Quote of the day—Barbara Walters

He made so many promises we thought that he was going to be … the next Messiah.

Barbara Walters
December 18, 2013
Barbara Walters: We Thought Obama Was Going To Be The Next Messiah
[Well there’s your problem!

If anyone thinks it’s possible to liberate people by increasing government power it’s time to get them checked into the psych ward. Many liberals have mental problems. This is just one more example.—Joe]

Tim and Susan Have Matching Handguns

Last week I received an email:

Hey Joe,

I realize you probably get a lot of emails, but this one may be unlike what you’re accustomed to. Bear with me and I’ll give you a little background so you can understand why I’m writing.  I work for a Texas-based company that makes rugged leather gear. We started doing product videos on our website about 3 years ago and it morphed into some pretty cool projects. One of those projects was short profiles on our employees. The first one was about a husband and wife who work here and their desire to have matching guns, so in case there were ever a crisis they could swap magazines.  (Smith&Wesson M&P9s) 

Well, it was submitted to Sundance Film Festival and out of the 8,100 short films, it was selected to be one of the 60 entrants. Then YouTube has told us they selected it to be one of the 10 in the running for their special YouTube award. (Crazy, isn’t it?!) Now we want to put the idea of husband/wife gun ownership in front of as many eyes as possible and thought that reaching out to influencers like yourself may be a good approach.

Please let me know if you’re interested. I’d be happy to show you a sneak peek. 

Thanks!

Sarah Farver

I thought it was a decent video so I agreed to post it. The “sneak peek” time is over and it is public now:

Quote of the day—Harvey Weinstein

I don’t think we need guns in this country. And I hate it. I think the NRA is a disaster area.

Harvey Weinstein
January 15, 2014
MILLER: Movie mogul says new Streep film to make NRA ‘wish they weren’t alive’
[H/T to Emily Miller for the Tweet.

From the same article:

Asked if it was going to be a documentary. Mr. Weinstein said no, that it would be a “big movie like a ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’”

The movie mogul said his vision was to scare people away from firearms and the Second Amendment. He foresees moviegoers to leave thinking, “Gunstocks – I don’t want to be involved in that stuff. It’s going to be like crash and burn.”

Of course it’s not going to be a documentary. Facts would get in the way of his agenda.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian Nieves

We continue to see the federal government overreach their rightful bounds, and if we can create a situation where we have some unity among states, then I think it puts us in a better position to make that argument.

Brian Nieves
Missouri State Senator
January 12, 2014
Lawmakers Plot New Strategy for Defying Gun Laws
[Nieves is talking about gun laws and is criticized by people because “state law does not trump Federal law”. But the same tactic is working with marijuana laws. And if enough states support trimming back the power of the Feds then it also means amendments could be made to the U.S. Constitution.

A friend, Jim G., once suggested an extremely minor change would fix a lot of problems. I’m not convinced it would be best change but it wouldn’t take a lot to convince me it would be better than what we have now. He suggested adding a period after the fifth word of the First Amendment.—Joe]

I didn’t find liberty on the ballot

I got a little bit excited and went Here. Alas.

I really wanted to vote, but I couldn’t find the “Get the government the hell out of it, and as far away from it as possible, forever” button. How come you never see that option?

I had to leave. Now I suppose I’m guilty of being “unrealistic” or of “not getting involved in the dialog”.

Well here’s my realism; government meddling screws things up faster and deeper and for longer periods than any other force on Earth. If you want something to work, get the paper pushers, the politicians, the bureaucrats, the departments, committees and the task forces a minimum of one continent away from it. Let them eat grass with the North Koreans and tell each other how to do things.

Here’s my participation in the dialog; when liberty is on the ballot I’ll vote for it. Just let me know. I’ll be listening.

Mugme Street news

From the Seattle Police blog:

Officers arrested three women for robbery, among other things. On 1/1/14, throughout the evening there were several reports of multiple females walking through the crowds stealing cell phones and jumping people and stealing their cell phones.

One robbery occurred in the 500 block of Broad St just shortly after midnight and another was reported just shortly before 2:00 a.m., at 2nd Ave and Pike St.

A victim from the 2nd and Pike robbery flagged down an officer and advised him that the suspects who had stolen their cell phones were at a nearby bus stop.  Officers contacted and detained the suspects.  Two adult female suspects were later identified as having robbed the victim of her cell phone.

Technically, this is a block away from “Mugme Street” as Barb likes to call it. But still it is turf where I frequent. I can’t help thinking that  discharging few canisters of pepper spray and maybe an occasional drawn handgun at the appropriate times would make a big improvement in the environment.

