Quote of the day—Andrew Kohut

We are at a moment when most Americans believe crime rates are rising and when most believe gun ownership – not gun control – makes people safer.

A 2013 Pew Research survey showed that protection is now the top reason gun owners offer for why they choose to own a gun (in 1999, hunting was the top reason). And among the public at large, the latest Gallup survey finds that 63% of Americans now say having a gun in the home makes it a safer place compared with 30% who say it makes a home more dangerous. Fifteen years ago, more said the presence of a gun made a home more dangerous (51%) than safer (35%).

Andrew Kohut
Despite lower crime rates, support for gun rights increases
April 17, 2015
[Principals are important but public opinion is what wins elections and to a great extent judicial rulings. We are now getting nearly everything going our way. We need to politically exterminate the anti-gun people as quickly as we can and make them as socially distasteful as the KKK.

In addition to reasonably hard data like the surveys referenced above I know my workplace has a lot of people quite friendly to gun ownership. And I know one woman who just recently put her profile on Match.com after being “off the market” for several years. She commented to me just last week that many of the men on the site have pictures of themselves with guns. According to her this wasn’t the case even five years ago.

The anti-gun people are headed to the dustbin of history. Help them get there as quickly as we legally can.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Matt Ridley

The environmental movement has advanced three arguments in recent years for giving up fossil fuels: (1) that we will soon run out of them anyway; (2) that alternative sources of energy will price them out of the marketplace; and (3) that we cannot afford the climate consequences of burning them.

Matt Ridley
March 13, 2015
Fossil Fuels Will Save the World
[There is some really good stuff in the article. If you don’t have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal you can read the article here as well.

There is stuff like:

More than a billion people on the planet have yet to get access to electricity and to experience the leap in living standards that abundant energy brings. This is not just an inconvenience for them: Indoor air pollution from wood fires kills four million people a year. The next time that somebody at a rally against fossil fuels lectures you about her concern for the fate of her grandchildren, show her a picture of an African child dying today from inhaling the dense muck of a smoky fire.

And this point about plants being CO2 starved and grow better with more CO2 which I bring up with nearly everyone that wants to tell me about man caused global warming:

Although the world has certainly warmed since the 19th century, the rate of warming has been slow and erratic. There has been no increase in the frequency or severity of storms or droughts, no acceleration of sea-level rise. Arctic sea ice has decreased, but Antarctic sea ice has increased. At the same time, scientists are agreed that the extra carbon dioxide in the air has contributed to an improvement in crop yields and a roughly 14% increase in the amount of all types of green vegetation on the planet since 1980.

The more sophisticated global-warming/climate-change people want to talk about the positive feedback loops that will create runaway warming. But they give me a blank look when I ask about the negative feedback from the plants consuming more CO2 and more vegetation resulting from the increased CO2.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Hillary Clinton

I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be.

Hillary Clinton
April 16, 2008
Democratic Debate in Philadelphia
[It would appear that Ms. Clinton is of the opinion that as long as there are one or more exceptions under some circumstances then a near total ban on guns would be Constitutional in her view.

This should not be a surprise to anyone. She has explicitly said that people holding the opinion that the have the constitutional to own guns “terrorizes people” and this should not be allowed. She would be the thought police if she could.

She also thinks more people exercising their rights is something to be concerned about.

See also Hillary Clinton on Guns: Not a Big Fan.

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

Please don’t let her gain the power to nominate new Supreme Court Justices.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rosa DeLauro

There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.

Rosa DeLauro
U.S. Representative (D-Conn.)
April 6, 2015
Bill would pay gun owners to hand over assault weapons
[Pictures of Rep. DeLauro from The Hill and the Washington Times:

TheHillDeLauroWashingtonTimesDeLauro

You would think they would get tired of rerunning these same tired arguments. Our standard responses are:

  • It’s a Bill of Rights. Not a Bill of Needs.
  • Since the police have them it must be in their job description to “kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible”.
  • If you really believe this then you are extremely ignorant and/or lack imagination.

