@AdamPiersen @JoeHuffman @TANSTAAFL23 @MarkAWebster1 @NeLoNe79 @FShagW yes which is y I never date gun nuts. No little puny cocks for me 🙂
SusanBerman @TripleMinority
Tweeted on January 8, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a Tweet from Adam Pierson @AdamPiersen.—Joe]
I don’t know what the solution is, but historically speaking: resets that occur when that which cannot continue, doesn’t are messy. Very messy. Voting for either of the bifactional pro-State ruling parties is not going to help, because neither of them are dedicated to the ideals or ideas set out in our founding documents, or espoused by our founding fathers. They do not even seem to understand them.
Interesting times are afoot, and those that are easily offended are going to see what “going all the way to 11” really means before too many more years have passed.
Rolf Nelson
July 4, 2016
Happy 4th
[I could see this being a prophecy which comes true.—Joe]
They’ve got hate, and a holy mandate to build Utopia – on our corpses, if history is any guide. We’ve got a populace that knows something is wrong, but has been robbed of the education necessary to grasp exactly what and then reason themselves out of the problem by the same forces that are intent on building that Utopia. Instead, a significant portion voted for Donald Trump, mostly out of sheer frustration. Another example of pressing the “Fuck It” button.
This does not bode well for us.
Kevin Baker
July 4, 2016
Pressing the “Fuck It” Button
[Kevin and I have had private conversations on this, more than once, into the wee hours of the morning. I tend to think he is a bit too pessimistic and he thinks I am too optimistic.
I suspect we are getting scary close to finding out who is more nearly correct. Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.—Joe]
As I watched that first debate, and I heard Hillary Clinton answer the question about her enemies, my mouth dropped to the floor. I couldn’t believe what I had just heard from someone who wants to lead this country. She just called 5 million law-abiding Americans her enemy, and she was proud of it! Of all the atrocities going on in the world, we are what she sees as an enemy?
In this day and age, when we are constantly being lectured on “acceptance” and “tolerance” of people who don’t look or act like us, how is it acceptable for a presidential candidate to call out gun owners as enemies? This seems like textbook bullying tactics—maybe worse. Her comments segregate, demonize, blame, and suggest that we don’t have common sense if we disagree with what she and her anti-Second Amendment cronies define as “common-sense gun control.”
Dianna Muller
22-year Tulsa Police Department veteran and professional 3-gun world champion.
July 6, 2016
Hillary’s Enemies List: Dianna Muller
[Of course the NRA and gun owners are at the top of her enemies list. We are in a 5th or 6th Generation War. We must recognize this and respond accordingly or we will be defeated and probably handled just as leftist have treated their defeated enemies in the past.—Joe]
There is even a bot that wants to take your guns:
This application scrapes a website for recent gun crime in America. It’ll then post it to the provided twitter account. Please put an end to guns and an end to the violence.
H/T Say Uncle.
The truth is quite simple. IslamoNazi ideology is spreading like a cancer across the globe. The only way to defeat this scourge is on the battlefield, and through effective counter propaganda.
America accomplished these twin goals in World War II — by reducing Germany and Japan to ashes. Half-measures are doomed to failure. The only language radical Islam understands is the language of brute power.
And apparently, the only language the Democrats understand is Orwellian Newspeak.
Robert J. Avrech
June 21, 2016
Democrats Believe Orlando Massacre is America’s Fault
[While I agree with most of this there is a difference between WW II and now. We are now in a 4th generation style war which is primarily composed of violent non-state actors instead of nation states. Our response to the asymmetric war we are in must be different than that of WW II. My hypothesis is that the best response will involve an increase in the non-state actors on our side as well as our traditional military forces. My vision of our non-state actors are private citizens able and willing to deliver firepower to the enemy in the first few seconds of an attack.
