Via Sheila Stokes-Begley:
It’s scary that it’s true. I have to conclude it’s some sort of mental disorder that there are so many people that think this way.
Via Sheila Stokes-Begley:
It’s scary that it’s true. I have to conclude it’s some sort of mental disorder that there are so many people that think this way.
Taking action to prevent terrorists from having access to assault weapons would be a good start. However, it seems that in the waning days of this Congress, there is more appetite for advancing un-American and counter-productive proposals such as closing the borders to Muslims or ethnically profiling whole communities.
To reiterate what Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has testified to Congress, that with the current threat picture, homeland security cannot be achieved without sensible gun control laws.
Bennie G. Thompson
House Homeland Security Committee ranking member (D-Miss)
September 21, 2016
Homeland security means keeping assault weapons off our streets
[Sometimes I’m just amazed that people can say and believe the things they do. Immigration from other countries is not a constitutionally protected right. There isn’t anything more American than our country’s founding document. The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right protected by that document. Is this guy’s mind that well partitioned that he can’t connected what he wrote in consecutive sentences?
The only way this makes sense to me is that people say things with the knowledge, at some level, people will hear what they want to hear. The anti-gun politician will say they “respect the Second Amendment and they don’t want to ban guns”. The next sentence will be that they “support the banning of assault weapons”. It could be that those sort of contradictory messages work on both the receiver and the sender. They say and hear what they want depending upon individual biases of the person at that particular moment. And those biases change from second to second. For example, one second they are of the opinion that the Bill of Rights is important and should be respected. The next second they believe nothing should stand in the way of preventing terrorists from murdering innocent people. They somehow cannot make the connection that these two beliefs are incompatible.
It could be this a built-in psychological mechanism common to almost all people.
I view it as some sort of mental illness.—Joe]
Instead of practicing running, jumping and stabbing in all directions, it might be a really good idea to work on perfecting the basics. It is only when you have truly perfected the basics that a person is ready to learn advanced skills. Nothing will end a criminal attack like a smooth draw and an accurate hit to the vital zone.
Nearly 40 years ago my first engineering mentor, Everett Nelson at Boeing, strongly advocated for the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid.
This has served me well professionally in hardware, as well as software, design and development. I have found that one of the best indicators of a poor or novice engineer is the complexity of their designs. And if you knew enough of the history of Boomershoot targets you would recognize the evolution to better targets was in large part about making things more simple.
The self-defense, unarmed as well as armed, techniques taught at Insights also reflect this philosophy and is something I have always appreciated. Some other schools, as alluded to in the quoted article, show strong indications they are poor or novice designers of self-defense techniques.
Clinton is probably one of the least crooked politicians currently running for office. She came from a middle class family and married a poor boy who made good.
September 8, 2016
Comment to No matter how you spin it, crooked Hillary is still crooked
As Robert Heinlein’s character said in Time Enough For Love (page 241):
Delusions are often functional. A mother’s opinions about her children’s beauty, intelligence, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning them at birth.
Still, the depth of the delusion is amazing.—Joe]
Two government mechanisms prevent real interest rates from getting too negative. The first is cash: As long as people can hold currency, which loses its value only at the rate of inflation, they won’t buy safe assets that yield even less. The second is the central bank’s promise to keep the inflation rate low and stable — at about 2 percent in most developed nations. As a result, people have little reason to hold any asset that yields less than negative 2 percent (perhaps negative 3 percent, considering that cash is bulky and hard to store).
In other words, governments — by issuing cash and managing inflation — put a floor on how low interest rates can go and how high asset prices can rise. That’s hardly a free market.
What’s the fix for this problem? John Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, has offered some ideas, such as increasing inflation targets — but these are partial work-arounds at best.
The right answer is to abolish currency and move completely to electronic cash.
Possibly the most idiotic article I’ve ever read.
See also The Sinister Side of a Cashless Society (via email from Lynn Z.).
Electronic cash would allow government to be so much more efficient. Just imagine how much easier it would be to find people who were trying to cheat on their taxes by not reporting their tips. And bribes would be easy to catch. And armed robbery of banks would cease to exist. It would be wonderful, right? Isn’t that what everyone wants, a more efficient government? Who could possibly object?
Oh, yeah. Now I remember. It fails The Jews in the Attic Test.—Joe]
These documents demonstrate Hillary Clinton’s reckless and downright dangerous handling of classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. They also cast further doubt on the Justice Department’s decision to avoid prosecuting what is a clear violation of the law. This is exactly why I have called for her to be denied access to classified information.
Speaker of the House
September 2, 2016
Statement on Clinton Investigation Document Release
[See also FBI files show Clinton claimed ignorance on classification:
According to the files, Clinton claimed to have relied on the judgment of her aides and other officials to handle classified material appropriately. She even told investigators — when asked what the “C” marking meant before a paragraph in an email marked “Confidential” – that “she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.”
