Is she clueless, or hoping we’re clueless?

Or both?

The bizarre assertion is that feminism is being bogged down by its association with leftist causes.

Sisters; the one and only purpose for the “feminist movement” is to advance what are essentially Marxist principles and goals. That of course includes the defamation and de-emphasis of men, especially Jewish and Christian men, along with them the very concept of morality, and the de-emphasis of the nuclear family as a cornerstone of civilization.

Calling for outreach to Christian women who embrace the American Principles then, is like the PLO and the other jihadists reaching out to Jews for assistance in destroying Israel.

It could work in some cases I suppose, if you find enough dumb “conservative” women who’re only pretending to be conservative or pretending to be Christian but don’t really know what any of it means. You get them irritated and agitated enough, and they’ll be open to your propaganda.

Agitprop.

Truly strong, American women have no use for the “feminist” movement. They’re already doing what they want to do, and the “feminists” (communists, essentially) have been verbally attacking them for it all along.

Constantly viewing oneself as a victim of this or that, or a victim of everything, is detrimental to one’s success, whether you’re a truly strong woman or anyone else (we have to be careful with definitions here though; to “The Sisterhood” of pissed off leftist women, the term “strong woman” means “nasty, dumb bitch”).

That’s the whole point really; the Marxist/Progressive/authoritarian movement needs as many people as possible thinking of themselves as victims and thus being pissed off, otherwise the movement has nothing. It’s the Grievance Culture, and so it doesn’t matter whether it’s women, men, black women and men, gay, trans, or any and all of the rest of Humanity; if we can get people pissed off and feeling like they’re powerless without Big Daddy Government stepping in to intervene in their personal lives, then the American Principles have been defeated right there.

It’s never been about protecting anyone’s rights or advancing anyone’s quality of life. The Original American Principles do that already. The Grievance Movement is purely about keeping the grievances alive and growing, as a political weapon against the American Principles.

And you in the “movement”, at least those few calling the shots, you know all this perfectly well. Nice try, keep it up and all, but your premise here is just ridiculous.

Quote of the day—Bob Evans

You’ve never had a better administration for the gun industry than Obama, and now never a worse one for the gun industry than Trump.

Bob Evans
Pennington Capital Management – Analyst
February 23, 2017
RGR – Q4 2016 Sturm Ruger & Company Inc Earnings Call
[Despite this obvious fact known to anyone that cares to do any research (investors dump gun company stocks the day after Trump won the election) we constantly read and hear things like:

Because much of Congress takes its cues (and money) from the National Rifle Association, our nation’s firearms legislation is tilted toward the financial gains of weapons and ammunition manufacturers, and our gun-violence research has largely been suppressed.

Obviously, if the NRA were actually looking after the financial gain of the firearms industry they would have endorsed Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump. The NRA, as they claim, represent the interests of firearm owners.

I believe the reason people continue to make such crap for brains claims is because they have a deep seated hatred of capitalism and people making a profit. They believe that if they frame the debate in terms of someone making a profit “everyone” will recognize the “evil” just as easily as they do.

What these people can’t understand is that profit and capitalism are not inherently evil. Free markets and free minds don’t always make the best choices. But they do make far better choices than than coerced markets and minds–the type of markets and minds the anti-gun people insist on creating. Gun control is about control.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Celebrity

The Second Amendment does not preclude federal law relating to firearms, as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

Celebrity
August 19, 2016
Comment in the DebatePolitics thread My Gun Control Plan [W:1271]
[A few things Celebrity should spend some time reflecting upon:

  1. Does the same logic apply to books and the number of people you are free to associate with? No? Then it doesn’t apply to guns either.
  2. They have crap for brains.
  3. Gun owners are going say Molṑn labé.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Maile McCann

Finally, and most importantly, incorporating considerations of gun suicide into policy-making decisions is necessary because it would lead to different policy outcomes. One of the main focuses of the gun-control debate revolves around limiting the types of firearms that can be purchased, which could work to decrease the casualties of individual mass shootings, but would do little to prevent gun suicide, which requires only one bullet. Instead, focusing on mental health screenings, making it take longer to buy guns, making it harder to buy guns, and eliminating guns altogether would prove much more effective.

Maile McCann
March 8, 2017
Suicide: Gun Control Advocates’ More Pressing Problem
[McCann thinks it’s perfectly reasonable to “eliminate guns altogether” (Maile, are you taking point on that task?) because some people wants to exercise their own “right to chose”. Even if 100% of those decisions were easily and conclusively known to be wrong decisions (I know of suicides where one can make a decent case that it wasn’t an unreasonable decision) the decisions other people make for themselves cannot give some government entity the power to infringe upon the rights of the population as a whole.

