I have pinned this post to the top of my blog. It is to remind people of what many of our opponents want. Alison Aires wants a tyrannical government. They want summary execution for private possession of firearms.
This is why we have a Bill of Rights. This is why I created Boomershoot.
It is far easier to concentrate power than to concentrate knowledge. That is why so much social engineering backfires and why so many despots have led their countries into disasters.
Thomas Sowell
January 5, 2010
Intellectuals and Society
Via Thomas Sowell Quotes @ThomasSowell.
I can’t say enough good things about the writings of Thomas Sowell.
Today’s repeal of the Zero Tolerance Policy and the comprehensive review of stabilizing brace regulations and the definition of ‘engaged in the business’ marks a pivotal step toward restoring fairness and clarity in firearms regulation. We are committed to working with all stakeholders to ensure our policies are balanced, constitutional and protective of Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
Kash Patel
Acting ATF Director
April 7, 2025
DOJ, ATF Repeal FFL Inspection Policy and Begin Review of Two Final Rules | ATF
I’ve been active in the pro-gun owner rights movement for over 30 years. I never imagined I would see such a statement from an ATF Director.
the reason that men generally would prefer to marry women with a low-to-zero “body-count” is that the women tend to adjust their set-points to the best of each trait for the men they have slept with.
So to have a good chance at a long-lasting marriage, you have to be as nice as her first, as well-hung as her 5th, as long-lasting as her 8th, as rich as her 15th, as handsome as her 23rd, have as much free time as her 30th, be as ambitious as her 32nd, etc., etc., etc. That’s an impossible standard to meet, so they become bored / dissatisfied. If you are the only one she’s been with, then… you are the best of each of those things, and the odds of staying together are much better. If you point this out, high-body-count women will just slam you as “insecure,” of course.
…
Women control access to sex.
Men control access to commitment.A key that opens nearly any lock is a rare and valued item.
A lock that can be opened by nearly any key is worthless.We are not the same.
Citations? Just look at the research relating to divorce rates and number of partners the woman has before marriage. “Alpha widow” is a very real thing.
This just did not sound right to me from my recollection of the literature. I did not recall ever reading anything like this. I went searching for “What is the divorce rate for women versus the number of sex partners before marriage?”
Nearly all results ultimately lead back to the same 2016 study by Nicholas H. Wolfinger.
I’ll save you the reading time and just give you his graphs:
Probably the most interesting data in Figure 1. is from prior to the year 2000. Women with just two partners prior to marriage had higher divorce rates than any other groups!
And note that 10+ category included those with 100+ partners!
The lowest divorce rate in all years is those with zero partners prior to marriage. But from Figure 2, we see they are also the highest percentage of women who attend church weekly. This leads us to ask, “Which is causation, if any, and what is merely correlation?” An alternate hypothesis to the number sex partners causing divorce could be in play. For example, “Church going women are less likely to divorce and have fewer partners due to social pressure.”
In any case that the data for two to nine partners is negatively correlated with the divorce rate! Also of important note, it is only for marriages in the 2000s that the 10+ group makes an obvious jump.
Some analysts of the study point out there may be other causative factors for divorces in high count marriages:
I did another search on something somewhat related, “What is the divorce rate for U.S. swingers?” I found only one number for this question, 2.8%. There was no citation given for this number and I don’t believe it.
There were studies that looked at martial and sexual satisfaction of swingers versus monogamous marriages. These tended to show the swingers scoring higher (no pun intended) than monogamous couples. But the studies had potential issues with selection bias. Hence, I don’t take those studies as definitive.
There was one other thing that I found extremely interesting about my searches. There apparently has been little or no interest in looking at the divorce rates versus partner counts for men. I do not have a decent hypothesis for this.
Getting back to the Rolf’s assertion and his model for divorce rates versus premarital partners…
I also found a study which directly addresses Rolf’s claims about desirability of virgins (or the original paper):
In 2017, Steve Stewart-Williams and I asked 188 participants from the U.K. to tell us how willing they would be to have a long-term relationship with someone based on their previous number of sexual partners. We started low: What if the person was a virgin? What about if they had just one previous partner? What about 19-22? What about more than 60? The participants rated 16 different histories in total, each time indicating their willingness on a nine-point scale from very willing to very unwilling.
