It is awesome!
A self-centered political philosophy.
“This thing scares me, so ban it” (guns)
“This thing is difficult for me to get, so provide it.” (Healthcare)
“I want to break this law, so don’t enforce it” (drugs)
Ultra progressives seem to want both more laws (e.g., gun control) but also less punishment for breaking laws (e.g., criminal justice reform).
How can we interpret this seeming contradiction?
It appears to be a very strong hypothesis.—Joe]
I like Paul Lee Teeks’ version:
When the most productive thing you can contribute to a public discussion are insults you can always count on anti-gun people to deliver.
Propaganda that knows what strings of human nature to play is a powerful weapon. In fact, propaganda is more dangerous than the atomic bomb. Because it is propaganda that sooner or later will justify its use.
A Russian journalist asked his former classmates about the Ukraine war. The answers were disturbing.
[Propaganda of the anti-gun people is of this type.
Of course, if you look at the fundraising propaganda of any successful political organization it will play on the “strings of human nature”. Use cold reason and be especially wary of crowds cheering a charismatic leader.—Joe]
While our constitutional republic is meant to give the people the ultimate power over our government, the Bill of Rights specifically serves to constrain the will of the majority when it comes to individual rights. The idea was that some things are off-limits, even if 51% of the population would vote to restrict them. Pure, absolute democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority. At different points in our history, things such as slavery, segregation, denying women the vote, speech bans, and more would have garnered majority support among voters. That’s why we added amendments to take these egregious injustices off the table.
In the same way, the right to defend your life is an inherent human right, one that the Second Amendment simply recognizes. And the very point of the Bill of Rights is that such rights aren’t supposed to be up for debate at the federal or local level.
Democrats should realize that it’s not an argument against the court’s ruling to point out that a majority of New Yorkers support restricting this right — it’s a reminder as to why the court’s decision is so desperately needed.
June 24, 2022
What Democrats get wrong about Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decision
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
The Medal of Freedom is going to an anti-freedom activist:
President Biden announced he will award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to 17 individuals including ex-lawmaker and gun control activist Gabby Giffords…https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jul/1/biden-medal-freedom-giffords-trump-critic-khan/
She, and Biden, should be prosecuted.
This is incredibly good news. The importance of Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in the New York right-to-carry case may not be fully understood until all of these other cases have gone through lower court review. What we’re seeing today could be the beginning of court actions that eventually fully restore rights protected by the Second Amendment.
Our attorneys are already reviewing earlier cases to determine which ones can be re-filed for further action based on the high court ruling in Bruen and we are confident other cases now remanded back for further review will also fare better in the lower courts.
It is also important that the high court granted all writs of certiorari in these Second Amendment cases as they were being remanded back for further review. That tells me we have a Supreme Court willing to rein in lower court activism and limit how far they will allow local and state governments to reach when it comes to placing burdens on the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally-enumerate right to keep and bear arms.
Executive Vice President
Second Amendment Foundation
SAF HAILS SUPREME COURT FOR SENDING BACK GUN CASES FOR FURTHER REVIEW
[See also SUPREME COURT REVERSES LOWER COURT RULINGS ON MAG BAN, “ASSAULT WEAPONS” BAN, CARRY BAN
The lower courts will, of course, drag their feet. My guess is that it will be months, at best, before we see real change in things like “assault weapon” bans and restrictions, and magazine bans.
But this does make for a very happy 4th of July.
And be sure to make your lists and document all the anti-gun politicians infringements of our rights. A right delayed is a right denied. Perhaps sometime in 2025 we will have a glimmer of hope that these criminals will be prosecuted.—Joe]
I was in Idaho yesterday. Among other things I was getting the Boomershoot weather station and webcam back online. A bunch of weeds had grown up high enough that the solar panels were severely shaded and the batteries had discharged to the point that everything shutdown.
Despite the “bird repellent” wires, birds had used the rain gauge as a toilet:
Everything is now fixed.
It was nearing sundown as I was leaving and I noticed an unusual cloud formation:
The sky picture goes with the earth pictures I took not too far away earlier in the day:
This was formed where there was standing water on clay which dried up.
When my brothers and I were growing up we would sometimes marvel at a similar formation a short distance from the house. There was the added thrill of seeing sparkles in the “mud chips”. We wondered if it was gold or silver. It was probably just fine sand, but still we found the formations fascinating.
If the Left got the “bodily autonomy” they claim to want, there wouldn’t be much of their State remaining.
So, you really want bodily autonomy do you, including autonomy in time, resources, property, wealth, speech and health, do you?
Naw, thought not.
Alice Smith @TheAliceSmith
Tweeted on June 26, 2022
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Anne: Do you have numbers to show that it’s the concealed carry permit holders that are committing crimes?
Hochul: I don’t need to have numbers. I don’t need to have a data point to say this. I know that I have a responsibility for this state to have sensible gun safety laws. pic.twitter.com/NiCp7POO88
— Anne McCloy (@AnneMcCloyNews) June 29, 2022
She probably feels this way because she doesn’t trust numbers to give her the correct answer.
Politicians should be limited to two terms: 1 in office and 1 in prison.
Kevin Sorbo @ksorbs
Tweeted on June 20, 2022
[This merits serious consideration. In a few rare cases, after completing their term in office, the death penalty is probably too harsh.—Joe]
A historic economic nightmare is here, and the guy in the White House is all out of answers.
