Quote of the day—Andrew Heaton

We threw the baby out with the bathwater when we kicked the monarchy out of America, and we ought to bring it back.

In America we’ve combined power and reverence in the office of the presidency, but legal authority and veneration compliment each other about as well as Scotch and back pain medication. It’s safer to ingest them separately.

Andrew Heaton
March 18, 2017
Why America Needs A Monarchy
[I find it hard to disagree with this point. There many be some interesting psychology going on here that could be affecting politics adversely.—Joe]

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 D. Clark

If your propellants flow into the chamber and ignite immediately, you’re in business. But if they flow in, collect in a puddle, and then ignite, you have an explosion which generally demolishes the engine and its immediate surroundings. The accepted euphemism for this sequence of events is a “hard start.”

John D. Clark
1972
I G N I T I O N !: An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants
[As I told Barb after she asked me why I was laughing, “The research of rocket propellants was a risky business. Sometimes the author doesn’t treat the subject entirely seriously.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ralphdog

Sound suppressors as public health measure; I still can’t quite get my head around the lunacy of it. That’s like recommending sunglasses for arsonists so the flash from the exploding gasoline doesn’t harm their vision. Or airbags for suicide car bombers.

Ralphdog
November 5, 2007
A Democrat’s guide to why firearm sound suppressors (“silencers”) should be made easier to obtain.
[This is what they think of you. If you exercise your specific enumerate right to keep and bear arms you are the equivalent of an arsonist or suicide car bomber.

When they have this attitude it should be easy to see why it is extremely foolish to even discuss any sort of “compromise” with them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Glenn Kessler

Foes of the law such as Gillibrand should not use misleading terms such as “quiet” to describe the sound made by a high-powered weapon with a suppressor attached. We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but finally tipped to Three. There is little that’s quiet about a firearm with a silencer, unless one also thinks a jackhammer is quiet.

Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Fact Checker
Are firearms with a silencer ‘quiet’?
[H/T Bob Owens.

One should not be surprised an anti-gun organization and their people are lying. It is in their nature and it is the best they have to work with.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lisa Stingel Mifsud‏@sportslawyerlis

@Duck_Hunter7 @Rickmayhem @DCHomos @johnrtworld and you think the gun does what exactly make up for your tiny penis

Lisa Stingel Mifsud‏@sportslawyerlis
Tweeted on June 12, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a tweet from Proud Hunter ‏@Duck_Hunter7.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bob Evans

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote of the day—John Robb

A form of direct democracy is coming.  One that lets people directly influence the decisions of the people they send to Washington.

A form of interactive democracy that doesn’t require any changes to the constitution since it works at the party level and not the national. 

When it does, it’s going to hit us fast, taking off like wildfire since it fulfills a fundamental need that the current system does not provide.

Here’s a quick example from the perspective of the Trump insurgency.  Other political parties would need different approaches, but they could if done in the right way (simple approach, scaled quickly by using disruptive marketing, grow from there), grow as quickly as this. 

Here’s how quickly populism can be automated:

  • Trump or Bannon picks an issue: the narrower and more inflammatory (disruptive marketing) the better.  Make the vote a yes or no.
  • Trump asks his supporters to tell him what they want (he doesn’t ask those opposing him). 
  • His supporters download the app to their smart phones and vote.  
  • A little programming and marketing magic radically improves the number of Trump supporters using the app and reduces spammers/non-supporters attempting to skew the vote down to a trickle.
  • Millions of Trump supporters download the app and vote.  
  • Once the decision is in, the app makes it easy to call or spam message to the user’s Congressional representatives.  Millions of calls roll in.  
  • A bill that codifies that issue is fast tracked in Congress.  Massive pressure via the app and the White House gets it passed quickly.
  • Connecting action and results quickly generates buzz.  Repeat.  This time with 10 m downloads.  
  • The app evolves. The pressure from the network increases.  It consumes the Republican party.

John Robb
March 10, 2017
How Trump and Bannon Could Automate Populism
[I’ve been wondering, for at least 30 years, what sort of new form of government might come out of the rapid technological changes we are seeing. Robb offers us, and he admits this, a very simple view of one possible outcome. I’m not convinced he is correct about the potential for the model he presents. I admit instant communication has great potential to make changes. But the minority party has the same tools as the majority party.

And the technological changes are not just in the field of communications. There are things of great importance on “the technological spreadsheet”. These include, essentially, continuous electronic surveillance on political opponents and the public at large, robots and drones (both armed and unarmed) for law enforcement and military action, and the threat of implementing a cashless society (more than just surveillance, it would make tax resistance extremely difficult).—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

If you substitute “colored people” every time you read “people of color” as you follow the so-called “news” the racism is glaring. The grammatical difference is tiny. The substantive difference is enormous. Left-wing racists insist on singling out people based on race, and name calling. Conservatives, centrists and moderates (almost the same thing) never do, because they shy away from racism and calling people colored (“of color”). It’s just not right. It’s left.

Alan Korwin
February 12, 2017
“People of Color” Is Racism
[Interesting observation.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Techno Saxondale @ShadowDancerMCR

@Duck_Hunter7 @Elliot_Eastwick @BrianKMcKenna @SethMacFarlane Couldn’t care less. I don’t need to compensate for a tiny penis.

Techno Saxondale @ShadowDancerMCR
Tweeted on June 13, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a tweet from Proud Hunter ‏@Duck_Hunter7.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Philip Watson

Rights shouldn’t have borders, and they shouldn’t have walls either. Washingtonians are tired of out-of-state interests buying our elections and chilling our civil rights—and they have made their voices heard loud and clear in the legislature.

Philip Watson
Firearm Policy Coalition Legislative Advocate
March 10, 2017
Gun Ban Fail: FPC Tearing Down “West Coast Wall of Gun Control”
[The last sentence is probably a little overstated by there is a lot of truth to it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dave Workman

With Obama in office and Clinton poised to take office, Americans were concerned about their Second Amendment rights, and they were arming up. The guns they didn’t want Americans to have are now in the hands of the very citizens their gun control schemes targeted. The irony is almost overwhelming.

Dave Workman
March 7, 2017
Obama’s Unintended Legacy: A Better Armed America
[I think he left out a word. Between the last word and the period I think there should be the word “sweetness”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Celebrity

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

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

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

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

Quote of the day—Maile McCann

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

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

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