Virgins, for both men and women, are not highly desired. And high counts were viewed harshly by people with low counts and low counts were viewed harshly by high counts:
The aim of this study was to explore how people’s sexual history affects their attractiveness. Using an Internet survey, 188 participants rated their willingness to engage in a relationship with a hypothetical individual with a specified number of past sexual partners, ranging from 0 to 60+. The effect of past partner number was very large. Average willingness ratings initially rose as past partner number rose, but then fell dramatically. For short-term relationships, men were more willing than women to get involved (although the difference was not large). For long-term relationships, in contrast, there was virtually no sex difference. Thus, contrary to the idea that male promiscuity is tolerated but female promiscuity is not, both sexes expressed equal reluctance to get involved with someone with an overly extensive sexual history. Finally, participants with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation (high SO participants) were more tolerant than low SO participants of prospective mates with higher numbers of past sexual partners but were also less tolerant of prospective mates with low numbers of past sexual partners.
Only 188 self-selected participants is a significant warning about limitations. But, my guess is the results point in the correct direction.
Pending review of new data, I do not believe Rolf’s model, or his conclusion are valid. Unless he is claiming this is only recent phenomena, the numbers prior to 2000 conclusively shoot down his model.
Rolf?
NICS needs to be eliminated:
Rand Paul Probes ATF Secret Surveillance Program
Concerned over reports of secret surveillance of American gun owners by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), U.S. Sen. Rand Paul is asking for answers.
On April 10, Sen. Paul, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, wrote a letter to ATF Director Daniel Driscoll requesting information on a secretive program that appears to allow the federal government to monitor law-abiding Americans attempting to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
According to Sen. Paul, based on limited public information, the NICS Audit Log Review (Monitoring) system appears to allow ATF agents to request monitoring of a target for time frames ranging from 30 to 180 days after providing identifying information and applicable or potential violations of statute. Upon approval, the ATF would receive an alert(s) from the FBI using the information in its National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
People should go to jail over this. I hope they enjoy their trials.
Small dick guys things
amigodasorte @kaiokavi
Posted on X, June 30, 2024
It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday; it is another science denier (see also here and here)!
Lame. No originality. No interesting twist. Just sad.
In climate and energy policy, certain well-intentioned ideas gain outsized popularity despite persistent evidence against them. One such appealing but deeply problematic approach is the “fabric first” philosophy — the notion that building decarbonization must begin by aggressively insulating and sealing structures, only later electrifying their heating systems. On the surface, it’s intuitive: if buildings leak less heat, they need less energy. Yet decades of research across multiple countries continue to reveal that “fabric first” consistently delivers far less than promised, saddling property owners and governments with excessive costs while barely reducing fossil fuel dependency.
…
In short, after decades of experience and analysis, the lesson is clear and overdue: if the goal is truly to decarbonize buildings rapidly, affordably, and permanently, electrification must lead the way. Insulation and sealing should support that goal—not substitute for it. Anything else is merely burning money and carbon while chasing a comforting illusion.
Michael Barnard
March 27, 2025
The “Fabric First” Trap: Decades Of Studies Show Electrification Wins Every Time – CleanTechnica
The reason why this is true is obvious in hindsight:
The culprit, as ever, was the infamous rebound effect: homeowners, now able to heat their spaces affordably, naturally sought higher comfort — warmer rooms, longer heating periods — and even added heated extensions to their properties.
This reminds me of the effect of “childproof” medicine bottles. It turns out that when people had small children and hazardous medicines, their behavior changed versus without “childproof” medicine bottles. They were less careful with the availability of their medicines when they had “childproof” medicine bottles. The end result was essentially the same accidental poisoning of small children.
It appears the psychology is that, in essence, people have a “set point” of risk level they are willing to accept. They used the increased safety of the containers to increase their convenience and maintained the same level of child safety.
And so it is with the heating bills. The people have a “set point” on what they will spend on heating cost and seek more comfort as the cost goes down.
The majority doesn’t seem to know that a flintlock musket would not fire without a flint, meaning that it is an essential part of an arm protected by the Second Amendment. And speaking of flintlocks, given the majority’s imperative that the more inferior the arm, the better, modern repeating arms that fire smokeless cartridges aren’t protected because single-shot flintlock firearms are available. But Heller explicitly rejected that argument.
While claiming that a magazine that holds over ten rounds is not an arm, the majority asserts that a magazine that holds ten or less is an arm because it “is necessary to the ordinary operation” of the firearm “as intended.” Ordinary operation as intended by whom? This made up distinction could be used to justify a ban on magazines that hold more than two rounds, as that would still allow the semiautomatic function.
Stephen Halbrook
April 3, 2025
Second Amendment Roundup: 9th Circuit Upholds California Magazine Ban (Again)
It is not that the 9th Circuit Court “doesn’t seem to know.” They know what they are doing. They are just playing stupid.
