Quote of the day—Noah Smith

What if the government doesn’t have to pay back what it borrows, now or ever? This is the provocative thesis of an unorthodox economic theory that is rapidly gaining credence on the political left called modern monetary theory, or MMT.

Noah Smith
January 10, 2019
Don’t Be So Sure Hyperinflation Can’t Hit the U.S.
[Delusions are often functional. This particular delusion will give the political left a good shot at gaining absolute power over and destroying the United States.

Prepare for a civil war and/or buy gold and secure it in some other country.—Joe]

Illustrating their extreme ignorance

Via Jacob Parajecki‏ @Jacob_Parajecki:


The text is in error. It’s a rare cartoonist which makes laws. And there is no :allowing” required for a cartoonist to make a fool of themselves.

However, I would agree that those who make this gross of mistake regarding their subject matter should be shamed and then ignored.

When will they figure out they are stupid and give up?

It happened again:

Police in Vermont say they can’t conduct mandated background checks required by a new law on private gun sales. The Department of Public Safety last month told lawmakers they are not allowed to access the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System used to vet gun transfers by licensed firearm dealers.

Signed by Vermont Gov. Phil Scott last year among a spate of gun control laws, Act 94 requires virtually all gun transfers, including those between private parties, to first clear a background check. The problem is that Vermont is one of 36 states and territories that do not have a “point of contact” access to NICS, forcing them to rely on the FBI for all firearm background checks performed in the state. While federal firearms license holders can run their checks through the system, the state cannot.

This also happened in Nevada too.

Some of these people pride themselves on their ignorance of guns and gun laws but you would think after one major blunder they would cure their ignorance. One has to conclude they are stupid. I suspect the problem is that as people capable of remedying their ignorance do so they have a high probability of changing sides.

This doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous. But it does mean it is a weakness that may be vulnerable to attack.

Quote of the day—Eric “Nuke ‘em” Swalwell

I talk to young people across the country, and they say we have consensus on what to do about gun violence. We have consensus about what to do on immigration and the Dream Act. We have consensus on what to do to address climate change.

I don’t know if those pieces of legislation will make their way to the president’s desk, but once in for all, you’re going to see votes in the House of Representatives on issues that the American people have consensus on. So we’re going to start to go big.

Eric “Nuke ‘em” Swalwell
U.S. Representative
December 24, 2018
House Dems to focus on gun control, immigration and climate change, Swalwell says
[Yes, this is the same guy who said a conflict between the government and gun owners would be decided by the nukes.

I find it telling that he get his “consensus” on these extremely controversial subjects from “young people”. Does seek foreign and economic policy advice from children too?

Being as it is unlikely anything along these lines will make it through the Senate and to the President this might be a good thing. All the politicians with “young people” as their top policy advisors will expose themselves for targeting in the next election.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Joon B‏ @JoonB3

Here is a new idea, somebody should start a new responsible gun owner organization which will support 2nd amendment and strict gun control.I swear NRA members will leave NRA by droves and sign on with new organization.

Joon B‏ @JoonB3
Tweeted on November 28, 2018
[And someone should start the sister organizations:

  • Which supports the 1st amendment and strict speech, religion, and personal association control.
  • Which supports the 3rd amendment and troops living rent free in your home.
  • Which supports the 4th amendment and unannounced searches of your property, computers, and underwear.

Either Joon B is clueless or they are trolling us. Probably a fake account trolling for the fun of it. They only have four followers after being on Twitter for a year so you know they can’t have significant content of interest to anyone.—Joe]

Their goal is clear

Here is the Washington State Alliance for Gun Responsibility agenda for 2019:

RESTRICT ACCESS TO HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES: High-capacity magazines make  shootings more deadly and allow shooters to fire more rounds, faster. Recent reviews of mass shootings showed that 50% involved high-capacity magazines and, in shootings where high-capacity magazines are used, more people are shot overall and more people die. Keeping high-capacity magazines away from people looking to cause harm would reduce risks and help limit the scope of mass shooting tragedies in Washington.

