They want you to die shivering, hungry, and in the dark

This is fascinating in a horrifying sort of way:

Why we must nationalize Big Oil

… the government should nationalize Big Oil. That would allow the government to manage the industry’s drawdown, a process the private sector is ignoring.

“We will likely need to take over and decommission the large fossil fuel extraction corporations that are both one of the leading causes of climate change and one of the primary institutional impediments to addressing,” Hanna concludes.

The federal government typically nationalizes companies to save them. In this case, it must nationalize Big Oil to save us all from a future we don’t want.

“Drawdown” is this character’s euphemism for controlled destruction.

They are referring to the manufacturer of a product that provides the energy to produce and transport food to billions of people who would otherwise die. This product is the basis of the worlds greatest triumphs over poverty, hunger, shelter, transportation, and pestilence. And these people want to deliberately destroy access to it.

To the best of my knowledge nothing of this sort has ever before been advocated, not even by the most evil communist regimes the planet has ever seen. This would be the deliberate murder of the vast majority of the world population.

Yes, people have been saying the deliberate and violent extinction of humans is what the environmental fascists “really want”. But prior to this the worst I have actually seen is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

Prepare appropriately.

Quote of the day—Justice Samuel Alito

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?

The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?

The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1

The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.

Justice Samuel Alito
June 23, 2022
[I suspect that to Alito these are actually rhetorical questions. By now it should be increasingly clear anti-gun people are not rational. To many of them it is perfectly obvious that if someone, not an authorized government employee, possesses a gun they are “a bad guy”. That is their default way to determine good from evil. If someone has a gun they are evil and/or have intent to do evil, and should be taken into custody to prevent the crimes which they know will happen. That we want private citizens to be able possess guns is blindingly obvious proof that we want to create more criminals and crime. It’s “common sense” to them. No further discussion is needed.

And it happens at the Supreme Court of United States of America.

That is how messed up and prevalent their thinking is. It is how they justify summary execution and genocide for gun owners.

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Nicholas Roske needs to learn to apply himself @DanLoney36

OK…silent generation? Whatever the hell you were. Thanks for all the impotent killers you trained

Nicholas Roske needs to learn to apply himself @DanLoney36
Tweeted on June 14, 2022
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!

The quoted tweet was in response to someone saying they were a CCW instructor.

This claim takes some contemplation to even begin to respond to it:

It is not possible to manufacture, distribute or sell an AR-15 safely. We have decades of evidence. Its only use is to kill civilians and children. Its very existence creates a market for murder.

He apparently lives in a alternate universe from the one I am familiar with. In my universe tens of millions of AR-15s are safely in the hands of millions of citizens and are used to fire hundreds of millions of rounds each year. Yet blunt objects are used more frequently to murder people than are killed using an AR-15. And sharp objects such as knives are used far more often than blunt objects. Either all those 100s of millions of rounds malfunctioned or they are being used for something other than to “kill civilians and children”. Hence this guy is delusional and/or an evil liar.

This law expert is also well know for:

Saying an AR-15 is protected by #2A is like saying child pornography is protected by #1A

This one tells you all you need to know about him:

Ashli Babbitt? Love her. I love her so much, I think next time they should make a few dozen just like her

This removes all doubt:

Why are we pretending these #2A scum are human beings?

And this was directly to me before I was blocked:

It’s just a never-ending abyss of moral and intellectual failure with, for want of a better term, “people” like you I don’t care if the vast majority of mass shooters are Whigs. As long as these weapons are legal, children will die. It can’t be any more clear.

This is what he thinks of people who don’t agree with him. He dehumanize them and wants them dead. For more examples see here.

It was an interesting exchange. Links to SCOTUS decisions, criminology facts, and pointing out the errors of his ways were responded to with insults and additional bad legal takes. I had to wonder if he is paid to be a troll. He was clearly way in over his head and just kept going long after I left to go to the range.—Joe]

This is what they think of self-defense with a gun

Mayor Jim Kenney and DA Larry Krasner clash over charging man in South Street mass shooting:

Taking issue with a decision by District Attorney Larry Krasner, Mayor Jim Kenney said Wednesday that anyone who fired a weapon during Saturday night’s mass shooting on South Street deserved to be jailed — including the man prosecutors said had acted in self-defense.

