wanting to go faster but the Segway’s acceleration is pathetic. I’m sure it’s for safety reasons, so I’m ok with that.

Another shooter also had her Segway and was pulling her wagon loaded with her shooting supplies while riding it. It worked surprisingly well even when traversing uneven ground.

Layers of fact checkers

When you catch them in lies (or even errors) this big the correct conclusion to draw is that nothing they say can be trusted:

ABC News ‘slaughter in Syria’ footage appears to come from a Kentucky gun range

ABC aired supposedly shocking footage Monday and Sunday purporting to be from the frontline battle between the Syrian Kurds and the invading Turks. The only problem is: The footage appears to come from a nighttime machine gun demonstration at the Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky.

As J.D. Rucker said:

If @ABC News made a mistake, then their incompetence is startling. If they did it on purpose (and with the edits to the video, that seems to be the case), then they’re an outright evil group of bald-faced liars pretending to report the news.

This reminds me of what WSBTV did with a video of daughter Kim shooting a Boomershoot fireball target a number of years back.

Quote of the day—Shannon Watts @shannonrwatts

“Come and take it” is also a death threat. Given our gun violence crisis, law enforcement must stop giving pundits and politicians who say these things a pass.

Shannon Watts @shannonrwatts
ShannonWatts
Tweeted on October 11, 2019
[Watts doesn’t just want to ban guns. She is also opposed to freedom of speech.

No one should give her a pass on this. I hope she enjoys her trial.—Joe]

No bias here

From CNN (of course):

Gordon Sondland, is expected to tell Congress this week that President Donald Trump relayed to him directly in a phone call the content of a text message that Sondland sent denying quid pro quo, The Washington Post reported Saturday, citing a person familiar with his testimony.

Sondland’s text message was sent to the top US diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, who raised concerns in a text to Sondland about the US withholding nearly $400 million of US military and security aid. This text message exchange has become a major focal point of the impeachment inquiry into the President.

Sondland is expected to testify to Congress that he has no knowledge of whether Trump was telling him the truth at the time, the Post reports. “It’s only true that the President said it, not that it was the truth,” the person familiar with Sondland’s planned testimony, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive diplomatic matters, told the Post.

So… The President of Ukraine says there was no quid pro quo. Sondland is quoted as saying there was no quid pro quo. CNN then tries to keep their impeachment hopes alive by claiming some unnamed source with, “It’s only true that the President said it, not that it was the truth.” Yeah. That really gives them a strong case.

I rolled my eyes at that and was about to stop reading when this caught my eye (emphasis added):

He also exchanged messages about whether foreign aid was being withheld while Trump and Giuliani pushed for Ukraine to open an investigation into business activity by the son of one of the President’s 2020 Democratic rivals, former Vice President Joe Biden.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens.

Oh, really!

No bias here.

Quote of the day—Melanie Phillips

What are witnessing is not the imminent extinction of the planet. It is the extinction of reason.

Melanie Phillips
September 20, 2019
The extinction of reason
[Reason is but a thin veneer over the emotional mind. It takes very little to pierce that veneer. The persistence of superstition, Marxism, and hundreds of other things both large and small is proof of it.

Stand up to those who advocate for the extinction of reason or prepare for the endarkenment.—Joe]

AR-15 lowers are not firearms

The anti-gun people are running up against the definition problems of an “assault weapon” at a more fundamental level.

Very, very interesting. The courts are reluctantly being our friends (emphasis added):

Nicolaysen argued that the definition of a receiver under the relevant federal code differed in various ways from the AR-15 component Roh was accused of manufacturing.

Under the US Code of Federal Regulations, a firearm frame or receiver is defined as: “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”

The lower receiver in Roh’s case does not have a bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to receive the barrel, Nicolaysen noted.

He called the decision to classify it as a firearm nonetheless, the result of “secret, in-house decision-making.”