“Keeping high-capacity magazines away from people looking to cause harm”? If you know someone is looking to cause harm why are they not in a cell or getting psychological help? And how do they think they can determine this? What are the details of a law they think will accomplish this? Reviewing your social media history? Interviewing your friends and neighbors every time you want to buy a spare magazine?

If they were serious about wanting to “limit the scope of mass shootings tragedies” they would encourage the one thing known to work over 90% of the time. Since they will never suggest that you know they are lying when they say they want to “limit the scope of mass shooting tragedies”.

Joining the 27 states and the Distict [sic] of Columbia who require safety training for a
concealed pistol license;

This isn’t because there is a problem with people with CPLs being a hazard to public safety. We are already much less likely to shoot an innocent person than a police officer when confronted with a deadly force situation. This is about making it more expensive and difficult to get a CPL.

Updating our list of people prohibited from possession firearms to include additional
crimes that are indicators of future violence and individuals found incompetent to stand trial.

It isn’t good enough that convicted felons and domestic abusers are prohibited persons. They want to expand it to those convicted of “additional crimes that are indicators of future violence”. Misdemeanors which happened 40 years ago? Public intoxication 20 years ago?

For over 30 years, our local towns, cities, and counties
have been blocked from taking action to prevent gun violence own [sic] their own because
of the statewide preemption law. Local leaders are best positioned to know how best
to protect their communities.

They want to remove preemption. The crazy patchwork of laws that will be impossible to remember will make it a high risk adventure to travel across the county with a gun let alone across the state.

Today, we take steps to keep
our kids safe by making schools gun-free zones. It just makes sense to extend these
gun-free zones to child care and early learning centers.

They want more “gun-free zones”! It is the existing “gun-free zones” where something like 90% of the mass shooting occur. And they want to create more of them. This cannot be for any other reason than they want to make it more and more risky to own and carry a firearm. This is not about keeping “kids safe”.

Crime guns are a major problem and a
contributor to gun violence across our state. There are common-sense steps we can
take to keep crime guns off our streets and make our communities safer.

Allow the State Patrol to destroy confiscated crime guns, rather than require them
to auction or trade them.

This is almost baffling. One way to interpret this is that they believe that once a gun has been involved in a crime they think it is more likely to be used to commit a crime in the future. Don’t laugh! This is what some people believe (see also here).

Another way to interpret this is that they believe this is, in essence, a zero sum game. They may actually believe that every time a gun is destroyed that is one less gun in existence. This is, of course, not true. It just increases the market size for new guns. Is this what they really want?

Considering the usual lack of sophistication I don’t think this is the most likely thought process but they may think that raising the price, by decreasing the supply, of guns can be achieved this way. Increasing the price means that fewer people can afford them making it more unlikely people will exercise their rights. The problem with this line of thinking is that the number of “crime guns” is so small compared to the total new gun sales, less than 1%, that any change is in the noise.

Ensuring we are able to respond to new technology by closing loopholes that
currently allow sharing and downloading designs for untraceable weapons that can
be printed or manufactured anywhere.

They want to infringe on the First Amendment as well as the Second. Got it. That’s not going to work any better than the war on drugs. When law enforcement can’t keep high school dropout from getting illegal drugs from South America 24×7 via boats and airplanes there is no chance of keeping encrypted files from sneaking in from anywhere in the world at the speed of light.

Their goal is clear. In the short term they want to make gun ownership difficult, risky, and expensive. Long term they want to eliminate it.

We can’t out vote them. We have to stop them in the courts. They won’t stop unless we stop them. Help stop them.

Quote of the day—Drew Rinella

So average New Jersey residents and veterans have the skill to safely fire 10 lethal rounds at a time in self defense, but if they fired 11 lethal rounds at a time without POST training it would create a dangerous situation? Am I understanding all of this correctly? And this law upheld by judicial apologetics is causing a reduction in violent crime in New Jersey, right?

