Quote of the day—Alyssa Milano

Imagine the damage one of these guns, even if it was only capable of firing one shot, could do aboard a plane. Or in a government office. Or in your child’s classroom.

Alyssa Milano
July 31, 2018
Alyssa Milano: A 3D printed gun is downloadable death
[Imagine the good one of these guns could do if it was used to defend your life or the life of your child. Imagine the harm it will do if the courts somehow decide the First Amendment doesn’t apply to software used to protect freedom.

I find it very telling she thinks a government office is a particularly bad place to have a gun. World history shows governments are a much bigger threat to innocent life than all other threats combined. This puts her squarely on the side of evil.

Ms. Milano, go back to your acting. These are specific enumerated rights we are talking about and we don’t want or need your acting skills to inject emotional baggage into a question of civil rights.—Joe]

It’s the Russians!

Interesting:

Facebook announced on Tuesday that it has identified a coordinated political influence campaign, with dozens of inauthentic accounts and pages that are believed to be engaging in political activity ahead of November’s midterm elections, according to three people briefed on the matter.

In a series of briefings on Capitol Hill this week and a public post on Tuesday, the company told lawmakers that it had detected and removed 32 pages and accounts connected to the influence campaign on Facebook and Instagram as part of its investigations into election interference. It publicly said it had been unable to tie the accounts to Russia, whose Internet Research Agency was at the center of an indictment earlier this year for interfering in the 2016 election, but company officials told Capitol Hill that Russia was possibly involved, according to two officials briefed on the matter.

Like the Russian interference campaign in 2016, the recently detected campaign dealt with divisive social issues.

Facebook discovered coordinated activity around issues like a sequel to last year’s deadly “Unite the Right” white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va. Specifically, a page called “Resisters,” which interacted with one Internet Research Agency account in 2017, created an event called “No Unite the Right 2 — DC” to serve as a counterprotest to the white nationalist gathering, scheduled to take place in Washington in August. Mr. Gleicher said “inauthentic” administrators for the “Resisters” page went as far as to coordinate with administrators for five other apparently real pages to co-host the event, publicizing details about transportation and other logistics.

Mr. Gleicher said it disabled the event on Tuesday and notified 2,600 users of the site who had indicated interest in attending the event.

Coordinated activity was also detected around #AbolishICE, a left-wing campaign on social media that seeks to end the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, according to two people briefed on the findings. That echoed efforts in 2016 to fan division around the Black Lives Matter movement.

American intelligence and law enforcement officials have been warning for months that Russia’s efforts to undermine American democracy remain active and pose a threat to this year’s elections. If in fact Russian, the activity would provide vivid evidence that the kind of cyber operations used around the 2016 campaign were still in use.

I sometimes have contact with current or former people in the intelligence community. I don’t have any specific information but “it is well known” the Russians like to create internal conflict in their enemies. It is a part of their culture and even have a word for it (sorry, I don’t remember it). I have been told they organized both anti-Hillary and anti-Trump events in 2016. It’s what they do. Hacking into the DNC and Hillary’s email servers and releasing the contents wasn’t necessarily to help elect Trump. It was to create conflict.

I have to wonder… is a lot of the conflict on social media regarding firearms fueled by Russia? When you are debating some twit on Twitter are you actually wasting time talking to a paid Russian troll?

Quote of the day—Stanislav Mishin

Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, Americans listen up, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

Stanislav Mishin
December 27, 2012
A Russian View on Gun Ownership
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Wendy Cukier

If you look at the rate of murders not caused by guns and you compare Canada, the U.S., the U.K., and Australia, what you see is that it’s roughly the same in all four countries, although the U.S. rate is slightly higher,

Wendy Cukier
President of the Coalition for Gun Control (Canada)
July 28, 2018
Canada Is Raging Against Gun Violence—But Not Like America
[Caused? Nope. That is a deliberate lie. If they have to lie to to win it is definitive proof their intent is evil.—Joe]

Washington State I-1639

Interesting development:

A ballot measure that would put new restrictions on the sale of semi-automatic rifles qualified for the November ballot Friday, but also faced a new court challenge.