Nicolaysen accused the ATF of abusing its authority by pursuing Roh based on his alleged violation of a policy “that masquerades as law.”

He asked the judge to consider recommending that then-US Attorney General Jeff Sessions conduct a review to determine whether there were any similar cases pending around the country or past convictions “sustained on the basis of ATF policy, rather than law.”

Prosecutors acknowledged there were technical differences between the regulation and the lower receiver in Roh’s case, but said the ATF’s interpretation of the regulation was consistent with the intent of federal gun laws. The agency’s reading of the law “should also receive deference from this court,” prosecutors Shawn J. Nelson and Benjamin D. Lichtman argued.

Adopting the defense position, the prosecutors wrote, would be “manifestly incompatible” with the intent of the federal Gun Control Act and would “severely frustrate” enforcement of the law.

The prosecutors’ filing said a ruling in favor of the defense could impact the receivers for up to 90% of the firearms in America.

“The necessary result of this would be that the unregulated parts could be manufactured, sold, and combined with other commercially available parts to create completed, un-serialized firearms which would not be subject to background checks, and which would be untraceable,” the prosecutors wrote. “Defendant’s interpretation would mean that nearly every semi-automatic firearm could be purchased piece by piece with no regulation or background check before a prohibited person would have a firearm.”

Though the trial lasted less than a week, Selna deliberated for more than year. In April, he issued a tentative order in which he determined that the ATF had improperly classified the AR-15 lower receivers in Roh’s case as firearms.

He rejected the prosecution’s argument that the ATF’s interpretation of the regulation describing a receiver could reasonably be applied to the device at issue in Roh’s case.

“There is a disconnect,” the judge wrote.

Selna added that the combination of the federal law and regulation governing the manufacturing of receivers is “unconstitutionally vague” as applied in the case against Roh.

“No reasonable person would understand that a part constitutes a receiver where it lacks the components specified in the regulation,” Selna wrote.

Therefore, the judge determined, “Roh did not violate the law by manufacturing receivers.”

This may mean is that we may be able to legally get away purchasing AR-15 lower receivers and perhaps many semi-auto firearm frames without 4473s, background checks, and licensing.

If we can get this firmed up a little bit before congress can act there could be a huge flurry of gun sales that will give the anti-gunners difficulties for years. All those guns they thought they had registered and restricted can be made to legally disappear:

  • “You want that registered firearm I had a year or two ago? Yeah, I remember. I broke it up into parts and sold via the bulletin board at the gun range in the next state over.”
  • “Nope. I didn’t buy a gun over the Internet from the other coast. I just bought a few parts.over the course of a couple days.”

Another brick in the wall.

Interesting times

Judicial Watch Files Two New Lawsuits on Biden Scandal:

Our government doesn’t assume that every business investment opportunity is good for our country, and so there are checks in place, including something called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS is commissioned to review “transactions involving foreign investment in the U.S. to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.”

What does CFIUS know about Hunter Biden’s questionable overseas ventures? The agency is playing its cards close to the vest. So we are suing the State and Treasury Departments for information on CFIUS’ handling of investments in the U.S. by two companies tied to Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. The companies are Ukraine’s Burisma Holdings and China’s Bohai Harvest RST (BHR).

We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the departments failed to respond to June 24, 2019, FOIA requests for CFIUS records related to investments by the Ukrainian company Burisma Holdings LTD or any of its affiliated entities and records related to investments by the Chinese company Bohai Harvest RST or any of its affiliated entities (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:19-cv-02960)), (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (No. 1:19-cv-02961).

Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, is reported to be one of nine directors of BHR Partners, which was registered 12 days after the vice president’s son, in December 2013, flew to Beijing aboard Air Force Two, while his father made an official visit as vice president. Hunter Biden, then-chairman of the private equity firm Rosemont Seneca, reportedly signed a deal with the Chinese government-owned Bank of China to set up the BHR $1 billion joint venture investment fund.