Drew Rinella
December 6, 2018
Comment to New Jersey must have a stupidity force field
[Yes. Yes. And yes.

Any more questions?—Joe]

New Jersey must have a stupidity force field

From pages 41 and 42 of the ruling in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc.; Blake Ellman; Alexander Dembrowski, Appellants v. Attorney General New Jersey; Superintendent New Jersey State Police on appeal from the United States district court
for the district of New Jersey (see also A Powerful Dissent Charges Judges Who Casually Uphold Magazine Restrictions With Disrespecting the Second Amendment and Third Circuit upholds NJ’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds.). “LCM” means “Large Capacity Magazine” which in this context is anything greater than 10 rounds. This is a decrease from the previous restriction on magazine capacity which was 15 rounds:

Plaintiffs assert that the Act violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it allows retired law enforcement officers to possess LCMs while prohibiting retired military members and ordinary citizens from doing so. N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:39-3(g), 2C:39-17. Plaintiffs have not shown that retired law enforcement officers are similarly situated to other New Jersey residents. Retired law enforcement officers have training and experience not possessed by the general public. Kolbe, 849 F.3d at 147 (holding that retired law enforcement officers “are not similarly situated to the general public with respect to the assault weapons and large-capacity magazines banned”). Police officers in New Jersey must participate in firearms and defensive tactics training, including mandatory range and classroom training, under a variety of simulated conditions. App. 144; see, e.g., App. 1361, 1369, 1368, 1383. Law enforcement officers are also tested on a periodic basis after initial qualification and must re-qualify twice a year and meet certain shooting proficiency requirements. App. 144-45; see App. 1322-410 (describing standards, requirements, and full courses for law enforcement firearms qualification). Retired law enforcement officers must also satisfy firearms qualification requirements. N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:39-6(l). Moreover, because the standard-issue weapon for many New Jersey law enforcement officers is a Glock 19 with a loaded fifteen round magazine, App. 116-17, these officers have experience carrying and using LCMs. Thus, law enforcement officers, both active and retired, have training and experience that distinguishes them from the general public.

Law enforcement officers are also different from members of the military. Unlike military personnel trained for the battlefield, law enforcement officers are trained for and have experience in addressing volatile situations in both public streets and closed spaces, and they operate in noncombat zones where the Constitution and other rules apply. App. 148-49. Even if some military members receive firearms training comparable to the training law enforcement officers receive, App. 140-41, the scope and nature of their training and experience are different, App. 141, 147-49.

For these reasons, retired law enforcement officers are not similarly situated to retired military personnel and ordinary citizens, and therefore their exemption from the LCM ban does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Also of note is that New Jersey residents have until Monday to get rid of all their magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds.

Interesting logic going on here. I didn’t know that people in New Jersey were so stupid that the difference between using a 10 round magazine and a 15 round magazine required so much training and experience. And that, furthermore, no matter how much training you had in the military to use magazines with capacities greater than 10 you still aren’t capability of using one once you set foot into New Jersey. It must be that New Jersey has some sort of naturally occurring “stupidity force field” where people become stupid and incompetent once they step across the state border into their political jurisdiction.

But it must be true. How else would legislators and judges dream up and insist everyone believe something so stupid as the above?

Quote of the day—Tom Arnold (@TomArnold)

This explains why 80% of gun owners shoot themselves or members of their own families.

Tom Arnold (@TomArnold)
Tweeted on November 30, 2018
[See also, Math is hard by Carl Bussjaeger.

As we have known for a long time, anti-gun people have problems with numbers and arithmetic. Arnold is just reminding us of that and that Hollywood types do not have any special knowledge in anything other than pretending to be something other than what they are and reciting lines from a script.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

It’s written in a way that puts a chilling effect on gun ownership, but quite frankly, it’s unenforceable. There’s a giant loophole in this law. If they go to Oregon or Idaho, they can bring [a rifle] back. It’s totally legal. They just can’t buy it in Washington state.