Speaking at a virtual gun-violence briefing, Kenney said: “Anybody who fired a gun that day should be locked up.”

Krasner’s office took exception to the mayor’s comments. “He’s not a cop, he’s not an attorney,” said Jane Roh, Krasner’s spokesperson. “The DA and our entire office is incredibly frustrated with the gun violence that’s happening.

“But just like the mayor, we are bound by the law, we cannot invent crimes that don’t exist and facts that aren’t true.”

Would the Mayor insist someone who used a rock to hit and kill the guy who just shot him be locked up too? I’m betting the answer is no. The mayor is prejudiced against gun ownership and using a gun for self-defense.

If he somehow manages to someday get his way and anyone who defended innocent life against imminent danger of serious injury or death is prosecuted then it would be my desire that the mayor and anyone assisting him in such a crime be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

See also this article.

This makes perfect sense

Michael Moore Urges 2nd Amendment Repeal: Get Dogs, Not Guns

“I know that there are Democratic Party leaders that do not want me saying this. … I make no apologies for it because I understand the history of this country, and I don’t think we should be afraid to say this: Repeal the Second Amendment. Repeal the Second Amendment,” Moore urged.

“You don’t need a gun,” Moore added. “If you’re afraid of somebody breaking in, get a dog.”

If a dog is going to be a deterrent to a violent predator then they have to be large and capable of inflicting serious, life threatening, damage. So, essentially you have the same level of damage as a firearm but instead of under your complete control it is under the control of an animal brain over which you have moderate control.

The way I see this is that if you believe a dog is better than a firearm it means you believe some dog brain has better judgement and is less likely to make a mistake in defending you and yours than you are. Plus there is the lack of availability when you go to work, the store, or the movies, etc.. That is also a “cost” of making that tradeoff.

For this increased reliability and decreased availability you are willing to a pay a lot more. This says to me that the increased reliability must be an order of magnitude or so better than what you have with a firearm 100% under your control.

This makes perfect sense in the case of Moore. But he should not be speaking for others who are not so mentally handicapped that, by his own indirect admission, he believes a dog is ten times smarter than he is.

Quote of the day—Amanda Marcotte

Mass shootings are effective for Republicans at demoralizing their opposition and training their base to unlearn any lingering sense of empathy. Historian Ruth Ben-Shiat argued in October in the Washington Post, that gun violence “fosters political, social and psychological conditions that are propitious for autocracy.” A major GOP campaign message going into the midterms is that “woke” Democrats are letting criminals run amok in the cities. Dramatic gun violence really helps sell this message, which is why Republicans are guaranteed to block any bill that would make it even slightly harder for violent and unhinged people to get guns.

Amanda Marcotte
June 6, 2022
U.S. gun laws are causing mayhem and mass murder — and Republicans couldn’t be more thrilled
[This is what they think of you.

The way I remember the history of gun rights in this country over the last 30 years is that (mostly) Republicans celebrated the reduction in violent crime as it became easier to carry guns to protect yourself in public. Another contributor to that decreasing violent crime rates was the increased incarceration of repeat criminals. But, as numerous people have pointed out in the comments, the political left doesn’t know their history.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Matthew Yglesias

Continuing to insist on new rules while shying away from enforcing existing ones, meanwhile, burns credibility with conservative voters, who see a left that’s eager to penalize their hobby and reluctant to punish criminals.

Matthew Yglesias
June 3, 2022
The flaw in the progressive stance on guns
[Via email from Chet.

Reading the entire opinion piece you can see he has a glimmer of self awareness about the weakness of the gun control position. But if he actually believes the 2nd Amendment, the specific enumeration of a basic human right, is just a hobby then he has no clue why so many people are opposed to restrictions on personal arms.

