Quote of the day—Christopher Burg

Some people might claim that the people being robbed aren’t innocent because they’ve been accused of a crime but civil asset forfeiture occurs before somebody has been found guilty of a crime, which is the problem. Under a justice system where one is supposedly innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt there is no justification for stealing an accused individual’s property. So, yes, Jeff Sessions announced that his department is going to be stealing from innocent people and that should have everybody up in arms.

Christopher Burg
July 19, 2017
Jeff Sessions Announces Justice Department Will Increase Theft
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dana Loesch

Only people with a predilection for violence would mistake a condemnation of violence as a ‘call to violence.’

Dana Loesch
July 3, 2017
A gun-control group’s cheery response to the NRA’s ‘dystopian’ recruitment ad
[It’s not a “mistake”. It’s rules #1 (lying) and #3 (projection) in SJWs Always Lie.

In the last few months the political left has caused a million dollars of damage in just Portland alone and openly saying (emphasis added):

We are committed to the idea that people in our community should be able to participate in resisting this bigotry in whatever capacity they find appropriate. For this reason, we have chosen to make the primary focus of the event a rally at a separate location that is adjacent to the Alt Right rally.

We are unapologetic about the reality that fighting fascism at points requires physical militancy.

we are not opposed to the tactic of property destruction

In Baltimore, 2015, damages were estimated at nearly $13 million. In Ferguson the costs of the riots were in the tens of millions. And millions more in physical damage.

Then, last month, someone from the political left shot Republican Congressmen at a baseball game.

And the political left has a “cheery response” to Loesch’s “dystopian” video expressing concern about the violent left?

The only reason they are “cheery” is because they are getting away with their criminal behavior.—Joe]

If you carry don’t provoke

In several of the self-defense classes I have taken the instructors have told the class that if you carry a gun you will be held to a higher standard of behavior than those who do not carry. And specifically, do not pick a physical fight you are nearly certain you are going to win.*

We now have a real life example playing out of why this can cause you (and the gun rights movement in general) serious problems.

Remember the University of Washington incident involving a speech by former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos (see also my blog post here) on January 20th of this year? The couple who were involved in the shooting are now in trouble because there is evidence they went to the event with, shall we say, “a poor attitude”:

Assault charges filed Monday against a Ravenna couple in connection with the shooting of a protester outside a speech by former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos on Jan. 20 allege they went to the University of Washington campus that night looking for trouble.

Marc and Elizabeth Hokoana had armed themselves — him with pepper-spray and her with a Glock semi-automatic handgun in a holster under her coat — and went to the protest intending to goad demonstrators they knew would be there, King County prosecutors allege. Some witnesses said Marc Hokoana appeared to be intoxicated.

According to the charges, the day before Yiannopoulos was scheduled to talk at Kane Hall, Marc Hokoana had messaged a friend on Facebook, stating, “I can’t wait for tomorrow. I’m going to the milo event and if the snowflakes get out off hand I’m going to wade through their ranks and start cracking skulls.”

His friend asked him if he was “going to carry.”

Hokoana responded, “Nah, I’m going full melee,” but then wrote “Lily … is,” referring to his wife, Elizabeth.

I’m sure Elizabeth Hokoana didn’t help her case when she was interviewed by the police.

H/T to Julie S. for bringing this new information to my attention. She is also a personal friend of Josh Dukes who was shot by Ms. Hokoana.


* I would generalize this to don’t pick physical fights, but there may be some people who have an issue with that and that discussion is beyond the scope of this post.

Quote of the day—Chelsey Gentry-Tipton

Watching the congressman crying on live tv abt the trauma they experienced. Y is this so funny tho?

The very people that push pro NRA legislation in efforts to pad their pockets with complete disregard for human life. Yeah, having a hard time feeling bad for them.

Chelsey Gentry-Tipton
Nebraska Democratic Party Black Caucus Chair
June, 2017
Via Omaha World-Herald
[This is what they think of you.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chris Collins

Capitol Police officers were heroes last week — their bravery and quick thinking probably saved the lives of Rep. Scalise and my other colleagues — but self-defense is my responsibility, too.