Alan Gottlieb
Founder, Second Amendment Foundation
November 7, 2018
Second Amendment Foundation: Loopholes aplenty with I-1639
[There are other loopholes as well. I was at a gun store recently and suggested a loophole they might use. The clerk behind the counter said, paraphrasing, “That should work. But most of the time I expect we will just do it like….” and he explained a simpler approach. I had considered his suggestion weeks ago but figured it was clearly violating the spirit of the law even though it was complying with the letter of the law and that might be too risky. But, he didn’t seem bothered by it so I’m not going to worry about it. I make so many trips to Idaho I will just buy my guns there and not subject myself to the risk.

I’m a bit torn between keeping loopholes like this quiet and openly mocking the ignorance and stupidity of the people that write these laws. On the one hand we get more time to get more guns into the hands of more people. On the other we embarrass the anti-gun activists and cause them to lose face and status in the eyes of those who donate millions of dollars.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ann

I’ve always pictured a gun ban looking like this in the United States.

It would be so great. No more violence. Just peace and trees.

February 19, 2018
Comment of February 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM.
[Delusions are often functional. In this case, however, it’s just a delusion.—Joe]

Not helping

From MSN:

A man in Florida has been arrested after he threatened to shoot senators who don’t support Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, authorities said.

The narrative against the political left which seems to be most effective in getting people to put distance between them is that they are crazy and violent. There is a lot of evidence to support than.

I want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court because I believe he is much more likely to support the rule of law than a justice appointed by someone from the left. An advocate for Kavanaugh who advocates murder is counterproductive.

Update: Here is someone from the political left to illustrate my point:

Dr. Carol Christine Fair, an associate professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown said white GOP Senators deserve to die miserable deaths “while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps.”

This wasn’t enough for Dr. Fair, she said once the white Republican Senators die miserable deaths, their corpses should be castrated and fed to pigs.

Quote of the day—Jennifer Granholm

Right. And that actually corroborates Ford’s story.

Jennifer Granholm
September 23, 2018
CNN’s Jennifer Granholm Claims No Corroboration Actually Proves Claims Against Kavanaugh — Tucker Isn’t Buying It
[Context is important:

“Kavanaugh, Judge, Smith and her friend, Leland Keyser, have all said they don’t remember anything like this ever happening. And Leland Keyser, who says she believes Ford, said she doesn’t even remember being at a party where Kavanaugh was present,”  CNN’s Jake Tapper said in the video.

“Right, and that actually corroborates Ford’s story which is that she was so horrified by this that she kind of snuck out or slunk out of this apartment in a way that no one would know what happened because she was so utterly mortified,” Granholm followed up.

Tucker Carlson commented, “Are you following this at home? See if you can track the reasoning here. When you are corroborating witnesses can’t corroborate your story, the one you say they can corroborate, your story has still been corroborated — maybe even more so so.”

So… In response to finding out that all of those who are claimed to be witness to an event report no recollection of the event this mental giant, Granholm, insists this supports the claim the event actually happened. The question I would have asked her is, “So, if all four people reported the event did happen would this mean the event did not happen?”

Of course, we know the answer. Logical thought processes are not something they care about. It may even be they are incapable of them. It may be they have a mental disorder. It may be that they are so used to a supportive media they know it doesn’t matter what they say as long as it supports the narrative. It may be that because it was someone from her “tribe” making the, almost certainly, false claim that there was no way she could comfortably side against the false claim.

Monday evening daughter Jaime and I were discussing the Kavanaugh situation and I arrived at the conclusion that the political left has realized their political future is over if Kavanaugh’s appointment to SCOTUS is confirmed. With that a near certainty, the risk of losing support via crazy, and even illegal, behavior is the better option. From the chaos generated they may be able to avoid near certain political extinction.