Defenseless innocent people are an invitation to attack. Politicians who disarm people via “gun-free zones” should be considered guilty of treason in the time of war and treated as such.—Joe]
I was reviewing a research paper today and found some interesting stuff. For background I present part of their conclusion:
Seventy-nine percent (220/279) of the femicide victims aged 18 to 50 years and 70% of the 307 total femicide cases were physically abused before their deaths by the same intimate partner who killed them, in comparison with 10% of the pool of eligible control women. Thus, our first premise, that physical violence against the victim is the primary risk factor for intimate partner femicide, was upheld. The purpose of this study, however, was to determine the risk factors that, over and above previous intimate partner violence, are associated with femicide within a sample of battered women. Our analysis demonstrated that a combination of the most commonly identified risk factors for homicide, in conjunction with characteristics specific to violent intimate relationships, predicted intimate partner femicide risks.
Now, pulling some selected data from the body of the report we get some very interesting, at least to me, information.
Given that a woman was in a physically abusive relationship, the next highest risk factor was the abusers employment status. If the abuser was unemployed the Odds Ratio (OR) was 5.09 that he would murder her compared to someone who was employed in the population of abusers. But if he had a college education (vs. a high school education) the OR dropped to 0.31 (over three times less likely to murder than someone who only had a high school education).
If the abuser used illicit drugs the OR = 4.76. Excessive alcohol use was not associated with an increased risk.
If they lived apart and the female “had sole access to a firearm”* the OR dropped to 0.22. Yes, as expected, if a woman has access to a gun she is four to five times less likely to be murdered by her abusive intimate partner who does not live with her than if she doesn’t have access to a gun.
If the abuser has access to a gun then the OR is 7.59.
If the abuser had threatening behaviors and stalking was involved the OR were as follows:
Guess which statistic Mother Jones magazine pulled from this paper for “Myth #7: Guns make women safer.” I’ll give you a hint. It wasn’t the one which showed a woman was four to five times less likely to be murdered if she has access to a gun.
They said:
A woman’s chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
This doesn’t tell the story that the woman is already in a physically abusive relationship. And it leaves out the part about her having access to a gun increases her safety by a large factor.
As usual, they have to lie to have any hope of winning.
* I’m not exactly sure what “sole” access means in this context. My best guess is that it means that the abuse victim has access to a gun and the abuser does not.
From John F. on Facebook:
Grandma Hillary has a new opportunity for a campaign slogan: “Incompetence bordering on criminal.“
Well, she might, using different words claim something like that. It actually was significantly over the border. She was well into illegal alien territory. I just wish we could “deport” her to Leavenworth.
I always find it ironic when people say we should limit the ammunition capacity of the guns we use against criminals and tyrants to the same capacity as those we use for hunting. We limit the capacity of hunting guns in order to ensure that we have game to hunt in the future. Are they trying to ensure we will always have criminals and tyrants?
Bill Twist
July 5, 2016
Comment to Quote of the day—Paul Joslin
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
The FBI is not recommending charges be brought against Hillary. But it’s still pretty damning:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
…
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
Can someone who is that careless with the security of our country be trusted in any position of government? Well, I might give consideration to her taking a position of a toilet scrubber in a public park.
Members of the NRA, other gun owners, including myself, and other non-gun-owning citizens all agree that a human should not use an assault rifle or other automatic weapons to hunt down and kill a deer or other game. We also all agree that a human should not use such weapons to hunt down and kill another human.
Since there is nothing else to kill, can’t we all now agree that we can do without such weapons without contravening the Second Amendment?
Paul Joslin
July 1, 2016
We can do without assault weapons
[Since Mr. Joslin is under the delusion that he has read the minds of all citizens in this country and simultaneously doesn’t not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment I’ll let Federal Judge Kozinski spell it out for those who aren’t quite as delusional.
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.