California carry prediction follow up

About 10 months ago it was predicted that California will be shall issue in 2014. But it appears that prediction was contingent upon the Supreme Court resolving the split between the circuits on the issue of whether carry outside the home is a protected right or not. The court did not accept the cases presented to them.

But the case in Idaho, which is in the Ninth Circuit and includes California, from the other day which just ruled regulation of carry outside the home is subject to at least intermediate scrutiny and perhaps strict scrutiny. That case could help California residents.

Regardless of how things are going at the Federal level that prediction is getting a little closer to realization:

In a decision released today that forces the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to begin accepting and processing handgun carry license applications, Judge Deirdre Hill said that LASD must “consider the applications of all persons seeking a CCW permit in the first instance without requiring any applicant to first seek a CCW permit with his/her local police chief or city.”

The case, titled Lu v. Baca, was filed in 2012 by California-based gun rights organization The Calguns Foundation and a number of individual plaintiffs seeking to overturn an unlawful LASD policy that functioned as a de facto ban on handgun carry licenses for Los Angeles County residents.

Quote of the day—Rep. Kim Fawcett

When you use colors or visuals in your marketing materials that are almost identical to the same visuals used to market highly violent video games … you’re indicating that you intend to market to our kids.

Rep. Kim Fawcett
Democrat from Fairfield Connecticut
Newtown Activists Call For Change As Gun Trade Show Opens
January 13, 2014
[I don’t know exactly what “marketing materials” she is talking about but from what I can determine the video games use “visuals” that look like real firearms that were sold many years before the video games were created. Not that firearm manufacturers duplicated video game “visuals”.

I have to conclude Rep. Fawcett is either incredibly ignorant or malicious. And since she voted for the repressive gun laws in Connecticut I’m going with malicious. I look forward to this information being used at her trial.—Joe]

Federal court: strict scrutiny for 2nd

Via email from Mike B. we have a ruling in Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. Idaho Jan. 10, 2014). And as Mike pointed out in his email this affects my stomping grounds where I have carried many times on lands directly addressed in the ruling when I had no idea such stupid regulations even existed.

Eugene Volokh, Dave Hardy, Say Uncle, and Sebastian all commented on the ruling. Hardy was the only one that even mentioned the judge says the strict scrutiny must be used when determining whether a law or regulations infringes upon the 2nd Amendment. The court said:

The regulation at issue would ban firearms and ammunition in a tent on the Corps’ sites. This ban poses a substantial burden on a core Second Amendment right and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny.

While the ban on carrying firearms for self-defense may impose a burden on this core right of the Second Amendment severe enough to call for strict scrutiny, it is unnecessary for the Court to decide that issue because the regulation fails to pass muster even if intermediate scrutiny is applied.

If strict scrutiny is required to regulate the carrying a firearm for self-defense this will almost certainly mean constitutional carry will become the law of the land.

Flinging time

Yup, looks like it’s done enough to toss out into the wild. The Stars Came Back is now a genuine product you can buy at Amazon. It should be pretty clean, and the story’s all there, and there are some graphics included, and more at the supporting website, www.TheStarsCameBack.com. It is also a good place to ask questions, find out more, etc. If you DO notice any typos, problems, or whatever, let me know, I can update it. If you like it, positive reviews are always appreciated.

Sorry it’s taken so long, after planning on getting it out last June (or maybe July), but it’s been a very educational process for me. Now I get to learn about taxes, exchanged rates, defending copyrights, all sorts of exciting stuff like that.

Quote of the day—E.A. Blair

It has long been suggested that gun nuts cling to their weapons as phallic substitutes. Wherever that is the case, I recommend autofellatio. I’m told the climax is a real killer.

E.A. Blair
April 2, 2013
Comment to Debunking the Conservative Myth on “Assault Rifles”
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! With bonus points for advocating gun owners kill themselves.

H/T to Phil who sent me an email with the link.—Joe]

Testing Markley’s Law

Yesterday I was reading a blog post about how the Government Spent $224,863 On “Custom-Fit” Condoms and came across this graphic of world wide penis size distribution (units are centimeters):

20140111_penis

If there was any truth to the claims by those that invoke Markley’s law then there should be correlation with gun ownership rates and those countries in the deep red. But just “eyeballing” it I would guess there is very little, if any correlation.

I showed the graphic to a female friend who found it interesting so I thought I would share it with my readers here. I’m pretty sure that it is a coincidence that she is leaving for Ecuador on Thursday.

