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]

Quote of the day—Lisa Pryor

Since the election I have cried many times, in the shower, in the car, as the conventions that define liberal Western democracy are stripped away by Donald J. Trump, with every distressful appointment, each impulsive outburst. I have embarrassment of grief for a government that is not mine and for a country that does not belong to me. It feels as if we’re mourning the death of an idea called America.

Lisa Pryor
December 16, 2016
Dear America, Why Did You Let Us Down?
[While none of the political parties really offer a path to what I think of as the “idea called America” it would have been worse had Hillary Clinton been elected.

My hypothesis is that Ms. Pryor doesn’t really understand is that the true “idea called America” is well explained in the Constitution and she has some dramatically different concept of what the idea is. Perhaps Ms. Pryor would benefit from an introduction to the concept that feelings do not necessarily reflect reality.—Joe]

Quote of the day–Acting P.J. LEVY, J. GOMES, J. FRANSON

Appellants’ position is that it is physically impossible to comply with the dual microstamping requirement using current technology.  At this stage in the proceeding, we must accept that allegation as true.  It is unreasonable to require an individual to attempt what is impossible to accomplish.  Accordingly, substantial compliance is not a consideration.

Acting P.J. LEVY, J. GOMES, J. FRANSON
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
  v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant and Respondent.

December 1, 2016
[H/T David Hardy.

I find it very telling it took, not the legislature, not the governor, not the district court, but all the way up to the appeals court level for someone to finally agree it is “unreasonable to require an individual to attempt what is impossible to accomplish”. Anti-gun people are either willfully ignorant, evil, or have mental problems, and engage in crazy talk with no shame.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Greg Hamilton

Modern Progressives, SJWs, and most politicians attempt to build in the world of words. Obama is a perfect example. We just say or don’t say certain things and they will spring to life, or cease to exist.

Muslim terrorism (the world of atoms), or the Obamacare website (the world of bits) We just SAY there is a line-in-the-sand, we just SAY refugees are vetted, we just SAY Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, we just SAY you can keep your doctor, we just SAY health care will be better and prices will drop; we just SAY those things and then they will just magically happen. Or if they don’t, we just ignore it and say some new things.

SJWs do this, they think name-calling is the same as a physical thing. That it rearranges atoms and builds or destroys.

The world of words is the ultimate in magical thinking.

This is what kind of world people that have never done a physical thing live in. Never created a thing that didn’t exist prior: Electricity, food, housing, cars, roads, the mail, travel, even the order or society, morals, all of it; all are just magical things that just happen.

If there is privilege, going through life where every single thing dealing with your survival and comfort just magically happens, would be it.

Greg Hamilton
Founder and Chief Instructor InSights Training Center
Facebook post on December 2, 2016
[Wow!—Joe]

Don’t get on the crazy train

Tamara says:

here’s a puzzler:

It’s a cardinal sin in the progressive weltanschauung to deny someone the validity of their own narrative.

Unless their narrative is “I’m doing this for Islam and the caliph!”

It’s not really a puzzler. Let me explain in a roundabout way.

I received an email a few weeks ago which said in part:

Standard progressive technique against non-progressives is the “basket of deplorables” attack: accuse them of *-ism and watch them wilt as they do a mad scramble trying to show they are actually good people.  What the victims of those attacks don’t realize is that the attack has no connection to fact, and denials aren’t helpful because it isn’t about evidence or truth.  Harry Reid knew this well and used it against Romney, as did many others.

My reply, in part, was:

The psychology of the progressives is that of a personality disorder. If you were to read the book Stop Walking on Eggshells I would bet you would see, as I do, amazing parallels between Borderline Personality Disorder and the political left in this country. I don’t have the book in front of me right now but here are some things that I remember:

  • It is always your fault when something goes wrong.
  • They create or maneuver things such that you are put in “can’t win” situations.
  • They are at high risk of hurting themselves (riots damaging their own neighborhoods is my analog of this) if they get mad at you.
  • They constantly start fights over nothing.
  • The attempted use of facts will result in accusations of “You always have to get your way”, “You need to compromise.”, or increase the verbal and/or physical abuse.
  • There is no successful treatment.
  • The best you can hope for is to expend less energy/time dealing with them without compiling with their crazy demands (or as Barb says, “Getting on their crazy train.”)

The basics of how you deal with them, as individuals, is to tell them you aren’t going to tolerate their misbehavior. They will go ballistic at this, after all, it is all your fault, not theirs. They have done nothing wrong. Then ignore, them, walk away, or otherwise disengage and do your own thing when they inevitably misbehave. You must not give in to their misbehavior. They will only encourage them to misbehave more.

I just wish there was a way to divorce ourselves from the political left. I’m tired of the constant abuse and crazy talk.

Back to Tamara’s puzzlement.

These people are nuts. Barb and I have both had decades of experience attempting to deal with people like this and spent time talking to counselors getting help dealing with personality disordered people. Several times a week during the first year or so we were together one of us would tell a story and ask, “Why did they do this?” It took a while but it finally reached the point where the other person would say, “Don’t try to make sense of it. You will go crazy if you try.” That shortened to, “You are trying to get on crazy train with them.”

We mostly have the stories out of our system and it is now rare for one of us to tell one. And if one does come out the response is just, “Don’t get on the crazy train.”

And that is what our response to these sort of puzzlements should be. Give them “that look” and tell the sane people attempting to appease or understand the progressives, “Don’t get on the crazy train.”

She wanted to be president…

But she can’t use a calendar. I’m talking about Jill Stein, of course. She raised millions of dollars, ostensibly to do a recount of the ballots in three close states. But she missed the filing deadline for PA, so she can’t call for one even if she had the money to pay for it. I’m sure she’ll find something to do with that money, of course. But I wonder how many who donated will realize they’ve been duped (again)? And how many will realize that someone this flaky could not possibly have done a respectable job as president. Ever.

The arrogance of the left: Wants to run the biggest economy in the world, and has more than 1.2 million  votes for her to do it, but not only can’t run a scheduler, she can’t even be bothered to ask a supporter to do it for her.

FacePalm  (my favorites are the variation of the Implied FacePalm)

Quote of the day—Neve Campbell

But his honesty is terrifying.

Neve Campbell
March 1, 2016
‘House Of Cards’ Star Neve Campbell Admits She’s ‘Terrified Of Donald Trump White House Victory’
[Via email from Jeff.

Well, to be fair, as a supporter of the political left I can see how something so unfamiliar to her could be frightening.—Joe]