The FBI document notes that the email was in fact marked “classified at the Confidential level.” And when asked about different classification types like “Top Secret,” Clinton went on to say she “did not pay attention to the ‘level’ of classified information and took all classified information seriously.”
The documents also say Clinton claimed she could not recall “any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information.” Further, Clinton “could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined.”
Such passages could help explain why FBI Director James Comey said during congressional testimony in July that there were questions over whether Clinton was “sophisticated enough” to know at the time what a particular classified marking signified.
The markings on a classified document look something like this (in red):
(S) We now have all the required guns and ammo for the attack.
(TS) We attack at dawn.
Each paragraph is marked at the highest level of classification in that paragraph.* The marking at the top is the highest level of classification of any paragraph in the document.
Hillary Clinton, as described by the FBI, is not “sophisticated enough” to understand these markings. This makes it exceptionally clear that she is not “sophisticated enough” to be a president of a community book club, let alone the President of the United States.—Joe]
There are so many details in the gun and ammo industry it might be easy to overlook some little decision and the side effects of it. Some mistakes are minor. Some are a little larger.
The ATF accidentally banned ammunition manufacturing.
Well, not exactly, but sort of. The changed the regs and reclassified nitrocellulose as a high explosive. You know, nitrocellulose. The stuff that is used to manufacture virtually ALL smokeless powder? All the facilities that made or handled powder would have to be totally redesigned, and frequently relocated, and shut down in the meantime. Yeah, just a minor change. So, the ATF, having been informed of the effect of this minor update, issued a “it’s still on the books, but never mind for the moment” notice.
Joe, I know you say you’ve had nothing but positive interactions with the ATF field agents and personnel, but you must live in a odd location in the time-space continuum.
Yeah…. Top. Men.
As is often the case with virtue-signaling lifestyles, number-crunching doesn’t quite justify the supposed benefits of granola-crunching. “When applied to an entire global population, the vegan diet wastes available land that could otherwise feed more people,” concluded news site Quartz in a review of a scientific study published in the journal Elementa that compares the sustainability of various eating patterns.
Just as global-warming hysteria leads to draconian restrictions and taxes that devastate the poor in order to provide conscience relief to progressives, totalitarian eating habits aren’t as sustainable as more moderate ones. For instance, trying to grow crops on land best suited for use as grazing land for cattle means wasting resources.
August 4, 2016
Selfish vegans are ruining the environment
[“As is often the case with virtue-signaling…”. I think a good case could be made that it goes beyond problems with simple number-crunching. Data and logical thinking in general is not something they are really all that familiar with.—Joe]
Crime is one example where a rebound in carbon emissions could be an issue, according to this study. While there is an energy cost to operating prisons, the study notes, inmates generally consume less than an average citizen in the country, so fewer prisoners might mean higher overall energy consumption.
Additionally, the money saved from reducing crime would go into the government’s budget and people’s pockets. All that money could be spent in other ways — infrastructure, buildings or goods — that may require more energy to produce or operate, possibly adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
August 3, 2016
How Lowering Crime Could Contribute to Global Warming
[H/T to Anonymous Conservative.
I found this very telling. The violation of the rights of people by criminals is secondary to the concern about carbon emissions. And, most importantly, they now have the idea that putting lots of people in prison is good for the environment. Think about what that might lead to.—Joe]
Can’t live with them, can’t live without them….
I just got a call from a rather hostile woman. She bought the property earlier this year just north of a piece of undeveloped rural property I own in eastern WA, and then had a roadway pushed thought on the boundary – it was part on her property, part on mine. I found out about it when another neighbor called and told me about it. My non-hostile neighbors and I met and looked at the situation. The road was clearly not all on her land. I talked to the bulldozer driver who’d pushed it through; he said he’d stopped part way along when he saw that the line they’d posted wasn’t lining up with his hand-held GPS. Continue reading
Advocacy on this issue has the potential to make the LGBTQ movement even more relevant to national politics and to win over allies outside the community. Achieving gun control legislation would constitute, for Preston, a “contribution to benefit our society as a whole and give us the recognition and respect we deserve.
Julie Moreau, Ph.D.
Commentary: Is Gun Control Next Step for LGBTQ Movement?
That’s a mind bogglingly stupid conclusion. And from so many different angles. Here are just a few:
I know I have a biased sample, but nearly all the LGBTQ people I know are gun owners. I find it difficult to imagine they are going to get much unity in their community on a gun control effort.—Joe]
you’re a bunch of idiots too obcessed with your penis size to take time to realize American
And it’s not even a complete sentence. But it is no surprise that when the best they can come up with is childish insults they have a problem with simple communication.