From the same update:

Here’s an update on the Clinton email deposition.

A federal court will soon rule on whether Hillary Clinton and her top aide can be questioned under oath by our lawyers about her email and Benghazi controversies. The court has already granted us additional discovery and is now considering Clinton’s objections, filed on September 23, to being questioned. We filed our response to Clinton on October 3 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)).

The court previously ordered discovery into three specific areas: whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to our request. The court specifically ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers and Clinton aides to be deposed or answer written questions under oath. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

On August 22, 2019, the court then ruled that Clinton and Mills had 30 days to oppose being questioned in person under oath by us related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Additionally, we were granted seven new depositions, three interrogatories and four document requests.  In granting the additional discovery, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth commented: “I’ll tell you everything they’ve discovered in this period raises serious questions about what the hell the State Department’s doing here.”

One has to wonder if the the reason the Democrats have gone so completely bonkers is because they know there is a noose tightening around their necks.

We live in interesting times.

Quote of the day—Alan M. Gottlieb

This is a case that literally begs for Supreme Court attention. When the Court ruled in the 2008 Heller case that the Second Amendment protected a fundamental right, it was clear that this right belongs to everyone, not just the residents of an individual state. The Seventh Circuit held in Moore v. Madigan that the carrying of firearms in public for self-defense is a fundamental right, but under existing Illinois restrictions, that right has been limited to Illinois residents and citizens from only four other states.

All the plaintiffs in this case are asking for is to be treated equally to Illinois residents. They’re not asking for special treatment. They will take the training required by state law and abide by all the other rules.

Alan M. Gottlieb
October 11, 2019
SAF SEEKS SCOTUS REVIEW OF IMPORTANT ILLINOIS CARRY CASE
[From a constitutional point of view one has to ask, “What other specific enumerated right requires you to get a background check and undergo training before you can exercise it?”

But, as a practical matter, what is more important at this point is to get the existing oppressive laws struck down. This is how we went from concealed carry only allowed in a few states in the 1980s to now with some form of concealed carry in essentially all states and constitutional carry in 15 states. In the mid 1990s I was skeptical. How, I wondered, would we get from licensed carry to “Vermont Carry” as it was called then? Well, no we know how it is done. Incremental legislative and judicial action.

By taking relatively small easy steps (see also New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York) to SCOTUS we are building a judicial wall that makes it easier and easier to win the next prize ahead of us.

Had we gone with “Shall. Not. Be. Infringed!” and stuck with that in the 1980s today I believe things would be much different now. I suspect we would be grumbling about needing to apply for a permit to purchase and background checks to acquire one Airsoft gun a month. And a few people, near end of life, futilely telling their grandkids about a few real guns buried underground or in caves.—Joe]

Quote of the day—ernest ortega @designbypipe

DEAR GOVERNMENT,

After a 47 year ‘war on drugs’ you can’t keep drugs off the streets, you can’t keep drugs out of elementary schools, you can’t even keep drugs out of federal prisons.

Yet, you want me to disarm myself and trust that you can keep guns from criminals?

DearGovernment

ernest ortega @designbypipe
Tweeted on September 13, 2019
[It’s possible someone else came up with this but the only time I have seen it was when ortega posted it.

Excellent point.

The government also hasn’t been able to keep guns out of prisons.

But a more important point is that politicians who desire to disarm us know all this and don’t care. Disarming criminals isn’t their primary goal. They want ordinary citizens disarmed. They intend to change the relationship from citizen and public servant into subject and ruler.—Joe]

Asking a foreign power for political help

I’m not sure what the legalities are of asking a foreign power to help bring down your political opponents. But we know such activities aren’t limited to just one political party. In addition to the Steel dossier there is this:

I’m not sure I see a reason why having a foreign nation supply legally obtained truthful information on political opponents should be illegal, immoral, or problematic. I have a big problem with people and/or organizations being hypocritical about it.