They have delayed the correct ruling on the question of whether 10+ round magazines are protected arms since 2017. I will not be surprised if it they manage to delay it for a full decade. They should be prosecuted for this.
Why should Jews be armed and trained? Because it is our right and our choice to do so, and because no one can take that from us unless we allow them to. Because our heritage is survival. Because if we proclaim Never Again while demanding or expecting or hoping someone else will give it meaning, then we are fools.
Brock Friedman
April 11, 2025
Why Jews Should Be Armed and Trained
Agreed, in as far as it goes. The assertion applies to everyone of sound mind, not just Jews.
The more media depictions veer away from reality, the greater the shock when people experience reality. Firearms instructors all have stories about the “aha!” moments of students who personally experience firearms after only media depictions.
When your belief structure is based on false assumptions, reality tends to bite. This is happening in the old Media. They are operating in a bubble where their false assumptions about reality and their groupthink are starting to intersect with reality. Their audiences don’t want what they are selling. Profits are plummeting. Their preferred solution: Have the government bail them out with subsidies.
One of the most important and misunderstood features of a market based economy is the right to fail. When ventures fail, more competent hands obtain the resources and make adjustments better tuned to reality. Progressive control of the media is failing. Their preferred solution is tyranny. The next election will determine if they succeed.
Dean Weingarten
September 24, 2024
GUN WATCH: Looney Tunes Bans Cartoon Guns, Wounds Fans
Progressives lost the national elections. Mainstream media is failing.
One can make the case that progressives have lost. But I think that is premature. There is still life left in them.
Keep pushing reality. As difficult as reality is, it is Kryptonite of the political left. Reality is the diagnosis, and potential cure, of their mental diseases.
Day before yesterday, while visiting Land’s End I thought I might be looking at a Tardis or two:
The doors were open, so I went inside:
I was disappointed. They are just an old telephone booths.
Land’s End was more interesting:
In the picture below, the red arrow in the upper left points to the sign. The other arrow points to the possible Tardis sighting.
And on a larger scale, you can see Land’s End is the southwestern tip of England:
Yesterday, Barb, her daughter Maddy, and I were our way to the Jolly Farmer Cliddesden for dinner after visiting some interesting sights. I looked to the side of the road and saw what looked like Stonehenge with some people and sheep. I gave my phone to Barb, and she took some pictures for me:
Yup. It was Stonehenge alright. We didn’t realize you could see it from a nearby road. The last time we visited, we took a about a two-hour bus ride from London to the entrance. This is from the opposite side.
It turns out that A303 goes right by it:
The visitor center is much further away as seen in the upper left-hand corner in the picture below:
After getting home today, I went out to do some errands. It was such a pleasure to drive on the correct side of the road. And so many of the roads there were very narrow and without shoulders.
I’m part of this group, actually.
I’ll go door to door and help confiscate all the assault rifles from all you obese gun owners who can’t touch your toes.
Learn martial arts and be a real man like me.
Dave Ernestkag @DavidErnestkag
Posted on X, October 3, 2024
I find it interesting this “real man” doesn’t know that you don’t need to touch your toes to prevent your guns from being taken before the ammo. You only need to touch the trigger.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
The tax stamp requirement for firearms and suppressors listed as controlled items under the National Firearms Act was intended to suppress Americans’ desire to fully-exercise their Second Amendment rights. It was – and is – a ‘sin tax. However, there is no sin in exercising a Constitutionally-protected right. We appreciate the leadership of Representative Hinson and Senator Cotton to eliminate this tax that only serves as a barrier to law-abiding citizens keeping and bearing arms.
Larry Keane
NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel
April 14, 2025
RIFLE-men: Boozman-Cotton Legislation Would Remove $200 NFA Tax
This is a good first step. I think the next step would be to do away with redundant background check. Just use NICS.
Then the registration requirements should go away to be replaced with an ordinary 4473s.
Elimination of 4473s and NICS can wait until Q4 of 2025.