And don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

A more complex label

Rachel Dolezal, white woman who identifies as black, now jobless, may soon be homeless:

Rachel Dolezal, the infamous white woman who for years passed herself off as African American and rose to become head of an NAACP branch, is now jobless, on food stamps and expects to soon be homeless.

A defiant Dolezal, 39, recounted her current plight to The Guardian. Dolezal said she’s only been offered jobs in reality television and porno flicks. A friend helped her come up with the money for February’s rent and she doesn’t know how she’s going to pay for March.

And she still says she’s not white.

“I do think a more complex label would be helpful, but we don’t really have that vocabulary,” Dolezal told The Guardian. “I feel like the idea of being trans-black would be much more accurate than ‘I’m white.’ Because, you know, I’m not white . . . Calling myself black feels more accurate than saying I’m white.”

I agree with her. A more complex label is needed. I’ll bet a good psychologist could find one for her.

I wish her luck with therapy.

The future of America

From The Kansas City Star:

TOPEKA — U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, delivering the keynote speech Kansas Democratic Party’s annual convention Saturday night in Topeka, told a crowd of progressives not to despair in the face of President Donald Trump’s election.

Sanders, who won the 2016 Kansas caucus by more than 35 percentage points, touted the support he received from young voters during his presidential campaign and said that he ended the campaign much more optimistic about the direction of the country than when he started it.

“Our vision, our progressive vision, is not only the future of the Democratic Party, it is the future of America,” Sanders said.

Interesting delusion. Sanders is 75 years old, he lost the nomination to the person who suffered a decisive loss in the presidential election, which was to the political party that controls a large majority of the state legislators and governorships, and he thinks his vision of the way things should be, will be the future of our country.

You have to wonder… is it Alzheimer’s or is it a hallucinogenic drug?

Quote of the day—Peyton Spanbauer

In my complete and honest opinion, there is no need for guns so long as other guns or weapons aren’t present. Who needs or wants to bring a gun to school for any reason other than violence? Who needs to bring a gun everywhere they go? The purpose of having a gun is for protection, and in a world without guns, there would be no reason at its presence.

Peyton Spanbauer
February 13, 2017
Spanbauer: The case for stricter gun-control
[I wonder what color the sky is in her universe. Because in her universe before there were guns there was no violent crime.

Total crap for brains.

And don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jen Pauliukonis

The act today terrifies me.

Jen Pauliukonis
President of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence
February 16, 2017
Maryland reacts to federal gun control rollback efforts
[This is in regards to killing the regulation that would cause a NICS denial when someone on Social Security had turned over their finances to someone else.

I guess Pauliukonis is afraid some old codger with dyslexia will buy a gun and go on a shooting spree. I’ll bet she cannot find a single person with the conditions this regulation concerned itself with who has ever committed a violent crime with a gun.

I think Pauliukonis should seek therapy rather than media attention.—Joe]

Quote of the day—lock-him-up

I think all the psychos need to arm themselves with automatic weapons and masny rounds of ammo and go visit once a week Republic Party politicians and their mothers, wives, and their children and thank them!

lock-him-up
February 2, 2017
Comment to House strikes regulation to keep mentally ill from buying guns
[This is the caliber of people who oppose the right to keep and bear arms. They have difficulty with spelling and grammar, and, if they could arrange it, they would have Republicans killed.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Awr Hawkins

On January 24 Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) tweeted that Chicago’s gun violence is the result of “lax gun laws” at the federal level.

He did not explain how Congressional refusal to pass more gun control would increase Chicago violence while passing over so many other cities, leaving them safe and sound.

Awr Hawkins
January 25, 2017
Sen Chris Murphy Blames Chicago Gun Violence on Congress Rejection of Gun Control
[If one were to explore this topic with the Senator, I suspect the explanation would be something along the lines of, “Shut up!”

It’s what you get when someone with crap for brains gets into a position of power.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Maura Healey

My actions have never been about taking away guns from people. I respect the Second Amendment, but we have a law on the books, and it’s an important law. It says that civilians can’t walk around with or be in possession of military-style assault weapons…

Maura Healey
Massachusetts Attorney General
January 25, 2017
Gun rights group challenging state’s assault weapon ban
[No matter how many times it happens it always surprises me when someone contradicts themselves in sequential sentences. To me that is clear and convincing proof of insanity. But in the political world it appears that is the sign of a good politician. It allows the reader/listener to take away whichever fragment they want and ignore the rest.

It think it means they are evil and/or have crap for brains and hence are unfit for anything other than closely supervised menial labor.—Joe]

Suppressor facts

Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation gives us the important facts in regards to firearm suppressors:

U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) tweeted that the loud report of a firearm is a “safety feature.” He seems to think that the sound of gunfire was engineered as a means to ensure everyone around them knew there was gunfire nearby.