As Americans in my district and across the country know well, responsible, legal gun owners have every right to protect themselves, and that applies to members of Congress as well. I’ve worked to make sure these core values, preserved in the Constitution, are upheld. For my own protection, and for the protection of those around me, I’m putting these values into practice. Now, more than ever, I truly believe that the best place to be, during a terrible episode like the one in Alexandria, is next to a good guy with a gun.

Chris Collins
June 19, 2017
I’m a member of Congress. I’m going to start carrying a gun.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

And their point is?

From The Washington Post:

The gunman who opened fire on a GOP baseball team in Virginia had a local storage locker with more than 200 rounds of ammunition that he visited daily, including less than an hour before he shot more than 60 times at the team during a morning practice June 14.

I sometimes reload 200 rounds in the morning before I go to work. And then I shoot that many or more at the range at lunch time.

This explains why he got so few solid hits. He didn’t practice enough. But they don’t even suggest anything along those lines.

[sarcasm] I wonder what their intended point is? [/sarcasm]

To me this demonstrates their ignorance and/or maliciousness.

Quote of the day—Justice Anthony Kennedy

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

Justice Anthony Kennedy
June 19, 2017
MATAL, INTERIM DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE v. TAM
[H/T to Eugene Volokh and Say Uncle.

This should give gun owners protection against having their Second Amendment rights infringed upon because they belong to some extremist group such as the NRA or the Republican party.—Joe]

Maybe it’s not over yet

Hillary Clinton’s email scandal is back in the news:

The State Department has opened a formal inquiry into whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her aides mishandled classified information while she was the nation’s top diplomat, Fox News has learned. Despite being under investigation, Clinton and her staffers still have security clearances to access sensitive government information.

The department’s investigation aims to determine whether Clinton and her closest aides violated government protocols by using her private server to receive, hold and transmit classified and top-secret government documents. The department declined to say when its inquiry began, but it follows the conclusion of the FBI’s probe into the matter, which did not result in any actions being taken against Clinton or any of her aides.

Depending on the outcome of the current State Department inquiry, Clinton and her aides could have their access to sensitive government documents terminated.

Read Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign. Hillary and Bill thought the email scandal was a literally a joke. They couldn’t believe people actually took the violation of the law seriously. Even their closest aides urging them to take it seriously was just ignored. I think they are so accustom to breaking the law, and getting away with it, that they can’t fathom why it was considered an issue.

They should be in jail (at least, a case might be made that the death penalty might be applicable). But it will be at least a minor vindication if they permanently lose their security clearances.

Numbers aren’t their thing

Sometimes we point out anti-gun people and those on the political left not being able to do math or even arithmetic. But, as I have pointed out before, it’s worse than that. It’s numbers they have trouble with:

Terry McAuliffe (D) called for gun control. McAuliffe called for more background checks and ending “gunshow loopholes.” McAuliffe said 93 million people are a victim of gun violence a day.

“This is not what today is about but there are too many guns on the street,” the governor said Wednesday morning. “We lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence.”
“It’s not just about politicians, we worry about all of our citizens,” he said.

“Why are you bringing it up? People are going to criticize that you are bringing up gun control at this time?” a reporter asked.

“I’m talking about it today. This is a very serious issue,” he replied.

McAuliffe repeated the 93 million number once more before he was corrected by reporters.

“With 93 million people a day it’s just something,” McAuliffe said before reporters jumped in.

Even if you give McAuliffe some serious slack and let him get away with saying he really meant 93 per day then he is including suicides and legal shootings by police and private individuals protecting innocent life. This is deliberate deception on his part.

When someone is anti-gun then numbers, arithmetic, and math, not to mention constitutional law and political philosophy, are a threat to what is really important to them. That is their delusions and their desire to control other people.

When will it stop?

It happened again. Someone on the political left went on a mass shooting rampage. Almost all mass shooters are from the political left. And although it doesn’t show up in the major news media reports I have seen so far it is clear this was a political act:

“A guy…walked up to us that was asking whether it was Republicans or Democrats out there,” Representative Ron DeSantis told Fox News Wednesday morning. “And it was just a little odd then he walked towards the area where this all happened.”

This is consistent with my prediction of 10 days ago. I expect it will continue to escalate. As long as people let law enforcement deal with those on the left who initiate violence, other than immediate defense of innocent life, the left will continue to lose supporters and political power. In another couple of election cycles the Democrats will be approaching third party status. Then the violence of the left will fade and mostly stop.