Her ignorance and malice is evident in this part of the article in The Hill:

DeLauro is in favor of stronger guns laws that would completely ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, she emphasized this bill would not force gun owners to turn in their firearms.

“High-capacity ammunition”? And of course she makes it clear this is just step toward her real goal of a complete ban. Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Sebastian and most of the commenters over there don’t see a problem for gun owners in this proposed law. Say Uncle just says, “No, thanks.” TriggerFinger doesn’t seem much concerned about it either.

But I would worry about this giving the Feds a list of people that are verified previous owners of “assault weapons”. One might imagine, in her mind, these are the people that need to “dealt with”. The administration has already demonstrated they use the IRS as a weapon. So what better way to get a list of your enemies than pay them a little something to identify themselves to your “weapon”, the IRS?

It’s a variation of the Lenin quote, “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”—Joe]

Fail, fail, fail, fail…

I’m writing this after just getting off the phone with Great Big Gun Accessory Company That Everyone Knows. I’m not pissed, just a little disgusted. I got a 130 dollar tool made by that company, from an Idaho retailer, and the tool is defective.

I called the retailer about it immediately. After some vacillation (first fail) and some obvious back-and-forth amongst the person who took my call and someone else (second fail) they referred me to the manufacturer (third fail).

I then called Great Big Gun Accessory Company That Everyone Knows and got put on hold by a robot. OK; that’s sort of tolerable, as it’s a busy time of day for a busy company in a very busy industry. After only two or three minutes I got a person. I got directly to the point; I had ordered this tool and it has some bad threads.

She actually muttered under her breath at me, as though she’d been robbed few minutes ago and I had just threatened her for her wallet; “Oh, good God…” (fourth fail). She then had to put me on hold (fifth fail) to talk to someone else (sixth fail) after which she went on and on in her Eeyore/Marvin the Paranoid Android tone, (seventh fail) about oh, woe is us; we’re juuust swamped with customer service… (eighth fail) and that she’d take my name and number and someone would call me back, maybe today but probably tomorrow (ninth fail).

There’s a point to all of this, mind you. This isn’t so I can vent my frustration– I’m not frustrated. I got this tool on a lark, because I thought it would be something fun to try. Well, all the fun has been drained right out, but it’s not frustrating in any way because I really have no “need” for this item than can’t be served with tools I already have.

The point is; if you’re in business and you have a customer who has a problem, AND you’re capable of solving said problem, then DO IT, RIGHT NOW. Your customers will absolutely love you for it, and your service will have been so unusually simple and easy that they’ll tell everyone they know about you. That two or three dollars, to fifty or 60 dollars it actually cost you to SOLE THE CUSTOMER’S PROBLEM STRAIGHT AWAY will have been your cheapest and most effective advertizing ever!

The retailer could have solved my problem immediately, without even thinking about it, if they’d simply send me a new part. “No problem, Mister Keeney; we’ll get you another part out to you right now, and you’ll have it tomorrow. Sorry about the inconvenience.”

That is our goal, but we don’t always reach it (for one thing, there is internal disagreement on its merits, if you can believe that). It is an ideal, which will rarely be met in all cases, but it is none the less THE ideal.

This is so very simple, and so very obvious, that practically all businesses fail to consider it. The few who do will rule the retail world. All the rest will have every excuse in the book why they don’t do it, and they’ll all be very reasonable and thoroughly justifiable excuses.

If you HAVE THE ABILITY to solve the customer’s problem RIGHT NOW, that is an OPPORTUNUTY for you and your company. Don’t miss the opportunity.

Meanwhile, after talking to two people, at two companies, each of whom had the ability to solve my problem right then and there, each of whom had to talk to at least one other person who also had the ability to solve my problem right then and there, I’ll be waiting for a phone call (not a replacement part, mind you, not even a promise of a replacement part, but a phone call) that may or may not come in the next 24 hours.