A 10-year study found 153 crimes committed with suppressors and in only 15 of those crimes was a suppressor actually used. Here’s more perspective. That same study showed criminals used suppressors in less than 0.1 percent of homicides, 0.00006 percent of felonies and 0.1 percent of armed robberies.

As a practical matter, suppressors add length to a firearm, making it harder to conceal.

Senator Murphy is evil and/or has crap for brains.

They prove themselves unworthy

A thought occurred to me.

All the smartest people* in the nation -nay, the smartest people in the world- said two things over and over in 2016:
A) We plebs need to give more power and control to the government so all the really smart technocrats can make life better, more fair, safer, cleaner, more productive, and nicer for everyone because they were so smart and had all the data; and
B) Trump would never win.

It seems to me that (B) disproves the premise that they are the smartest people in the room, and further is a strong indicator that (A) should never be done because they just demonstrated they are clueless more often than not.

 

* we know they are the smartest people in the world because they tell us constantly.

Quote of the day—Hollis Phelps

We shouldn’t “take them away” from people who currently own them, necessarily. That would likely cause just as many problems. I’m sure there are more than a few disgruntled gun owners out there who would take a ban as an assault on liberty, and act accordingly. We should, rather, phase them out over time, similar to the way in which the CPSC dealt with drop-sides. Allow those who currently own guns to keep them, but ban the future manufacture, sale and resale of guns and ammunition for personal use.

Hollis Phelps
December 4, 2015
The Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

“More than a few”? I suggest they put some numbers in their spreadsheet and reevaluate the consequences.—Joe]

Quote of the day—g_k

Isn’t it great to be a gun owner? Without your weapons, you’d probably have to face up to being an ignorant redneck loser, but with guns you’re the man!

g_k
4:39 PM PST, December 28, 2016
Comment to Why punishing Democrats for their gun-control sit-in is dicey territory for Paul Ryan
[This is what they think of you.

In regards to “ignorant loser” we would probably find that rule number three of SJWs Always Lie is applicable here.—Joe]

They are seldom accused of being smart

Sebastian tells us Nevada Background Check Initiative Can’t Be Implemented:

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy New Years all rolled into one: Bloomberg spend 20 million dollars in Nevada to secure a razor thin win, and he still gets nothing. The Attorney General in Nevada checked with the FBI and the law as it was written is simply not implementable. The FBI stated that states can’t commander federal policy on the matter, and that they refuse to conduct the checks in accordance with the way Bloomberg’s new law requires.

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

FBI background check registrations are insufficient to these people. They begged and pleaded and campaigned for background checks, and now want more, but they’re obviously not enough. The smelter is the real issue.

This is the topic Tucson raises — violation of law by elected officials in pursuit of the same irrational perverse goal their fellow leftists pursue at everyone’s dangerous expense. It is an impossible attempt to quench their paranoid fears by suppressing the rights of innocent people everywhere. The notion of guns in the public’s hands is simply unacceptable to them. It’s not political, it’s medical, they’re hoplophobic, and a dire threat to freedom. Their unbalanced actions qualify them for removal from setting public policy and destroying valuable public property in the process, in violation of law.

Alan Korwin
December 18, 2016
Tucson Melting Guns. Again
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

Undaunted by history, the same kind of thinking that had cheered international disarmament treaties in the 1920s and 1930s once again cheered Soviet-American disarmament agreements during the Cold War.

Conversely, there was hysteria when President Ronald Reagan began building up American military forces in the 1980s. Cries were heard that he was leading us toward nuclear war. In reality, he led us toward an end of the Cold War, without a shot being fired at the Soviet Union.

But who reads history these days, or checks facts before leading the charge to keep law-abiding people disarmed?

Thomas Sowell
Senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
December 23, 2016
Sowell: Gun-control laws do not make us safer
[To answer the question about facts, there is a good chance that it is like the one admitted Marxist I was having a discussion with about gun control in Chicago (where he lives).

This Marxist told me there were some very dangerous places in Chicago and “you just don’t go there because you will get shot”. I told him that it that couldn’t be possible because guns were banned there (this was before the Heller and McDonald rulings). He told me they got their guns from the surrounding areas where guns were not banned. “Oh! You must be really at high risk of getting shot in those areas then.”, I told him. “No, actually, those areas are pretty safe.”, he replied. I then told him, “Gun control doesn’t make people safer.” He told me, and I’m not making this up, “I disagree with your facts.”

It’s called reality. These people should check it out sometime.—Joe]