Hence, under a doomsday situation we could, should, and would use assault rifles and fully automatic weapons to hunt down and kill those humans who would enslave us. And therefore such weapons are not only protected by the Second Amendment, the use of those weapons under those circumstances are the primarily purpose of the Second Amendment.—Joe]
From Stephanie:
Remember Terilyn Reber from about 10 days ago? My blog post about the Facebook discussion I had with her was shared on Facebook 131 times and was viewed by thousands of people making it one of my most popular blog posts ever.
Today I received an email indicating I had been tagged on Facebook by Terilyn’s older sister, Bev Reber:
So it’s just sad that social media breeds trolls and even sadder when said troll escalates to a cyber bully. Feed ’em fish heads!! Their world is small. Joe Huffman this is for you.
Bev Reber
July 4 at 11:32am
I clicked on the link in the email to see the post and had planned to respond with:
I understand if you are just supporting your sister who’s feelings may have been hurt. If you want to just drop this with the understanding that you need to be loyal to her I’m fine with that I and won’t say anything further. But if you really believe what you said about me then you aren’t aware of facts and I’ll be happy to explain them to you. Your choice.
But the link came up with the following message:
Sorry, this content isn’t available right now
The link you followed may have expired, or the page may only be visible to an audience you’re not in.
I did a search for her on Facebook and she doesn’t even show up. After logging in with a different account I easily found her.
Ahhh yes…. Both sisters are strong advocates of reasoned discourse.
Just be honest. You like it because it makes your pee-pee big, and when you fire it, it gives you a tingle in your no-no place.
David Smalley
June 25, 2016
Why Gun Nuts Lie – I Know From Experience
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Smalley quotes Mother Jones as his definitive source of information. This magazine article claims have been refuted countless times. Here and here and here are a few examples.—Joe]
From Stephanie:
I don’t think I have never been this close to an elk in the wild before:
Sadly, as in the case of this robot, and the broader struggle for freedom, there will always be those who will feel an uncontrollable urge to destroy anyone and anything which seeks to plot its own course.
It would be funny if one day, in the battle for freedom, it was libertarians and artificial intelligences working together to destroy a government of leftist rabbits.
Anonymous Conservative
June 25, 2016
What Is Libertarianism? Perhaps A Rebellion Against Obstacles
[While it certainly seems to be true that there will always be those who cannot tolerate freedom I don’t see the humor in the circumstances he describes. And while some governments require destruction before they can be replaced with something which respected human rights I’m not entirely comfortable with “destroying a government” just because it’s leftist. Reforming it and limiting it such that it is compatible with freedom, sure, but probably doesn’t require destruction. Nation states without a functional government are not particularly hospitable to peaceable, productive, human activities.—Joe]
Once again, we have a high profile shooting, and once again, the hysteria is out in force.
Let’s start with some facts: If you don’t shoot, or have only occasionally shot on a range, then your opinion on how useful an armed respondent would be is garbage. If you don’t drive a car, you aren’t qualified to tell professional drivers what they should have done in an accident.
Seriously, shut up, you’re an idiot.
Michael Z. Williamson
June 15, 2016
After An Attack: Understanding the Fear
[He continues with an enumeration and examination of the possible outcomes. It’s a very clear and logical analysis which demonstrates there is significant chance of a big upside and very little, if any, chance of a downside to people having guns to defend themselves in a mass shooting situation.—Joe]
Either you match a dispersed threat with a dispersed capability to respond, or you lose…
Harry Schell
June 16, 2016
Comment to Decentralized response to decentralized threat.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Lifetime totals:
223.log: 2027 rounds.
3006.log: 467 rounds.
300WIN.log: 1351 rounds.
40SW.log: 50447 rounds.
45.log: 0 rounds.
9MM.log: 21695 rounds.
Total: 75987 rounds.
I reloaded 1999 rounds of .40 S&W this month. I mangled another primer which is the reason it isn’t an even 2000 rounds. 800 of those were Blue Bullets for steel matches. The other 1199 rounds were Montana Gold JHPs for practice at indoor ranges.