Quote of the day—Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau
[This applies to those Markley’s Law attacks as well many other insults gun owners constantly endure as we protect our rights in public forums.

H/T to Emanuel Tchividjian for mentioning it in his post. H/T to ubu52 for her comment which lead me to Tchividjian’s post.-Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

In fact, the Democrats who passed ObamaCare were well aware of the misery they were about to impose on the American people. We know this because the Democrats authored specific provisions within ObamaCare to protect themselves against ObamaCare.

Welcome to the Democrat Animal Farm.

animal_farm_poster-2isu30qobamacare-exemptions

Robert J. Avrech
January 6, 2014
All Animals Are Equal, Unless They Are Democrat Animals
[If you don’t get the reference you should read Animal Farm.

And if ObamaCare isn’t enough to convince you we live on an “animal farm” remember:

The list probably could be extended hundreds if not thousands of items.—Joe]

Health insurance company political myth

Some, perhaps most, people believe the health insurance companies supported Obamacare. It is commonly believed they were thinking, “All those previously uninsured people will be forced to pay us money!”

This isn’t really true.

I recently talked to a former health insurance lobbyist who still works in the industry. I was told that if they were to publically oppose “affordable healthcare” they “might as well set themselves on fire”. They are highly regulated and those regulatory agencies, as well as the SEC, IRS, and media, would have been employed by the politicians to punish any company that put up resistance. As dustydog recently reported, “90% of legislative work is strong-arming businesses into paying protection money – threatening to pass detrimental legislation if the money isn’t paid.”

Do gun companies and gun shops back talk to the ATF? The NRA, yes, but they aren’t regulated by the ATF, the gun industry is very careful what it says to politicians. Insurance regulators may not stomp kittens to death and slam pregnant women against walls but insurance companies fear their regulators too.

Insurance companies know Obamacare cannot succeed. They knew it long before any of us did. The best they could do was build up cash reserves to make it through until the law is changed. It’s happened before in various states (such as Washington) and they believed they could stay in the game long enough for the political winds to change. It was like being forced to play in a card game where you know the dealer is crooked but if you play what you are dealt carefully enough you probably can hold out until the dealer is replaced.

Yes. They did have input into the legislation. They got the individual mandate put in. It was relatively easy to demonstrate that they would hemorrhage to death in short order if that provision didn’t exist. They avoided direct opposition to the politicians and they deflected damage as best they could but they did not “support” it.

Here is what they publically say about Obamacare:

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expands access to coverage to millions of Americans, a goal health plans have long supported, but major provisions will raise costs and disrupt coverage for individuals, families, employers, and Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

The broad market reforms outlined in the ACA took effect on January 1, 2014. Individuals and families purchasing insurance in the individual market will be guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, and their premiums cannot vary based on their gender or medical history. There will also be subsidies to help consumers afford the cost of coverage, and new health insurance exchanges will help consumers find the policies that best meet their needs.

At the same time, other provisions take effect that will significantly increase the cost of coverage, such as the health insurance tax, minimum essential benefits, and restrictions on age rating. The cumulative impact of all of these provisions increases the likelihood that some individuals will choose to purchase insurance only after they become sick or injured, further increasing the cost of coverage for everyone else with insurance.

The ACA also takes a number of preliminary, but promising, steps toward reforming the delivery system to improve patient safety and quality in Medicare and Medicaid. Many of these initiatives build on successful private-sector programs that health plans have pioneered and implemented.

Ultimately, the ACA coverage expansion will not be sustainable until policymakers and stakeholders take meaningful steps to reduce the rate of growth in medical costs.

It doesn’t take much squinting to read between the lines and realize they know they are playing a rigged game with a gun to their heads and believe private-sector solutions are better for everyone.

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

It is time for the high court to clarify that the right to bear arms does not stop at someone’s front door. What other constitutional right is confined to one’s house? The Second Amendment was never meant to be encumbered with such a limitation, and it cannot possibly be interpreted that way, but it will take a Supreme Court ruling to convince lower courts and anti-gunners, and put this debate to rest.

Alan Gottlieb
January 9, 2014
U.S. SUPREME COURT ASKED TO CONSIDER SAF, ANJRPC RIGHT TO CARRY CASE
[While I agree it is time to “put this debate to rest” as long the rulings of the courts are ignored in the short term it doesn’t really matter that much. The short term reality is that Despite Ruling, Chicago Officials Vow to Continue Gun Control Measures. And when they decide to obey the law they drag out “compliance” as long as they can.

It might ultimately matter when they get put on trial but that is not going to happen any time soon.—Joe]