The mindset of the opposition is much closer to “people that wish to disarm me must be intending to inflect violence upon me and/or innocent people I care about.” This completely changes any attempts to get even minor concessions

Why would anyone grant someone they believe to be intent on murdering them to tie one hand behind their back? If, after saying “No!”, the person attempts to forcibly tie the hand it seems entirely justified to use lethal force to stop them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rep. John Kowalko

I’ve got a suggestion for you and your fellow gun worshipers (sic), Instead of wearing a mask stick the barrel of your piece in your mouth. Maybe those 14 children killed in Texas would have been safer from the virus and you psycho, small-penis gun fondlers.

John Kowalko
Delaware state Rep. (D)
Posted on Facebook May 26, 2022
Dem State Rep. Goes On Fake-Fact-Checker Facebook Meltdown, Tells ‘Small-Penis’ Gun Supporters To Kill Themselves
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!

Via email from Rolf.

This is what they think of you. They want you dead.—Joe]

Canadian cattle

Just like a rancher dehorning their cattle to prevent them from hurting each other or their owner Canada does not allow people to carry knives for the purpose of self defense:

There are no limits on length. BUT, and this is a big but, the knife you carry must only be used as a tool (a.k.a. utility knife, hunting knife WHEN HUNTING, etc.). As stated above it do not conceal or have the intent to cause harm; this includes self defense!

This law is about intent. This means if you’re caught with a knife that’s concealed on your person while in a location you don’t require a knife to be used as a tool, you may be in for a bad time.

Example, walking through a dark alley at night with a utility knife in your pocket for protection sounds like a good idea. However if an officer of the law stops you and finds it, they can easily conclude there is no other reason for you to have it except for the intent to cause harm to another person.

Furthermore, this also means you can be charged with assault with a weapon even when defending yourself. Why, because the intent to use it for such an occasion is there before you even stepped out from your house.

Having “solved” all the “gun violence” in their country this must be what they consider as “common sense” prevention of “knife violence”.

This is what they think of you

VIa email from pkoning.

Tyrants gotta tyrant:

IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General may deny a license under this section if the Attorney General determines that the applicant poses a significant danger of bodily injury to self or others by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm, after examining factors the Attorney General considers are relevant to the determination, including…

(gg) any recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons;

This is one of those “can’t win” scenario those who have mental issues create for you. If you buy some ammo they can declare you unfit to buy a gun because you might actually have the ability to use it.

I’ve experienced and put up with a mental issues environment… for decades. Highly discommended.

The other case you see this sort of behavior is the situation described by Ayn Rand regarding the creation of criminals. This is a situation you want to avoid even more than an individual with mental issues.

But what I find most telling about this proposed legislation is what such a politician must think of you. It must be one of the following:

  1. You are too stupid to see the trap this creates, or
  2. They believe that the desire to exercise a specific enumerated right demonstrates criminal intent.

Just say no, and keep saying no, until you run out of ammo.

Quote of the day—Floyd Neeland

The only reason ten blacks murdered in Buffalo are getting so much news coverage is because that supports the false government narrative that white people pose the top threat to America, and guns are evil.

In 2019, nearly 8,000 black people were murdered.* News media failed to cover it or bring the point home. Few arrests, few trials, murderers roamed free amidst newslessness. The following year black murders increased, and again little or no coverage. But now, the so-called “news” media harps on one teenage psychopath who made advanced threats, posted his intentions, never got treatment, and media uses the tragedy to falsely claim whites are part of a scheme. Whites are more racist than blacks or other clinging ethnic groups, they say, guns are evil, while ignoring the real dead stacked in a corner like firewood.

Floyd Neeland
May 20, 2022
9,941 Black People Murdered in 2020*
Saturation coverage of 10 dead in Buffalo is misdirection
Here is hard proof that Black Lives Don’t Matter

[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day— @LookImAZombie

They are not a form of Amercan society and they do not protect your freedom. That’s a delusion you created in order to justify your taste for murder and make it look socially acceptable.

Tweeted on May 12, 2022
[Also, from the same thread (emphasis added):

This act was written in 1934 about 1934’s guns only. They would not have written it in a rotten society where you can literally grab a machine gun and murder a whole classroom. But again, you won’t understand this bc you don’t care about facts. You just want an excuse to murder.

This is what they think of you.

And if they think this of you they can justify, in their own minds, your murder.