Via a tweet from QuackHead/PotterHead @Duck_Hunter7.—Joe]
Anti-gun people must live in some sort of incoherent alternate universe. The most recent example Clinton, Dems Put Gun Control at Center of Convention Stage:
Democrats were to hear Tuesday night from the “Mothers of the Movement,” a group of women who have traveled the country to promote gun control and reforms to make police officers more accountable.
The group includes the mothers of Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, victims of high-profile police-involved killings. They have campaigned with Clinton, who often refers to them as members of “a club no one wants to be a part of.”
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said the shifting landscape is the result of several factors: Shootings such as the Sandy Hook school massacre in 2012, renewed concerns over terrorism and high-profile killings of black men in several cities.
“For the first time, this is a winning issue in the general election,” Murphy said.
So… The police killed Eric Garner with a chokehold, Trayvon Martin was killed with the justified (perhaps even praiseworthy) use of a gun by a private citizen (not a police officer as reported here), and Michael Brown was killed with the certainly praiseworthy use of a gun by a police officer, and somehow this changes the “landscape” such that gun control for private citizens is a winning issue?
This is like someone holding their hands over both eyes and when you ask them why they answer, “The sky is blue and I don’t want to eat.”
These people should be in a psych ward instead of government employees. But then, given the current state of the government and the projected trajectory one could make a convincing case the Federal government is a psych ward with the inmates running the place.
I just finished this book over the weekend and while there are many aspects that I am skeptical about some things resonated well. One thing was that struck me was that the psychology of progressives (r selected populations in his terminology) is in a large part about “equality”. Gun control can be interpreted as government mandated equality of victimization. Everyone must be equally vulnerable. It is “unfair/unjust” that some people be able to protect themselves better than others. It is better than victims of violent crimes be selected at, essentially, random than for some people to be able to avoid and/or defend against criminals. If you are successful in defending your self you must be punished.
The case below via the author, Anonymous Conservative, could be a case in point:
A homeowner in Finland has been sentenced to four years in jail and a hefty fine after fighting off three intruders who attempted to rob his house. The thieves, meanwhile, got lesser prison terms and are to be paid damages by their victim.
In April, a 35-year-old man from Hyvinkää, a town just 50km north of the Finnish capital, Helsinki, heard a knock on the front door of his suburban house and rushed to open it. As soon as he unlocked it, three strangers rushed in and launched at him, toting baseball bats and a gun. The man retreated to the kitchen, where he found a knife and with it was able to overpower the intruders, two men and one woman.
The homeowner has been convicted of “excessive self-defense and attempted manslaughter,” Helsinki news reports. He will serve an unconditional sentence for four years and two months, which he has to spend in prison. The man also has to pay damages to his attackers, with the fine totaling €21,000 (US$23,000). The newspaper does not provide information on the severity of injuries sustained by the home-invaders, however, it is known that they survived the event.
All three received one-year-and-two-month conditional sentences, which is similar to probation or house arrest in Finland, depending on the case. The offender serves the sentence outside of jail, but has to follow strict jail-like rules.
The trio was also ordered to pay the homeowner damages, but their combined fine was ruled to be €3,000 (US$3,300).
A friend from the U.K. once explained to me that over there you were allowed to defend yourself as long as you used proportional force. If your attacker was using their fists you couldn’t use a knife. If they were using a knife you couldn’t use a gun, that sort of thing. I asked about a large man attacking a much smaller or weaker person. What then? Well, “It depends…”
I totally reject such thinking.
In the free areas of the U.S. if someone is using deadly force against an innocent person then you are allowed to use deadly force, of whatever type, against your attacker. The attacker could have both hands cuffed behind his back but if he has your kid on the ground and kicking them in the head and you would be justified in using a .50 BMG on full auto against him (take care not to hurt innocents yourself).
In my book the home intruders in the case above should have been made to pay for not only the damages done to the home or people, the lost time spent cutting up the bad guys and dealing with the police, and replaced the knife.
Here in Massachusetts, 10,000 assault weapons were sold just in the last year…
Interesting. In just one year 10k a particular class of guns were sold in the state. Since that class of firearm has been around for well over 20 years there must be something on the order of 100K or more of them in the state. That must mean those type of guns are “in common use” and protected by the Heller Decision, right?
And how many crimes were committed with those firearms? She doesn’t tell us of any in the state of Massachusetts. She mentions just four in the entire country over the span of several years. Commenter Doverham (07/20/16 10:28 AM) tells us:
How many people a year are killed with “assault weapons” in MA – isn’t that a relevant number to know before deciding whether this is actually worthwhile or meaningful? I will give you a hint – that number was 2 in 2013, 1/17th the number killed with handguns, 1/30th the number killed by distracted drivers.