Secretary of State Kim Wyman certified that supporters of Initiative 1639 gathered enough signatures to be on the general election ballot. The campaign turned in about 378,000 signatures, more than 100,000 above the minimum required.

The initiative raises the age for the purchase of a semi-automatic rifle to 21, requires a more extensive background check for handgun purchases and requires firearms owners to store weapons securely.

In announcing that the initiative had enough signatures, Wyman said there are “concerns” whether the petition sheets complied with legal requirements, but the initiative did not run afoul of any legal requirements that are under her authority.

Previously the courts said

…the court doesn’t have the legal authority to tell Wyman to reject an initiative

Wyman has the legal authority to reject initiative petitions that she determines are deficient, but otherwise would have to file them. Judicial review can only occur if she refuses to accept them, and then only if the initiative’s sponsors go to court.

Wyman is the Secretary of State. At that time Wyman said:

On Tuesday afternoon, Wyman issued a statement saying she will follow the law in evaluating “fairly and impartially” whether to accept initiatives, which include whether the petitions contain all the language required.

“State law clearly defines the authority my office has for accepting or rejecting petitions,” she said.

Then on Friday:

Secretary of State Kim Wyman certified that supporters of Initiative 1639 gathered enough signatures to be on the general election ballot. The campaign turned in about 378,000 signatures, more than 100,000 above the minimum required.

In announcing that the initiative had enough signatures, Wyman said there are “concerns” whether the petition sheets complied with legal requirements, but the initiative did not run afoul of any legal requirements that are under her authority.

So, the courts say it is up to the Secretary of State to make sure the petition is in compliance with the law (they aren’t). The SoS says she doesn’t have the authority to reject them even though they are not in compliance. Hence the initiative will be on the ballot this fall where it is expected to pass.

So, what I want to know, is the State of Washington going then claim they don’t have the authority to enforce a law that was illegally passed?

I don’t think so.

NRA-ILA and Alan Gottlieb have both filed lawsuits to stop this fraud.

Quote of the day—BFD‏ @BigFatDave

No more compromise
No more compliance

#GunSense

#GunControl

WhyThreat

BFD‏ @BigFatDave
Tweeted on July 27, 2018
[This reminds me of something I have pointed out before:

Have you ever noticed that crazy people will act only as crazy as you let them be?

It’s time to let the crazy people know we aren’t going to let them continue the act.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sen. Charles Schumer

America is going to get a lot less safe.

are not only scary, they’re outright dangerous in the way they can mimic the look and the capacity of a hardened, fully semiautomatic weapon.

Sen. Charles Schumer
D-N.Y.
July 22, 2018
Schumer Goes Full Semi-automatic
[NRA-ILA comments:

Gun owners often share a laugh over what appears to be the profound ignorance of much of the anti-gun community. However, gun rights supporters must also be aware that some of these absurd moments might just be attempts to mislead the less informed. Understanding this, gun owners must work to better educate the public and dispel the lies our opponents traffic in.

This sort of thing is to be expected. Attention to detail and the truth would get in the way of his evil agenda. No need to quibble with him. Just do your best to keep him as far from power as you can.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tamlynn Torchon

Let’s be clear: gun control is neither gun abolition nor gun confiscation. No one is trying to take away your guns, and no one is suggesting a ban in the U.S., either.

Tamlynn Torchon
July 26, 2018
Opinion: Gun control is useful, necessary and complicated
[Yes. Let’s be clear. Torchon is extraordinarily ignorant and/or lying. Therefore we can regard everything they say as worthless or evidence of their evil intent.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Andrew Whitehead, Landon Schnabel and Samuel Perry

In our newly published and freely available study, the connection between Christian nationalism and gun control attitudes proves stronger than we expected. It turns out that how intensely someone adheres to Christian nationalism is one of the strongest predictors of whether someone supports gun control. One’s political party, religiosity, gender, education or age doesn’t matter.

You could be a mainline Protestant Democratic woman or a highly educated politically liberal man — the more you line up with Christian nationalism, the less likely you are to support gun control.