The time it took either one of the two people I spoke with to hum and haw and consult with peers and finally get around to telling me to call somewhere else or to take my name and number for someone else to get back to me, THEY COULD HAVE SOLVED MY PROBLEM RIGHT THEN AND THERE, and so you see, it would be far MORE EFFICIENT just for them, which would free up more customer service representatives to help more customers.

This isn’t rocket surgery.

And then there were…five?

Kansas Gubnuh signs “constitutional” carry bill.

There’s also talk about lowering the legal age for open carry to eighteen, some citing the fact that eighteen year-olds can fight for their country. Well, yeah. I havent seen any age restrictions in the second amendment, but maybe I didn’t look close enough. That sort of thing (for those under 18) should be up to the parents, and Uncle Sam is not my daddy or my kids’ daddy.

ETA: If we didn’t think she’d be arrested for it, my daughter would be packing right now. Instead we’re forced to decide whether we’re more concerned about her being judged by twelve (actually since she’s under age it would be judged by one) or carried by six.

“I believe we can lower the age to 18 at some point in the future. I think after everybody sees that there are not going to be any of the dire predictions coming true, and they relax a little bit, then we can talk about that.”

OK; why do some people need to be “relaxed” before others can exercise their natural human rights? Where in the constitution does it say that? There must be one hell of a long list of qualifiers that I haven’t seen yet.

I’ve mentioned “control by freakout” before, and this is an excellent example – media get people all hyped up and “un-relaxed” and our rights are violated as a result. I must say it is a brilliant tactic.

Quote of the day—Glenn Reynolds

If it weren’t for double standards the left would have no standards at all.

Glenn Reynolds
December 24, 2014
CHARLES C.W. COOKE: The Left’s “Climate Of Hate” Hypocrisy.
[There is more than a little truth in this even if it really should be “no principles at all”. But then the humor wouldn’t work.—Joe]

‘Well, you know what I meant!’

Actually no; quite often I don’t, so why not just come right out and say it clearly and directly?

From Vanderboegh. I like it. It illustrates exactly the sort of ridiculous things I picture in my mind when most people speak, about anything.

I was listening to a caller on a talk show this morning, for example, who went on and on and, so far as I could gather, never said anything. The host caught on right away and after several unsuccessful attempts to prompt the guy into saying something he ended the call. A lot of words were coming out of the caller’s mouth, amounting to nothing.

That little anecdote describes much of my life. Many times I’ve sat through a whole hour of some video someone or other thought I should totally see, searching for one little bit of clear meaning (anything that didn’t require some inference or projection or other) to end up with nothing.

Quote of the day—Eliot Engel

This legislation is not stopping hunters from continuing to participate in legal sporting activities. What it does is make the rational point that “green tips” are not necessary for those purposes. While some argue that these bullets have not been used to kill cops, I say why should we wait around for that day to come?

Eliot Engel
U.S. Representative
March 27, 2015
View: Deer don’t wear Kevlar
[While some may argue that Engel should be gagged, removed from office, and prosecuted before he says something even more stupid and attempts more criminal acts I say we can only prosecute him for acts committed. The principles our country is based upon say that, yes, we do need to “wait around for that day to come”. To do otherwise is called prior restraint and is, rightfully so, illegal.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

Obama and the EUs policy of appeasement is nothing less than submission to Islam.

Until the West can bring itself to identify Islamism as the enemy, the blood soaked harvest of death will continue.

Robert J. Avrech
January 7, 20154
IslamoNazi Terror in Paris With Obama Flashback That Helps Set The Bloody Scene
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert Tracinski

If the whole focus of your life is on getting everybody else to agree with you on every detail of your politics and adopt your plans for a perfect society, then you’re setting yourself up to be at war with most of the human race most of the time.

Which means an awful lot for the Angry Left to get angry about.

Robert Tracinski
March 26, 2015
Why Is the Angry Left So Angry?
[While this is a good start I think there is more to it than this.