Mostly this is confirmation of what we already knew:
In this study, we formally examine the association between penis size dissatisfaction and gun ownership in America. The primary hypothesis, derived from the psychosexual theory of gun ownership, asserts that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises will be more likely to personally own guns. To test this hypothesis, we used data collected from the 2023 Masculinity, Sexual Health, and Politics (MSHAP) survey, a national probability sample of 1,840 men, and regression analyses to model personal gun ownership as a function of penis size dissatisfaction, experiences with penis enlargement, social desirability, masculinity, body mass, mental health, and a range of sociodemographic characteristics. We find that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises are less likely to personally own guns across outcomes, including any gun ownership, military-style rifle ownership, and total number of guns owned. The inverse association between penis size dissatisfaction and gun ownership is linear; however, the association is weakest among men ages 60 and older. With these findings in mind, we failed to observe any differences in personal gun ownership between men who have and have not attempted penis enlargement. To our knowledge, this is the first study to formally examine the association between penis size and personal gun ownership in America. Our findings fail to support the psychosexual theory of gun ownership. Alternative theories are posited for the apparent inverse association between penis size dissatisfaction and personal gun ownership, including higher levels of testosterone and constructionist explanations.
There is something new in here. There is an inverse relationship that is useful for us to use. It IS projection:
men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises are less likely to personally own guns across outcomes, including any gun ownership, military-style rifle ownership, and total number of guns owned.
See also:
I find this very telling about their mindset:
Save it, you can jerk off into it tonight while you dream about shooting people
OL @TheWizKid68
Posted on X, May 12, 2024
This was in my set of pending Markley’s Law examples. While it is a sexually related insult to gun owners it is a little too weak for a Markley’s Law Monday posting.
This mindset has the potential to have its own name. The belief that gun owners get sexually aroused by the thought of shooting, or have a desire to shoot, people is surprisingly common.
I think it demonstrates they have a poor theory of mind. There are therapies and drugs that sometimes help these people.
I’m sorry you feel you need an AR-15 to compensate for your tiny tadger. That’s rough.
Christina Zheng @Christilynw
Posted on X, May 30, 2024
It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday; it is another science denier (see also here)!
She gets bonus points for originality. This is the first time I have seen the word tadger (also spelled todger).
Of course, as Markley’s Law predicts, she is not smart enough to respond rationally in a gun control debate. She only has insults. We have SCOTUS decisions.
This probably is not considered safe for work.
Those who carry guns don’t push that belief on others; they simply want the right preserved. Those who hate guns want them outlawed for everyone. That’s the difference between freedom and tyranny. It’s a distinguishing characteristic between conservative and liberal beliefs.
Army of the Poors @ArmyOfThePoors
Posted on X, June 28, 2021
I’m not convinced it is a “distinguishing characteristic between conservative and liberal beliefs.” It certain is A Conflict of Visions. But I see it a distinguishing characteristic between individualists and collectivists. The collectivist somehow believes it is necessary for everyone to have the same beliefs and act in essentially the same way. If the people lobby for teachers to be allowed to carry guns in schools to protect the children, then the collectivists cannot take those words literally. They insist this means we are intent on forcing all teachers to carry guns in schools.
It is very bizarre to me. Some other examples:
I suspect it is a form of mental illness. I once had a relationship where I lived with similar bafflement for decades. I would literally write things down in the clearest possible words. And yet, those words would be warped to mean something entirely different in their mind. I would have them read the words carefully, demanding they show me the words that meant what they interpreted them to mean. After a few minutes, I would convince them I had not said what they claimed I had said. Then, literally 10 or 15 seconds later, they would revert to their original misinterpretation. Even though they had admitted they had wrongly interpreted the words, it was impossible for them to hold on to the literal meaning of the words I used.
I suspect a form of this mental illness infected the Democratic Party. And once it reached a critical mass the craziness caused the implosion of their voting base and the record low approval ratings. Somewhat like the Emperor’s New Clothes, everyone, except the crazy’s themselves, can see the truth and are no longer afraid to say it out loud.
It isn’t important which hill neoMarxists choose to die on. What’s important is that they die on whatever hill the Party chooses for them.
George Orwell didn’t write that all freedom is the ability to believe that 2 and 2 are 4.
He wrote that all freedom is the freedom to SAY that 2 and 2 are 4.
Out loud.
What you are seeing here isn’t credulity. That’s not the point. Many of the people who loudly say that 2 and 2 are 5 don’t actually believe that. Nor does the Party need or even want them to.
Beliefs aren’t important to the Party. Math isn’t important to the Party, either.
What’s important to the Party is compliance.
Here’s how this works:
The Japanese insult, “bakamono”, meaning fool or idiot, is written with the kanji characters for “horse” and “deer”.
This isn’t because the Japanese think of horses or deer as foolish. It’s a reference to a story.