Andrew Whitehead, Landon Schnabel and Samuel Perry
July 25, 2018
Why some Christians don’t believe in gun control: They think God handed down the Second Amendment
[Interesting observation. But probably not that surprising when you know their definition of Christian nationalism:

Americans who subscribe to Christian nationalism believe that America has always been ― and should always be ― distinctively Christian in its national identity, sacred symbols and public policies. What’s more, for adherents to this ideology, America’s historic statements about human liberties (e.g., the First and Second Amendments) are imbued with sacred, literal and absolute meaning.

If I understand this correctly they believe a higher power, the Christian God, created our nation and constitution. And, I would imagine, therefore claim that God’s creation must be in His likeness—i.e. perfection. Any utility argument, or even a principled argument, that does not address the creation of the U.S. Constitution by a perfect being is pointless.—Joe]

Different perspectives

If you attend a class at Insights one of the things you are taught is mindset. And it’s not just the mindset you need to have to be able to do what you have to do to use lethal force to defend innocent life. You learn a little bit about the mindset of the bad guy.

One example from this last weekend was from Greg (paraphrased):

The Green River Killer took great offense when an interviewer mentioned his raping of women. He insisted he did not rape them. They were prostitutes and he always paid them for the sex. “But you took their money, because there was never any money found with their bodies.” His response was, “They were dead. They didn’t have any use for it.”

And, of course, they never said no when he came back and had sex with their bodies for several days. So how could that be considered rape?

This is part of what the Insights trainers call, “removing the paint job”. Criminals may look like ordinary people on the outside but they aren’t what most people really consider human on the inside.

This last Sunday near the end of the Street & Vehicle Tactics class Derek opened up.

The day before we learned Derek grew up on New York City. He and one other member of his family (including cousins) went into law enforcement. Everyone else became criminals. He knew more criminals and saw more criminal acts by the time he was a teenager than I probably will in my entire life.

He went to the funeral of the first person he knew who was murdered when he was eight years old. His dad would tell him to take a particular coat when he went out, because that was the one that had the .38 special revolver in the pocket—he was eleven years old. When he went to college the police told their class to not go to a particular convenience story because they would get robbed. He saw multiple people come back from that corner in their underwear—even when there was snow on the ground. Taking their pants was the easiest way to make sure they got everything in their pockets. When we were practicing avoiding a mugging he showed us how a professional team of muggers would do it. If you stepped into their “kill zone” when a gun discreetly shoved into your ribs and calm, quiet, voice would tell you what to do and you would be on your way in half a minute without you wallet, phone, watch, etc. They then would reset to their start positions and wait for their next victim to enter their box. He told us of his cousins telling him of stories about how they jacked someone for their wallet in a parking lot and details of other crimes.

That was Saturday. On Sunday he said he wanted to share some things he had never shared with a class before.

He said he had a realization from watching our reactions to his stories the day before. He asked, “Before you were 25, how many of you went hunting? Went fishing? Hiked in the forest? Swam in a lake?” Nearly all of us were able to answer most of the questions with a yes. Then he said, “I didn’t do any of those things. I never even dreamed I might be able to do any of those things when I was growing up.”

His lesson rambled some. He obviously had not practiced it. His lesson was that our world view is dramatically different from many criminals. It is so different that we can’t really comprehend how different it is. There are a lot of similarities in some respect. Some of them have families they are supporting, most of them have families that love them.

But we don’t just have a different tribal label. We are so different in so many way that we probably cannot think like them.

Frequently they are firmly committed to a life of crime. Just like a drug addict or alcoholic, counseling doesn’t work unless they made the choice to seek it out. And he is now a counselor!

He found a path away from that life when he was young and can now socially blend in to either world. He wanted to share that insight about both worlds with us. We, almost for certain cannot and should not expect our standards of behavior and belief in a specific social contract to be shared by them. They have a much different social contract.

While many of us may be ignorant of their culture and beliefs to the point of extreme denial and extreme conviction that they must be like us, they know, sometimes with great passion, that we are not like them. Frequently, they do not want outsiders in their territory. If you do tread on their territory be on the lookout for signs of hostility and heed the warnings.

Quote of the day—Mark

If you support this proposal then you must support a keeping homeowners honest act. While the vast majority of homeowners are law abiding citizens, studies would suggest that over 90% of illegal drugs distributed in any given area are distributed by a few bad apples. To have all homes periodically searched to prevent illegal drug sales is just common sense.