Yet she thinks this is justification for banning all of them. What other specific enumerated right, exercised by 100K+ people in your state, could someone justify the infringement of by four crimes committed in other states and two in your own? If that is all someone has to have for justification for infringement then who knows what she will demand be banned next? If that sort of rational passes logical and constitutional muster then she, or the next attorney general, can easily justify the banning of Islam, Democrats, or people with dark skin.
She also said:
On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers.
The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.
Ahhh… there we have it. She knows she can’t get the law changed through legislative channels so she just dictates her desires. And if a gun “has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon” it will be prohibited. That will be “fun” to determine and enforce. I would if she considers ammunition a “component”. And what about a scope, flashlight, rail, spring, peep sight, or bipod?
Also note that she thinks guns have “operating systems”. Dictators don’t have to know what they are talking about. They just have to have people with guns willing to follow orders.
Update: See also what Sebastian has to say about it.
Update 3: See also Thirdpower.
Some sorta academic clown suggests he and some buddies might storm NRA headquarters.
It’d be like “The Keystone Cops Storm Okinawa.” Amusing, but rather messy for the cleanup crews. Of course an anti gunner sees nothing wrong with homicide, that’s not really the issue….
July 6, 2016
It is possible he and his friends might make it to the elevators
[Delusions are often functional.
In this case my hypothesis is the academic clown is able to imagine some sort of control over his hated enemy in his delusional universe and this gives him comfort that he is lacking in the real world.—Joe]
We often hear from anti-gun people things like:
It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles.
If you’re someone who honestly believes that you can stage an armed rebellion to overthrow the United States government, you’re too mentally unstable to own guns.
Is it asking too much for these people to learn something from the number of police being shot up in Dallas? ONE guy murdered five armed police officers and wounded several others in the span of a few minutes. He didn’t make it out alive, but still there are some things that could be learned here.
How many “gun nuts” would it take to overthrow, or at least completely remove the majority of those in control of, a small city government they thought was corrupt? Or a large city government? Or a state government?
Think about the resources tied up for a month when the two D.C. snipers were active. Think about the time and number of police it took to find, surround, and finish off the one rogue police officer in Los Angles a few years ago.
Multiple that by, picking a number, 3% of the number of gun owners in the U.S. (about 100 million). For those anti-gun people who may be arithmetic challenged that is 3,000,000. And 3,000,000 is much, much, larger than one or two. And there is a synergy with larger numbers that cause a systemic failure such that it would far worse than just 3,000,000 times the effect of one or two acting on their own. Nearly all of those 3% would do virtually nothing more than show up, look around, shrug, and talk among themselves about the replacement government to put in place.
Or looking at it another way, think about what might happen if ISIS, with a few thousand fanatics, decided to put together an ongoing, diversified, guerilla attack against us with a dozen or so people per team.* The evidence supplied in Dallas demonstrates our police would not do well. The military doesn’t have enough people to protect every local government or vulnerable target. It would require some percentage, maybe 3%, of U.S. gun owners to help defend our homeland—to protect “the security of a free state”.
See also my previous post on the topic, Boots on the ground.
But don’t expect anti-gun people to change their story. They believe what they want to believe. Facts are apparently not something within their domain of expertise. They work more with insults.
* I’ve seen some of the training tapes our military found in the caves of Afghanistan. One of those was about ambushing and killing police officers.
Oh, the irony. “A professor at the Southern State Community College (SSCC) in Ohio is currently under investigation for threatening to shoot up the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia and Washington lobbyists in order to increase support for anti-gun legislation.”
His FB post read, in part :
“Look, there’s only one solution. A bunch of us anti-gun types are going to have to arm ourselves, storm the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, VA, and make sure there are no survivors.
This action might also require coordinated hits at remote sites, like Washington lobbyists.
Then and only then will we see some legislative action on assault weapons.”
Not sure how someone with this tenuous a grasp of reality manages to become an adjunct prof, but there you have it. And while I’m sure that if he did do that, he might see some action on weapons, but I’m not so sure it would be legislative.
Don’t ever let them tell you nobody wants to take your guns.
Members of the NRA, other gun owners, including myself, and other non-gun-owning citizens all agree that a human should not use an assault rifle or other automatic weapons to hunt down and kill a deer or other game. We also all agree that a human should not use such weapons to hunt down and kill another human.
Since there is nothing else to kill, can’t we all now agree that we can do without such weapons without contravening the Second Amendment?
July 1, 2016
We can do without assault weapons
[Since Mr. Joslin is under the delusion that he has read the minds of all citizens in this country and simultaneously doesn’t not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment I’ll let Federal Judge Kozinski spell it out for those who aren’t quite as delusional.
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.
Hence, under a doomsday situation we could, should, and would use assault rifles and fully automatic weapons to hunt down and kill those humans who would enslave us. And therefore such weapons are not only protected by the Second Amendment, the use of those weapons under those circumstances are the primarily purpose of the Second Amendment.—Joe]
… but at least it goes up!