Category Archives: Current News

This is about stuff in the mass media that generally has a short interest life span. Speculation about an election outcome a few days before the election is an example.

I almost support the Brady Campaign

Posted on by

From ABC news:

…the families sought to hold the FBI accountable for its failed background check on Dylann Roof, which allowed Roof to legally buy the handgun used in the Emanuel shooting.

In Tuesday’s filing, the Brady Campaign says U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel incorrectly interpreted federal gun law when he dismissed the Emanuel families’ lawsuit in June 2018.

I’m firmly opposed to mandatory background checks so I am not in agreement with the basic premise of their position but I am fully in support of the Brady Campaign suing the FBI. This diverts both Brady and FBI resources from attacking gun owners.

If Brady wins it means the FBI will increase expenditures on NICS to decrease the likelihood of being successfully sued in the future. Increasing the costs of NICS checks means the value of these checks will be more likely to be examined. Does our society “get it’s money’s worth” from this expenditure or would those resources be better spent elsewhere. For example, should that money be spent on keeping violent criminals in prison rather than in a futile attempt to prevent them from acquiring guns in a free society? Or, should that money be spent in police efforts to put into finding and convicting criminals quickly before they can commit multiple crimes?

Thank you Brady Campaign.

Conservatives are winning the media war

Posted on by

Via email from Chet:

Interesting. He presents data indicating conservative media sources are totally dominating the viewership and engagement numbers.

He, at least partially, attributes this to the hostility of the political left to even minor disagreement while the political right recruits people who engage with them. The political left is driving people out to increase their purity and the right is accepting them. I can see that being a supportable hypothesis.

My fear is a recollection is of another famous leftist organization which raised to power then started to fade. They went violent in a big way. They destroyed shops, buildings, murdered people in riots. They even burned the assembly location of their legislature.

Our political left is currently repeatedly demonstrating their willingness to go violent when they don’t get their way and the election next month could be the spark that ignites them.

Quote of the day—Luke O’Neil

Posted on by

On Sunday morning Ariel Dumas, a writer for The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, apologized for a good joke. Writing on Twitter, she explained that the experience of the Kavanaugh nomination had been hard for the country and for her personally.

…

It is uncertain if Dumas was forced to make a statement by her employers at CBS, or if she volunteered the apology on her own, but one thing that is 100 percent crystal clear is that she never should have found herself in the position in the first place. The joke she posted on Saturday—”Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”—was the latest target of the bad faith destruction machine of the right.

…

It’s another cruel irony that would no doubt also be lost on the humorless scolds on the right that it’s Dumas whose life they are now attempting to ruin. Soon after the joke was published, the wheels of the vexation and spite apparatus on the right who maintain constant vigilance for such alleged missteps from the “liberal media” went to work, broadcasting it far and wide as evidence of the sickness of the left.

Luke O’Neil
October 8, 2018
‘Late Show’ Writer Ariel Dumas Under Fire for Obvious ‘Joke’ About Brett Kavanaugh
[This is from someone of the same political party which just a month ago went ballistic when a political opponent used the phrase “monkey up”.

To think that it was “a good joke” that someone with a previously excellent personal reputation was publicly and repeatedly accused heinous crimes, which could not be supported, is evil.

Of course he also thinks Kathy Griffin holding up a realistic severed head of President Trump was good joke.

Hence it should come at no surprise he says this about people who exercise their right to keep and bear arms:

Almost anyone of any stature in media who dabbles in political humor has found themselves in this scenario by now. I’ve had a number of phony campaigns attempted against me at outlets I’ve written for over the years after comments I’ve made about gamers and gun fetishists were amplified in bad faith.

In addition to being evil, as Mike Cernovich tweeted, he is also lacking in self awareness.—Joe[

Justice Kavanaugh

Posted on by

While there are civil rights rulings Judge Brett Kavanaugh made which are concerning, from the Second Amendment standpoint it would have been difficult to find someone better.

Two years ago I was not hopeful for a future which included the free exercise of our right to keep and bear arms. The 2016 presidential election gave me a glimmer of hope. The Trump administration has not been nearly as good on this issue as some people hoped. One could even make the case from a legislative and regulatory view point it has been rather dismal. President Hillary Clinton would have been a catastrophe so by comparison so there is that. Our rights under Trump were being sous-vide. Under Clinton they would have been put in the crematorium.