Mark
July 17, 2018 at 1:24 pm
Comment to Senators Blumenthal and Murphy offer new bill to increase gun dealer oversight
[The ATF should be a chain of convenience stores, not a regulatory agency.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

How is it, then, that “assault weapons” magically transform into “counter-assault weapons” when handled by the police? And how do they revert to “deadly assault weapons” when handled by everyone else?

The fact that people believe that law enforcement may use these weapons demonstrates, of course, that people understand that the weapons have obvious and legitimate utility for defense of home, community and nation. This one fact shows that the guns are not evil of themselves, and do not whisper to their owners, taunting them to shoot children playing at recess or innocent bystanders in drive-by shootings.

This one fact shows that people understand that the responsible use of firearms depends foremost on the purpose and character of the person who wields the weapon. And because we know these things, this discrepancy between how we view police holds the key to understanding what the assault weapon ban is really about.

Jeff Snyder
Who’s Under Assault in the Assault Weapon Ban?
The Washington Times, Aug. 25, 1994, page A19

See also, Nation of Cowards 2001 page 64
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Windy Wilson

Certainly the Leftists do not want us to love freedom and liberty at all, and as soon as the streets and cities are made safe from “gun violence”, and knife and club and fist violence take its place, the lickspittle followers of the Leftists can sit in their houses and quake at every thump and bump, and think about what they did, or perhaps they will later write letters to Comrade whoever explaining why it’s a mistake they’re in the camp.

Windy Wilson
July 18, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Dov Marhoffer
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dov Marhoffer

I am a Holocaust concentration camp survivor. I am one of a rapidly dwindling number of eyewitnesses to the Nazi Holocaust, the most systematic genocide of all time.

I regularly speak at high schools, universities, and community events, sharing my eyewitness account with newer generations of Americans who have no concept of the horrors governments can inflict. I feel a duty to keep alive the memories of millions of Jews who were murdered by Adolf Hitler’s Germany and who cannot speak for themselves.

Today, misinformed students cynically led by progressives are using that event and its rallying call to confiscate guns and turn them over to government–the exact opposite of the core lessons to be learned. This is so fundamentally wrong no justification can excuse it. Naming a book Never Again!–which is a desperate call to arms–to address drug-addled, video-mesmerized, psychotic, murderous classmates –misappropriates and reverses the central messages and lessons of the Holocaust.

In the 1940s, the words Never Again! in German were scrawled on the wall of the Muehldorfer Hart Nazi concentration camp in southern Germany, where 2,200 prisoners, mostly Hungarian Jews, were murdered and buried in a mass grave. For 70 years, the slogan Never Again! has been the post-Holocaust rallying cry of Jews everywhere. It is a solemn vow that millions of Jews will never again be disarmed and defenselessly marched into camps for systematic liquidation because we can resist with the same powerful firearms we might face in the hands of totalitarian government. That progressives would take this vow, turn it upside down, and use it to grab guns is an abomination.

Dov Marhoffer
JPFO Board of Advisors
July 17th, 2018
“Never Again!” Belongs to the Holocaust — not an anti-gun-rights book and campaign Using the Holocaust this way is disgraceful
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Judge Brett Kavanaugh

It is especially inappropriate for the majority opinion here to apply intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny to D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles. No court of appeals decision since Heller has applied intermediate scrutiny to a ban on a class of arms that have not traditionally been banned an “incidental” regulation. It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech. Such restrictions on core enumerated constitutional protections are not subjected to mere intermediate scrutiny review. The majority opinion here is in uncharted territory in suggesting that intermediate scrutiny can apply to an outright ban on possession of a class of weapons that have not traditionally been banned.

Gun bans and gun regulations that are longstanding—or, put another way, sufficiently rooted intext, history, and tradition—are consistent with the Second Amendment individual right. Gun bans and gun regulations that are not longstanding or sufficiently rooted in text, history,and tradition are not consistent with the Second Amendment individual right.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh
October 4, 2011
HELLER, et al., Appellants v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellees.No. 10–7036.
[Sounds solid to me. I just want to hear that in a majority opinion from SCOTUS.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sheena Hume Jessee

Man, you are one of the most obsessed gun nuts I have ever seen—your dick must size of a tic-tac!!