Tribal loyalties, even when they didn’t always match reality, were evolutionarily advantageous. That doesn’t meant they were useful in determining truth from falsity. Determination of truth, and even reality, is an extremely tough problem. Our brains only have approximations of knowing reality. It has only been since the dark ages that we have succeeded in formalizing processes, with extreme difficulty, and proteolyzing these processes which usually work. Most people do not follow these processes and in many cases actively reject them. It is relatively easy to support the claim that reason is just a thin veneer over the human brain.

I suspect her mind worked back from the conclusion she had reached and this was the best way of rationalizing the conclusion from the available evidence. I have found there is no guarantee smart people will think logically. Smart people are frequently just more creative in their rationalizations.

When in positions of power these people are extremely dangerous. These are the type of people who can and will find a rationalization to commit genocide.—Joe]

Quote of the day—American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Courts have never required plaintiffs to demonstrate that the government directly attempted to suppress their protected expression in order to establish First Amendment retaliation, and they have often upheld First Amendment retaliation claims involving adverse economic action designed to chill speech indirectly.

Were it otherwise, the First Amendment would prohibit the government from pressuring a newspaper to remove a speaker’s advertisement, but it would allow the government to bankrupt the speaker by pressuring its business partners to terminate their contracts. That absurd result has no foundation in the law.

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
August 24, 2018
[A short version of the context is:

A campaign by New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo to crack down on the National Rifle Association and similar groups is facing its first big legal test, with a federal judge expected to decide soon whether to allow a challenge to go forward.

Cuomo’s administration has asked Judge Thomas McAvoy of the U.S. Northern District of New York to throw out a First Amendment lawsuit by the NRA that claims the policy restricting financial activity with pro-gun organizations amounts to viewpoint discrimination.

The judge heard arguments on the motion to dismiss on Sept. 10. The decision, whatever it may be, will have far-reaching ramifications for free-speech and gun rights, the limits of financial regulation and possibly even the 2020 presidential contest.

The case has prompted an unusual alliance. The liberal American Civil Liberties Union, despite its support for gun control, filed a friend of the court brief in defense of the free-speech rights of the NRA.

According to the ACLU what the state of New York is claiming is that since the state didn’t tell the NRA they couldn’t exercise their right to speech the NRA does not have a First Amendment claim to push in court. Nevermind that the state told banks and insurance companies they should “consider the risk to their reputations” if they did business with the NRA. Shortly after that they were slapped with fines costing them millions of dollars.

Governor Cuomo is exceedingly dimwitted if he believes the argument he is making. I’m wondering if his comprehension would improve if the banks and insurance companies were to refuse to do business with any entity which sold food or water which found its way to the governor or his family.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mental Health Hazzard @mental_hazzard

Sorry kids, but those lax gun laws help Cletus feel less bad about his tiny penis. Your lives just aren’t as important as that.

Mental Health Hazzard @mental_hazzard
Tweeted on September 18, 2018
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

If this Mental Health Hazzard actually believes that “lax gun laws” are responsible for the death of children or that gun ownership has anything to do with penis size they have mental acuity issues as well as mental health issues. I suspect it is either about compensation for their lack of understanding of criminology, psychology, constitutional law, natural law, and the practicality of restricting a highly valued commodity or they are trolling for the entertainment value.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Reggie Reg Davis

The bullets, they do the killing, they kill. It’s up to us to figure out a way to wrap laws around the purchasing of ammunition.

Reggie Reg Davis
Wayne County Commissioner (Detroit)
September 16, 2018
Wayne County leader wants to make it harder to buy bullets

Just as “wrapping laws” around the purchase of alcohol and other recreational drugs didn’t improve society the restriction of a specific enumerated right not only won’t improve society it will be an infringement upon the natural right to defend ourselves.

People can make ammunition from scrap metal a few relatively simple tools. Just as with recreational drugs, it won’t be of the highest quality but it will be good enough to get the job done. And it this case the job will be restoring our rights.

Reggie Reg Davis, Molṑn labé.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Abbie Vetger

Only one in five gun owners belong to the NRA, so we think there is something else going on than just the NRA when it comes to mobilisation.