Update: The shooter has been identified as James T. Hodgkinson. And, as expected, he was on the political left:

James’ Facebook page is full of posts that are anti-Donald Trump, including one from March 22, which reads, “Trump is a traitor. Trump has destroyed our democracy. It’s time to destroy Trump & Co.”

James was a supporter of Bernie Sanders.

But, so far, and as expected, this hasn’t been reported in the major news outlets.

The future of the violent left

In Portland today:

What began as a tense exchange of name-calling and profane insults took a turn when counterdemonstrators began throwing glass bottles, bricks and balloons of “foul-smelling liquid” at officers, Portland Police said. Officers used pepper spray to push back the counterdemonstrators and closed the park where they had gathered, threatening to arrest anyone who remained.

In addition to the arrests, a large pickup truck flying two large American flags cruised past hundreds of anti-fascist protesters and honked its horn. Several people in the group ran up to the truck and ripped out the flags, bringing them into the crowd as others applauded. Others threw multiple large water bottles, sticks and other projectiles at the truck, which then sped away.

Why are progressives so violent? My hypothesis is that we have the fundamental reason, and there is a much more recent reason which has bubbled to the surface.

The recent reason is the loss of political power. Not only are they very weak at the Federal level they are losing big time in the states. They are nearly frantic about making “progress” and they are visibly losing political power. Without political power they are increasing, as historically they have always done, the criminal violence.

My prediction is that this most recent turn to violence will further decrease their political power and after another election cycle or two (two to four years) the criminal violence will decrease as they become aware that their actions are making things worse for them. Between now and then there will likely be some heavy violence but law enforcement and perhaps the National Guard will keep it fairly well contained.

The simple explanation is that these thugs are breaking the law. They don’t have the political power to change the law or, in most areas, cause the laws against street violence to be ignored. So eventually they will tire of the tear gas and jail time. They will then resign themselves to having lost the current (5th generation) war. They may only go into seclusion and pursue a 6th generation war, but they will dramatically scale back the violence.

7 dead, many more wounded, it’s the internet’s fault

Predictably, another attack occurred in London this weekend. Theresa May did at least mention radical Islamism as a problem, but went on to call for more police powers, and to blame the internet.

Centuries upon centuries of Islamist aggression and murder, and it’s the internet’s fault. Your freedom, and mine, is to blame.

One report claimed some fifty shots were fired by police to stop three Muslims armed with knives. I could understand that number of shots if they’d been taking return fire, but against knife wielding punks it seems like an awful lot of shooting.

At least one person was wounded by police gunfire. When that happens (and it sometimes will) and it’s a police bullet, it is a footnote. If a regular concealed carry holder in America were to do the exact same thing, never mind that lives were saved; the howls of accusation would last for weeks.

Practice on moving targets. Aerial clay targets are good, if you can find a place to do it safely;

With only a knife, it is relatively easy to murder innocent, unsuspecting people, in a country that talks about freedom and rights but has forcibly disarmed its citizens and practically turned self defense into a crime.

The Brits have invited this upon themselves with their idiotic policies and their embrace of Progressivism, and we in America are not far behind. They’ll ramp up their police state, clamp down on the internet (control of which has been coveted by authoritarians since its inception) spend more of their tax payers’ wealth, and accomplish next to nothing.

Once again, as always it seems, at least one of the perpetrators was known to the British security network. The result of that knowledge was that they were able to say, after the fact, that they’d been watching that person.

The only way jihad will ever stop is if they’re all convinced that it is utterly hopeless, or foolish, or morally wrong, to continue. There are several ways to accomplish that end, only one of which involves a commitment to total extermination. Theresa May eluded to one of them, but I don’t believe that there is currently a government on this planet that is either principled enough or committed enough, or politically capable of any of those ways.

Maybe it’s not really a government’s problem to solve. What was that saying? Something about a people, or ideology, or process, which created a problem will never be the one to solve it.

Negative press covfefe

We all make typos. Butt-dials happen. Interruptions occu….