So buckle up and try to enjoy the ride.
The months ahead are going to be quite chaotic, and you probably don’t even want to think about what is coming after that.
June 2, 2022
Americans Will Never Forget The Historic Economic Collapse During Joe Biden’s Presidency
[I want an underground bunker in Idaho.—Joe]
Why we must nationalize Big Oil
… the government should nationalize Big Oil. That would allow the government to manage the industry’s drawdown, a process the private sector is ignoring.
“We will likely need to take over and decommission the large fossil fuel extraction corporations that are both one of the leading causes of climate change and one of the primary institutional impediments to addressing,” Hanna concludes.
The federal government typically nationalizes companies to save them. In this case, it must nationalize Big Oil to save us all from a future we don’t want.
“Drawdown” is this character’s euphemism for controlled destruction.
They are referring to the manufacturer of a product that provides the energy to produce and transport food to billions of people who would otherwise die. This product is the basis of the worlds greatest triumphs over poverty, hunger, shelter, transportation, and pestilence. And these people want to deliberately destroy access to it.
To the best of my knowledge nothing of this sort has ever before been advocated, not even by the most evil communist regimes the planet has ever seen. This would be the deliberate murder of the vast majority of the world population.
Yes, people have been saying the deliberate and violent extinction of humans is what the environmental fascists “really want”. But prior to this the worst I have actually seen is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
Do you want to know what type of gun used to be advertised for riots?
Skip the riot shotguns. Go straight to the real thing.
Read the fine print:
I expect that even with moderate application of the belt fed 30.06 there would be very few repeat offenders.
Originally tweeted by Sal the Agorist @SallyMayweather
Referred to me via a tweet from Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras.
She does awesome memes. Over the years I am certain I have posted dozens, if not a hundred or more, of them here.
Establish a regulatory environment in which every individual adult in the United States who is not prohibited from exercising rights under an analysis consistent with the Constitution’s text, informed by American history and tradition, can:
Acquire and possess (“keep”) all bearable arms in “common use for lawful purposes”:
including but not limited to semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns regulated as “assault weapons”;
firearm magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds; blades; and, other defensive arms.
Carry (“bear”) loaded, operable arms on their person and in their vehicles, in public, for self-defense and all lawful purposes;
Personally build (self-manufacture) arms, including by and through the acquisition and possession of the tools, information/files, and materials/supplies to do so; and,
Protect the resources, markets, and conduct essential to the above.
Expand young peoples’ understanding and adoption of the philosophy of natural rights and private property, and the adoption and lawful use of the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of speech, and other essential liberties to maximize preservation and expansion of freedom in future generations.
Establish clear protections against prohibition and/or seizure of personal property, as well as unjust incarceration for the exercise of fundamental rights.
Opportunistically leverage changing cultural, political, and legal environments to achieve tactical victories and divert enemy resources (i.e., funding and personnel) away from strategically critical areas to reduce enemy effectiveness.
Upon achieving all of the above, establish a new vision and strategic objectives consistent with the Organization’s Purpose and expanded field of operation.
I support this. I like the way the content is expressed.
And from the Firearms Policy Coalition
OUR CURRENT AREAS OF OPERATION
CULTURE: Using the FPC Team of advocates:
- Grow and support a nation-wide network of informed, vocal individuals who actively promote the philosophy of natural rights and work to eliminate laws and policies that limit or otherwise conflict with liberty;
- Support policy changes consistent with the [FPC] Purpose and Mission;
- Encourage the People to draw a hard line and reject government expansion and interference with the People’s rights and liberty (i.e., “Fuck you. No.”).
I follow them on Twitter and I really like their constant engagement and feisty attitude.
Each month I donate, matched dollar for dollar by my employer, to the foundation
When I read something like this I am inclined to dismiss everything they say because of the exaggeration (emphasis added):
In overruling Roe v. Wade, and with it nearly 50 years of American law, and expanding the reach of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, which is a jurisprudential innovation of more recent vintage, the Supreme Court wants the public to accept that history rules the present — and that our founding charter, which is hailed as a beacon of liberty pointing to a more perfect union, reflects rules set in stone that no judge should dare disturb.
This is just one example from the article.
I almost want to scream at them:
Judges must interpret the law as written! They don’t get to change it.
If the constitution needs to be changed to allow a new law, or strike down an existing one, then there is a process to change the constitution. USE IT! Do not expect judges to be some sort of super legislators.
The problem is not Mental illness! In the best-case gun control is a stupid attempt to address a symptom of the breakdown of society. The ills of society that we are seeing is due to that very society and addressing the symptoms cannot fix the ills. It is society that has gone amuck. It is society that needs fixing.
Look back 50+ years. Guns could be purchase if you had the money. You could live in a shack if that is what you could afford. There were definite expected roles for men and different expected roles for women. Boys were given a gun on becoming of age usually in their early teens. There were jobs even for people on the lower half of the IQ curve. A single wage earner was sufficient to raise a family though it was preferable not to be a hired hand.
So today, it is women and POC that get the jobs and the promotions. What is a young man to think when society is saying that he has no role? That he is not wanted? Yet, he can look at what is being achieved and be alarmed.
Does recognizing reality make him mental ill?