On 27 September 207 BC, the eunuch Zhao Gao tested his power against the emperor’s. He presented a deer to the Second Emperor but called it a horse. The emperor laughed and said, “Is the chancellor perhaps mistaken, calling a deer a horse?” He questioned those around him. Some remained silent, and some aligned with Zhao Gao and called it a horse. Zhao Gao secretly arranged for all those who said it was a deer to be brought before the law. Thereafter the officials were all terrified of Zhao Gao.
The ridiculousness of calling a deer a horse, or a woman a man, or two and two five, isn’t the result of stupidity or madness.
It’s the whole point of the litmus test.
If the Party says a deer is a horse, will you agree loudly and vehemently, or will you dissent? Will you comply with the evidence of your own senses, or with the dictates of the Party?
This is how the Party knows who are its slaves, and who are its enemies, which are the only two categories the Party will allow.
“Transwomen are women” isn’t a statement about biology. It isn’t even a statement about social roles.
It’s an oath of submission. What it really means is “I will comply, please do not hurt me.”
This is the true source of the “black lives matter”/”all lives matter” arguments of 2020. It sounds like a silly disagreement if you listen to the content of the words, because “all”, by definition, includes “black”.
But the content of the words was never the point. The point was to make you utter ritual words as a token of submission. Problem was, the words weren’t ridiculous enough. They didn’t distinguish between those who had a philosophical respect for human life, and those who would obey the Party no matter what.
See, the Party isn’t interested in sincere believers. They are of limited use, convenient before the Revolution, but, afterwards, they will be lined up in front of a shallow ditch and shot.
Why?
Because what the Party wants, the whole point of having the Party at all, is absolute power, commanding absolute obedience.
The obedience of even the most zealous of ideological allies is conditional… he obeys because he agrees. So the power of the Party over him is not absolute. They might, someday, do something with which he disagrees, and then he might disobey.
The Party does not want loyal allies who love it. It wants slaves who fear it. Only fear compels absolute, unconditional obedience.
The Party does not care what is in your heart and mind. It only cares that you kneel.
If you are a structural engineer, and the Party says that pi is 3, you must loudly declare that pi is three, and that anyone who says otherwise must be publicly executed as a capitalist imperialist colonialist running dog.
If you do not, you will be tortured and executed.
But you must also secretly memorize the real value of pi, and use it in all your calculations, because you will also be tortured and executed if your buildings fall over.
You must, however, never write down the true value of pi, to help you remember it, and you must carefully burn any page of calculations using it after you are done. If you are caught with these things, you will be tortured and executed.
You must instead spend 75% of your working time constructing fake calculations, starting with the assumption that pi is 3, and subtly introduce computational errors to lead your answer to the real numbers that you computed in secret.
No one will ever read these, but you must meticulously construct them anyway, because if your neighbor ever gets jealous of you, because your wife is prettier than his, or your state-issued apartment is ten square feet larger, then the secret police will check your work, and your only hope is that no divergence from the will of the Party can be found.
Otherwise… well, you know. Here, in the United States, the Party is an embryo. It doesn’t have the power to torture and kill you. It will do its best, of course, but right now, what it has to threaten you with is character assassination.
Racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, fatphobe, islamophobe, anti-semite, microaggression, heteronormative, nazi.
Damage to your reputation isn’t particularly fearsome compared to the Soviet, or the Chinese, or the Cuban methods of handling dissent. It isn’t much compared to what the Sandinistas did, or Sendero Luminoso, or Pol Pot.
But the Party needs to start somewhere. It needs to create fear, and train people in compliance, so it can grow.
The Party is not Marxist-Leninist. The Party has no belief system, and it never did. Marxism-Leninism was only ever about finding ridiculous things to force you to say.
Nowdays, the same purpose is served by obvious falsehoods like “transwomen are women”, and “diversity is our strength”.
Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_
Posted on X, April 9, 2025
I suspect there is a lot of truth to this. However, I have a question… If there are only two categories of people, then which category do The Party members belong? Or saying it differently, how is it decided who are members of The Party?
I have a nagging feeling there are other flaws in this, but it may be due to some oversimplification for illustration purposes other than fatal errors.
Assuming this is fundamentally true, then we have an interesting takeaway. Resistance to The Party only requires noncompliance. Pointing out the most absurd of The Party assertions widens a crack in the power of The Party. Think of the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. All it took was the correct observation of a little child to break the false assertion.
This is, of course, an exaggeration of reality, But the direction of the force vector to break The Party is dead on.
More skepticism: Investigating rumor Trump will declare martial law on April 20 after invoking Insurrection Act of 1807.
See also my first blog post on this topic: Democrat Version of QAnon?