I found the world’s reaction to the partial information broadcast far and wide fascinating at many levels. At 12:06 AM Wednesday morning, the 31st of June, The Real Donald Trump (the God Emperor and President of the united States) sent a tweet. As with so many things said or typed at odd hours of the night, and from our president, it wasn’t phrased with quite the perfect polish and eloquence some might have hoped. Continue reading

It’s a start, but is it premature?

From the LA Times:

A coalition including the National Rifle Assn. on Thursday filed a second lawsuit challenging California’s new gun laws, this time arguing a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines is unconstitutional.

NRA attorneys representing the California Rifle and Pistol Assn., the group’s state affiliate, filed the lawsuit in federal court in San Diego, maintaining that the law banning possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition violates the due process and takings clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Last month, the NRA and affiliated groups filed a lawsuit challenging another new law that bans the sale of semiautomatic rifles with bullet buttons that allow, with a tool, the removal and replacement of the magazine.

I want those repressive laws overturned and, in California, it’s not going to happen legislatively. The Federal courts are probably the best hope to get rid of them. But I worry that the courts are not ready to accept the Second Amendment at face value.

I realize the lawsuit filed yesterday is based upon a due process argument but many judges have no problem ignoring such thing BECAUSE GUN!! I would feel better about this if we had a better set of judges on the Supreme Court as well as a lot more depth with originalists in the lower courts.

Quote of the day—Dianne Feinstein

Justice Scalia also wrote that, ‘Weapons that are most useful in military service, M-16 rifles and the like, may be banned’ without infringing on the Second Amendment. Do you agree with that statement that under the Second Amendment weapons that are most useful in military service … may be banned?

Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senator
March 21, 2017
FEINSTEIN QUOTED SCALIA OUT OF CONTEXT TO PUSH AGENDA
[What Scalia actually wrote was:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

I was pleased with Gorsuch response. He handled the deceitful tactics well:

“It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, senator, respectfully, it’s a matter of it being the law and my job is to apply and enforce the law.”

Sebastian has video of the exchange.

As is usual, anti-gun politicians knowingly lie in their attempt to infringe upon our specific enumerated right. It’s all they have to work with. And we will have their lies to work with at their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Hoschen

After 20 years of active duty military experience and nearly 30 years involved with professional civilian handgun training I have observed that:

1) Handguns are at best of tertiary interest to the Army.

2) The criteria used to select a handgun for the military includes several factors of very limited value to the civilian self-defense practitioner and fails to address several other factors which are critical to that user.

3) Only a VERY small minority of all military members EVER fire a handgun.

4) The training provided to the majority of military members who do fire a handgun is extremely rudimentary. (InSights General Defensive Handgun course is far more in depth and the material in our Intermediate Defensive Handgun course is not found in the military training system other than a few special operations schools.)

Based on the above observations it is my opinion that:

What handgun the Army has chosen for standard issue should have exactly zero impact on what handgun a civilian should consider for self defense use.

John Hoschen
March 3, 2017
Via the InSights Training Center email list regarding the Sig P320
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

I love living in the future

This will shake things up:

“We will be providing access to quantum systems for selected industry partners starting this year,” said Scott Crowder, who’s leading the handoff of the quantum computing work from IBM Research to the IBM Systems product team.

Certain problems that were computationally impossible to solve using current computers will solved in a fraction of a second. The programming and the algorithms used will be mind bending but the results will be astounding.

This will be as big, or bigger, than the invention of the microprocessor in the 1970s. I was there for that (in college I built a simple system on an 8080 and programmed it by hand assemble of the instructions and keying the hex bytes into a PROM programmer) and I’m thrilled to be here for this.

News you can use

Apparently, if you tell the police you are going to be inappropriately touching people, before you actually do it, the police will then give you a pass:

the TSA decided to inform local police in case anyone calls to report an “abnormal” federal frisking, according to a memo from an airport trade association obtained by Bloomberg News.

Good to know.

Quote of the day—Michael V. Pelletier

They don’t lack understanding … they merely don’t care about breaking their oath to uphold the Constitution when stacked against the opportunity to vindicate their emotions and political views.

Michael V. Pelletier
February 22, 2017
Comment to 4th Circuit Issues Devastating Opinion Regarding “Assault Rifles”
[This was regarding the judges who found the 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect ownership of modern sporting rifles.—Joe]