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Savi @SavionWinter

Oh and for the record, every gun worshipper who shows up in my notifications will be banned. Take note, gun worshippers are too stupid to even try to talk to. They don’t even realize how unhinged and uneducated they are. BORING.

Savi @SavionWinter
Tweeted on April 9, 2022
[Oh, and for the record, this person doesn’t have an account anymore.


I wonder if this tweet from March 29th had something to do with it:

My daughter just said we should sacrifice the richest person and redistribute their wealth.  Every year, whoever has the most money will die.  That would see a lot of rich people giving money away wouldn’t it?  LOL

Just remember, this is what they think of you. They want you dead and they will laugh about it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—marissaBoda @marissaboda

I think you should look in the mirror.  Skip over the baldness and look for the absence of your soul.  You are a bad bad human, with low personal standards.  And very few dignified interests. Lets get you on the FBI watch list!

marissaBoda @marissaboda
Tweeted on March 9, 2022
[This was brought about because I made this blog post: No one needs an AR-15 or AK-47 and a link was posted on twitter. Then someone (who has since blocked me) started whining about “the children”, “no one needs an assault rifle for their sport”, etc. etc.. I responded with:

1) It is a Bill of Rights, not NEEDS.
2) The 2nd Amendment is not about sports.
3) Large numbers of Ukrainian civilians would vehemently disagree with you about the need, but they are too busy to explain it to you as they are shooting Russians with their assault rifles.

They began insulting me rather than address my points. I laughed at them and pointed out the errors of their assumptions about me, and then I got blocked.

marissaBoda took over from the person who blocked me (I have a strong suspicion it is the same person with a different account) and the insults continued. The one above is probably my all time favorite. It is so completely lacking in connection with reality that I find it hilarious. My next favorite insult of all time was also completely wrong, but was a plausible extrapolation of factual data. It went something like:

You are a bomb making, pornography making, gun nut.

I would like to add marissaBoda @marissaboda to the list of examples of the political left believing their fantasy’s are true and/or projecting their own flaws on others.

And remember, this is what they think of you.—Joe]

Quote of the day—tommybigdick @tommybigdickpr1

Any person who voluntarily goes near or touches a gun literally does not have a brain or soul and its completely okay to end such an individual cos they are already dead and exist in hell.

tommybigdick @tommybigdickpr1
Tweeted on February 24, 2022
[Via In Chains.

This is what they think of you. They want you dead.

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mark Donner @MarkDonner13

The Constitution meant a militia with muskets 100 years ago, not idiots carrying bang bang toys to compensate for a small dick. America is chock full of idiots, gun toys for oversized drooling heads with three brain cells. An ant has more brain cells than them and is worth more.

Mark Donner @MarkDonner13
Tweeted on December 23, 2021
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday it’s another science denier!

He also is approaching peak irony by throwing junior high level insults instead of presenting a rational argument.

It’s amazing how completely these people can discredit themselves with just two sentences.

Via a Tweet from In Chains @InChainsInJail.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chauncey DeVega

Thomas Massie and Lauren Boebert, two of the most blatantly fascistic Republican members of Congress, are dreaming of a White Christmas — with the emphasis on “White.”

In the spirit of holiday cheer, Massie and Boebert recently shared family Christmas photos on social media — in which every family member is brandishing a gun. There’s nothing unique about them. Such a “tradition” is fairly common among a particular subculture of American gun fetishists and “ammosexuals.” This is but another symptom of America’s unhealthy infatuation with gun violence.

Chauncey DeVega
December 24, 2021
White supremacist Christmas: Those Boebert and Massie “gun photos” are a direct threat
[Reading the article was like reading about the trial in Darkness at Noon, propaganda from Nazi Germany, or the twisted reality described by the mentally ill. It is an elaborate tale constructed upon the flimsiest of scaffolding for evil purposes or from a delusional mind.

Even the pictures supplied were distorted.

These are the pictures supplied for the article:

The pictures supplied by Boebert and Massie:



It is my belief normal people are catching on to the disconnect from reality. The political left cannot bear to slow “progress” and push their delusions all the harder. Furthering the rife between reality and their “progress”.

This will not end well. Prepare appropriately.—Joe]