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.

It’s about time

I remember when Federal and most states banned guns within 1000 feet of school property. That was when the school shootings started to became a trend.

Times have changed:

Teachers in seven Florida county school districts will soon be locked and loaded thanks to a state law enacted this month that provides schools with the option to allow teachers to carry concealed guns.

According to the Education Commission of the States, at least eight other states allow some teachers or other school employees to have guns. They include Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

Since 2018, legislation to allow teachers and other school staff to carry firearms has been proposed in a handful of additional states, including Washington, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Oklahoma.

It’s about time.

Quote of the day—Breakingbad @BreakingBad7172

Democrats don’t want to take your guns away. They just want assault weapons banned which nobody needs an assault weapon. Nobody is coming for you guns dude.

Breakingbad @BreakingBad7172
Tweeted on October 4th, 2019
[Ignoring the typos we still have some problems comprehending this. One could presume they mean Democrats don’t want to take all our guns. Just the “assault weapons”. As if this would put us at ease for them to ban the most popular firearm type currently sold.

It’s the logical equivalent of saying, “We aren’t going to take all of your children away from you. Just your firstborn.”

One could claim they are unimaginably stupid and/or ignorant. One could claim they are trolling for entertainment value. I might buy into either of those hypothesis if it didn’t happen so frequently.

Another hypothesis is that they are unconsciously or deliberately utilizing deflection. I think this is most likely. Such people should be treated as mentally defective and/or evil.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kelly Ann Pollard (@KellyPol55)

We can’t worry about inflaming the right anymore.  Their inflammation is an “itis” that has no cure and the only treatment is to excise it.

Kelly Ann Pollard (@KellyPol55)
Tweeted on October 7, 2019
[Not the “extreme right”. Not the “alt-right”. Just the “right”.

The tweet above was replied to by Mick Collins‏ @BroknHeadphones who said:

and cauterize the wound

This is what they think of you. This is what they want done with you and your family. They no longer hide it. They use their real names.

We are at war.—Joe]

Update: Ms. Pollard responded to me on Twitter:

Mr Huffman, will you please take this tweet down and remove this reference from your blog? I was speaking as a nurse and with regards to voting. Thank you.

I declined the request and invited her to make a comment on my blog. She declined my invitation.

If she intended to refer to voting she was certainly obscure in her reference. I’m skeptical that was her real intention.

Our cultural revolution

Via email from Chet.

The University of Washington Should Not Censor Faculty Social Media:

Several faculty who had attended the gathering told me they were afraid to speak in my defense. One, a full professor and past chair, told me that what had happened was very wrong but he was scared to talk.

Another faculty member, who was originally from China and lived through the Cultural Revolution told me it was exactly like the shaming sessions of Maoist China, with young Red Guards criticizing and shaming elders they wanted to embarrass and remove.

Scary stuff. He documents numerous violations of University of Washington faculty code and constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.

One of my degrees is from the University of Washington but I haven’t donated any money to these communists in many years and won’t be either. They really need to get their act together. This sort of behavior is intolerable.

Quote of the day—Charles Hugh Smith

Dogmas collapse first in the minds of believers, when they slowly awaken to the reality that the dogma no longer serves them, it only serves to prop up the wealth, power and prestige of their increasingly fanatic leaders. Propping up a failed system doesn’t actually fix what’s broken; it only guarantees the banquet of consequences will include shackles: the option to escape the consequences will no longer exist.

So sorry, but your karma ran over your dogma.

Charles Hugh Smith
September 29, 2019
So Sorry, Your Karma Ran Over Your Dogma
[He has a point there.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Gene Ralno

Use of the term “gun violence” is part of the democrat flimflam because it narrows the focus to fit the objective. The objective of course is to disarm the American public. Think about it. Have you ever heard the term “gun gentleness” used by a politician or anyone else?

No? Then ask yourself why the democrat party doesn’t focus on just violence instead of gun violence. Fact is they’re after guns, not violence. They couldn’t care less about the entire field of violence because it commingles too many criminals with peaceable, lawful citizens.

Gene Ralno
October 1, 2019
Comment to RE: Michael Corrigan
[It’s not about public safety. It’s about control of the common citizen.—Joe]