Having spent a lot of years dealing with someone and their family who were angry much of the time I came to realize that anger was the primary means of communication for them. If you didn’t get angry they would not pay attention to what you were saying. I remember an instance where I coolly and calmly told this person, probably a dozen times over the course of a few days, that what they were doing was hazardous. They would agree, say they wouldn’t do it again, then, frequently, within a few seconds do it again.

Eventually I lost my cool. I yelled. They apologized, said they wouldn’t do it again, and they didn’t. Within a year I found myself getting angry with them with almost no provocation. They taught me to get angry to communicate. I finally realized this and starting thinking about what was going on. I then thought back to the first time I met this persons family. I was at the front door and the living room was chaos. Various people yelling at the same time and no one appeared to be listening to anyone else. My friend, happy to see me, walked through the chaos with a big smile. They were oblivious to the yelling and anger of everyone else.

The entire family communicated via emotions. The actual words weren’t that important. There were many times I would see different people in a conversation were talking about entirely different things but didn’t realize the other party to the conversation was “on a different channel”. Other times what they said was self-contradictory. It didn’t even make sense. Pointing this out to them was interesting. They would laugh and say it didn’t matter. I became sort of a joke to them because I couldn’t understand them. They made no sense to me but they were entirely happy with their babbling to each other and didn’t see what why I had a problem with it. “Oh, Joe, we’re just talking.” is an actual quote which came in response to my confusion about something not making sense.

When the topic of discussion was something of significant importance and it involved me I would sometimes insist they pay attention to reality and make sense. This would result in a fight. The claim was that “I had to get my own way.” But it wasn’t my way. It was forcing them to be congruent with reality and the laws of physics.

We see similar things with the left/progressives. They think they have accomplished something by holding a candlelight vigil. They demand a higher minimum wage and higher employment rate no matter how many time it is demonstrated you can’t have both for very long. They demand enhanced background checks because President Regan, Jim Brady, and a bunch of kids were shot—even though the shooters did, or would have, passed the proposed background check.

They use “hash tag diplomacy” and declare victory when bullets are the only viable option to effect change. They throw “reasons” like, “stand your ground”, and “war on women” around because they know our society requires at least some lip service be given to “reasons” even if the facts don’t support their claims. They don’t understand reason and resort to making reasoning noises. They cannot even tell you how to determine truth from falsity.

Emotion is their currency and their reality. If they feel something is true then, for them, it is true. This was driven home to me when I extreme frustration I once demanded, “How do you determine truth from falsity?” They calmly told me, “It depends on how I feel.”

I have been repeatedly told and after many decades of trying everything else I’m beginning to believe the proper approach to these people is to not get emotional. That is their “battle space”. When you get emotional it makes them happy because you become one of them. Then any emotion they care to use is justified because you are already emotional. Insist they be rational. They can’t. They only have emotions. Point out their logical and factual errors and refuse to accept their emotions as currency.

We do not share a common basis for communication or for determining reality. We share the same planet but they are in a different world. So of course they get angry with us. In their minds we are aliens in a turf war with them.—Joe]

Exactly like an Obama ad

This Ted Cruise ad could be an Obama ad, except for one single word (and the face). It may in fact BE a recycled Obama ad, with the tiniest bit of editing. Check it out.

Someone needs to be fired, and right now too. The same old crap such as this won’t do this time around. It won’t do at all.

Ted declares his candidacy

The Democrats are totally ill-equipped to defeat him. He simply doesn’t fall for their game, and so it will require the combined efforts of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, the American Communist Party, et al, plus Jihadists and other foreign interests, to defeat him. This will be interesting.

The predictable, or rather a common, outcome would be that someone would get to him and convince him (threaten, bribe, cajole, lie, intimidate, mesmerize, etc.) that “For the Greater Good of the Party” he should quit before he does too much damage to the 2016 prospects. That or they primary him right out.

Quote of the day—Granny

I thought they was Yankees.