Abbie Vetger
September 2, 2018
Gun owners are more politically active, study finds
[The naiveté and lack of rigor here is astounding. Were they paid money to do this “study”?

Vetger and her colleagues need to check their work. A very simple check would have revealed the following:

Most estimates of gun ownership are between 20 and 40 percent of people in the U.S.. And this assumes all gun owners admit they own guns when they are asked by a pollster. It may be much higher than this.

The population of the U.S. is currently about 330,000,000. This means there are between 66 and 132 million gun owners in the U.S.

The NRA claims a membership of about 6 million people. Hence only about one in 11 to one in 22 gun owners belong to the NRA. Unless, you hypothesize the NRA is telling the world they have far fewer members than they actually have. For them to have such a motive escapes me.

Simple arithmetic shows any influence gun owners have must be far beyond the members the NRA influences.Assuming all the NRA’s 6 million members vote and vote as a block for the NRA agenda in an eligible voting population of about 241 million people is only about 2.5%. Sure, some political races are as close or closer than that but that isn’t enough to make a big difference and the assumption they all vote as a block is almost for certain false.

So… if the hypothesis that the NRA is the source of power is of questionable validity how about the hypothesis that gun owners a group independent of NRA members being a source of election strength? 60 to 126 million out of 241 million is about 25% to 50%. Now you are talking about some real power!

Therefore the timid conclusions reached by Vetger can be arrived at, and stated with far more assuredness, with a few minutes of searching on the Internet without going through the grant process and publishing a peer reviewed paper.

I wonder if Vetger and company were among those making projections that Hillary Clinton had a 95% chance of winning the 2016 election. If not then I expect she at least rode the same short bus to school with them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ramishah Maruf

It’s time to stop using video games as a deflection from conversations about responsible gun control. Video games shouldn’t even be in the conversation because it distracts us from the hard truth: easy access to guns is the main reason for mass shootings.

It takes a special train of thought to come to the conclusion that an animated video game is more to blame for shootings than the actual weapon used. Is America really that blinded by their love for the Second Amendment?

Ramishah Maruf
August 30, 2018
Video games have no relevance to mass shootings
[It’s interesting how she substitutes one class of objects, video games, which probably didn’t have much of an effect on the mental illness of the perpetrator, for another object, firearms, which certainly didn’t cause the mental illness.

That takes a very special kind of train of thought. At first you might think her train was functioning properly then you find it was going backward.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jess Grant

I’m not suggesting we disarm the police or army. Not exactly. But we might want to take a closer look at our culture and try to understand why we’re all so darned gun crazy.

It’s a frontier mentality, I suppose. A couple of hundred years of stealing land and fending off angry natives can really make a culture trigger-happy.

I suggest we start at the top.

I worry about somebody shooting me at the mall, but I worry a lot more about being incinerated by nuclear weapons.

If we’re serious about gun control, we might want to refocus on multilateral nuclear disarmament. To fret about handguns in a world of hair-trigger nuclear weaponry is textbook denial.

Jess Grant
August 14, 2018
A new approach to gun control
[I found to difficult to decide if they were this vacuous because they were naturally this way or if they were exhibiting the effects of the readily available marijuana in Washington state.

In either case, they had crap for brains when they wrote this.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Nick Wing

The gun lobby has long pushed a vision of the world in which anyone could be armed at any time, and in which you need a gun to defend yourself against that constant threat. By inviting the “era of the downloadable gun,” as Defense Distributed has coined it, we’d be one step closer to that dystopian future.

Nick Wing
August 3, 2018
The Darkly Twisted Logic Behind The NRA’s Support For 3D-Printed Guns
[The only twisted logic I found in the article was in that of the author. Why do they think that just because anyone could be armed at any time would mean there is a constant threat? In most states and locations in the U.S.it is already the case that someone there could be legally armed at any time. And most of the other locations are covered by the easily probable case of someone being illegally armed. The only way I can make sense of his view is if he is living in some sort of fantasy world.—Joe]