Let’s hope.you have an accident real, REAL soon…. you and the rest of your NRA fuckard comrads should do the country a favor and just start offing eachother.

Sheena Hume Jessee
March 25, 2018
Facebook message to Ryan Harris
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

One has to wonder how serious they are about wanting us to change our minds about owning guns when they make it so clear they also want us dead.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Andrew Pollack

When you’re at work and you see someone coming into that school and they’re ready to hurt or kill one of our kids or teachers, I want you to shoot them graveyard dead. And if you can’t shoot them graveyard dead, then we don’t want you in this program and the door’s over there, and this job is not for you.

Andrew Pollack
July 14, 2018
(Update: Pollack was quoting the Polk County sheriff and may have misunderstood the exact words used.)
5 months after Parkland: What are activists doing to protect students?
[Last February, Pollack’s daughter was murdered at Parkland. Since then (plagiarizing from the article) Pollack advocated for the passage of a bill that requires every school in Florida to appoint law enforcement officers or armed “guardians.” Gov. Rick Scott signed it into law in early March.

While I understand the sentiment expressed and give him a pass for his special circumstances that attitude may get someone into trouble. Example, the perp sees the LEO or guardian and drops his gun and is in the process of surrendering. The LEO or guardian should not proceed to “shoot them graveyard dead”. Even if they needed a piece or two of hot lead to reconsider their morning activities once they are no longer a threat you should stop shooting. You can’t walk up to a perp who is curled up in a fetal position, whimpering, and crying then put a couple rounds into his head.

You may shoot until they are no longer a threat then you must stop shooting.

That said, it’s really great Pollack and others got this bill passed and the LEOs and guardians are now being trained for dealing with active shooters. It’s an important part of what should be a multilayer security plan for any place where there a large groups of soft targets.—Joe]

Good news from Ohio

Via the Washington Times:

An Ohio judge has permanently barred the city of Columbus from enforcing its ban on “bump stock” devices, saying the city’s recently passed ordinance violates the state Constitution.

A bump stock is a “component” of a firearm, and so the city’s ban violates state law that generally allows the possession of guns and associated parts absent a conflicting state or federal restriction, Franklin County Judge David E. Cain said in a ruling announced Friday.

In the Columbus case, Judge Cain said the city tried to argue that bump stocks are gun “accessories,” not parts, because they can be installed by the end user — which he said could result in a situation where the legality of the devices hinges on who installs them.

“If a person orders a bump-stock be placed on a rifle directly from the manufacturer, then under Columbus‘ logic, that bump-stock is now a component of the rifle,” he wrote.

“If the manufacturer installed the bump-stock, you are good,” he continued. “If you installed the bump stock, you go to jail. Two different results for possessing the same product. The logic fails.”

He said the case isn’t about the levels of gun violence in society, whether it’s morally right to ban bump stocks, or whether new gun restrictions related to domestic abusers will prevent gun violence.

“This matter is purely a legal matter,” he wrote. “It is solely about whether Columbus has the authority to enact the ordinances. That is all there is.”

A judge that interprets and enforces the law as written. Nice!

Quote of the day—Stephen P. Halbrook

In 1776, Pennsylvania declared: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state.” Vermont copied that language in its constitution, which explicitly abolished slavery. Massachusetts and North Carolina adopted their own versions.

When the states debated adoption of the Constitution without a bill of rights in 1787-88, Samuel Adams proposed the right to bear arms in Massachusetts’s ratification convention. The Dissent of the Minority did so in Pennsylvania, and the entire New Hampshire convention demanded recognition of the right.

There was no connection to slavery in any of these historical antecedents.

Stephen P. Halbrook
June 25, 2018
The Second Amendment Had Nothing to Do with Slavery
[The background for this is that a certain professor, Carl T. Bogus, has been peddling the fiction that the Second Amendment was about keeping slaves from rebelling. In 1998 it was an open claim. More recently it is more of a suggestion. Halbrook explains why the story Professor Bogus has been telling is, as you might expect, totally bogus.—Joe]