Granny
From Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (America: A Cultural History)
[During World War II three German submariners escaped from Camp Crossville Tennessee. Their flight took them to an Appalachian cabin where they stopped for a drink of water. The mountain Granny told them to, “Git!” When they ignored her she promptly shot them dead. The sheriff came and scolded her for shooting helpless prisoners. Granny burst into tears and said she would not have done it if she had known they were Germans. The exasperated sheriff asked her what in tarnation she thought she was shooting at. Her reply is today’s QOTD.

A case could be made that the divide between certain cultures in the U.S. has just as much stress now as it did then.—Joe]

80% of the public is in support

We frequently hear the some large percentage of the public is in support of universal background checks for firearms sales. But it is easy to demonstrate that a large percentage of the public is either ignorant of the effectiveness of background checks or has evil intent.

Basically the problem boils down to a large percentage of the public has opinions on things they really don’t know much about. Brother Doug pointed out a great example recently:

A … survey in January conducted by the Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics found that 82 percent of respondents supported mandatory labels on GMOs. However, 80 percent of respondents also said they supported mandatory labels on “foods containing DNA.”

This is the reason we have a representative democracy with enumerated powers for the government rather than a direct democracy. Our representatives are supposed to carefully study and debate any potential laws and only enact laws that are beneficial to the majority of people and do not infringe upon the rights of anyone.

Popular opinion can easily be shown, see above, to be a very poor way of determining, well, almost anything.

The most transparent administration

When Obama was campaigning in 2008 the one good thing I thought might come out of him being elected was better support for FOIA. My experience with FOIA and the Federal Government is that they completely ignore you unless you get a lawyer involved. That’s just wrong. If the people don’t comply with FOIA they should be prosecuted. That’s not what happens. If Obama could make some progress on getting better compliance with FOIA I would have praised that achievement.

It was just another Obama lie.

We are sliding further down the slippery slope into a police state:

The White House is voiding a federal regulation that subjects its Office of Administration to the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA  (incidentally the same act that discovered none of Hillary Clinton’s “personal” government-business emails since they were not even stored on government property!) which as USA Today explains, makes “official a policy under Presidents Bush and Obama to reject requests for records to that office.”

Update: More evidence:

The Obama administration set a record again for censoring government files or outright denying access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press.

The government took longer to turn over files when it provided any, said more regularly that it couldn’t find documents and refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy.

It also acknowledged in nearly 1 in 3 cases that its initial decisions to withhold or censor records were improper under the law — but only when it was challenged.

Its backlog of unanswered requests at year’s end grew remarkably by 55 percent to more than 200,000. It also cut by 375, or about 9 percent, the number of full-time employees across government paid to look for records. That was the fewest number of employees working on the issue in five years.

Quote of the day—Christopher Ingraham

There’s no question that gun rights groups like the NRA are winning the battle for hearts and minds.

Christopher Ingraham
March 5, 2015
America has more guns in fewer hands than ever before
[H/T to SayUncle.

This is in the Washington Post!

It makes me sad to say this but humans, in general, have a herd instinct. They want other people to like them and to be like other people. Facts, logical support, and consistency tend to be of less importance than being a member of large herd.

We have the facts, logic, and SCOTUS decisions on our side but for decades they had the herd. That is slowing changing. Their claim of “few hands than ever before” is probably false do to the justifiable concern by gun owners that gun ownership polls may be an intelligence gathering subterfuge by criminals (by this I intend to include people working for the government). There is also some funny business with the wording of things. If we are clearly winning hearts and minds then I find it difficult to believe that we aren’t increasing the size of the gun owner herd as well.

I can say, with increasing confidence, that my dream may one day come true.—Joe]

Stolen government money

It seems that someone just embezzled three billion dollars from the US treasury. Well, actually, it was some insurance companies, and the Treasury just cut them checks. And it wasn’t authorized by congress. And the treasury told congress to go piss up a rope when they said “you can’t do that!” That story and other bureaucratic contempt for the law here.

The rule of law is dead, unless some pols and appointees start going to jail, or otherwise paying for their crimes against the people.