Now Justice Kavanaugh is in a position to help say the final words on this vital issue. I hope those words will make a violent response to the infringement of our rights avoidable.

Via Davidwhitewolf:

“Kavanaugh” (a parody of Van Halen’s “Panama”) from r/The_Donald

Quote of the day—Randy Barnett

Posted on by

Because I think the meaning of the text of the Constitution should remain the same until it is properly changed by amendment, and that judges have a constitutional duty to invalidate laws that conflict with that meaning, I believe the President’s choice of Brett Kavanaugh—who is otherwise highly qualified—should be confirmed. If Democrats disagree they should specify the approach they think is better.

If their “judicial philosophy” is that a judge should simply reach all the outcomes that a progressive Democrat would like the Supreme Court to reach, they should candidly say so. If they believe that the precedents they like—like Roe v. Wade—are sacrosanct, but those they detest—like Citizens United—are to be discarded, they should identify how we know which precedents are binding and which are not.

Failing that, they too should vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.

Randy Barnett
The Case for Kavanaugh
October 1, 2018
[I agree.

H/T to David Hardy.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Matt Walsh‏ @MattWalshBlog

Posted on by

Republicans didn’t want Merrick Garland confirmed, so they just didn’t vote. Democrats don’t want Brett Kavanaugh confirmed, so they accuse him of serial gang rape. And that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Matt Walsh‏  @MattWalshBlog
Tweeted on September 28, 2018
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jennifer Granholm

Posted on by

Right. And that actually corroborates Ford’s story.

Jennifer Granholm
September 23, 2018
CNN’s Jennifer Granholm Claims No Corroboration Actually Proves Claims Against Kavanaugh — Tucker Isn’t Buying It
[Context is important:

“Kavanaugh, Judge, Smith and her friend, Leland Keyser, have all said they don’t remember anything like this ever happening. And Leland Keyser, who says she believes Ford, said she doesn’t even remember being at a party where Kavanaugh was present,”  CNN’s Jake Tapper said in the video.

“Right, and that actually corroborates Ford’s story which is that she was so horrified by this that she kind of snuck out or slunk out of this apartment in a way that no one would know what happened because she was so utterly mortified,” Granholm followed up.

Tucker Carlson commented, “Are you following this at home? See if you can track the reasoning here. When you are corroborating witnesses can’t corroborate your story, the one you say they can corroborate, your story has still been corroborated — maybe even more so so.”

So… In response to finding out that all of those who are claimed to be witness to an event report no recollection of the event this mental giant, Granholm, insists this supports the claim the event actually happened. The question I would have asked her is, “So, if all four people reported the event did happen would this mean the event did not happen?”

Of course, we know the answer. Logical thought processes are not something they care about. It may even be they are incapable of them. It may be they have a mental disorder. It may be that they are so used to a supportive media they know it doesn’t matter what they say as long as it supports the narrative. It may be that because it was someone from her “tribe” making the, almost certainly, false claim that there was no way she could comfortably side against the false claim.

Monday evening daughter Jaime and I were discussing the Kavanaugh situation and I arrived at the conclusion that the political left has realized their political future is over if Kavanaugh’s appointment to SCOTUS is confirmed. With that a near certainty, the risk of losing support via crazy, and even illegal, behavior is the better option. From the chaos generated they may be able to avoid near certain political extinction.

Tribal loyalties, even when they didn’t always match reality, were evolutionarily advantageous. That doesn’t meant they were useful in determining truth from falsity. Determination of truth, and even reality, is an extremely tough problem. Our brains only have approximations of knowing reality. It has only been since the dark ages that we have succeeded in formalizing processes, with extreme difficulty, and proteolyzing these processes which usually work. Most people do not follow these processes and in many cases actively reject them. It is relatively easy to support the claim that reason is just a thin veneer over the human brain.

I suspect her mind worked back from the conclusion she had reached and this was the best way of rationalizing the conclusion from the available evidence. I have found there is no guarantee smart people will think logically. Smart people are frequently just more creative in their rationalizations.

When in positions of power these people are extremely dangerous. These are the type of people who can and will find a rationalization to commit genocide.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Hannah Shearer

Posted on by

Kavanaugh’s illogical claim was that public safety should play no role in determining the constitutionality of public safety laws.

Hannah Shearer
September 4, 2018
Brett Kavanaugh’s extreme beliefs on gun control ignore the concerns of most Americans
[Wow.

“Illogical”? I don’t think that word means what Shearer thinks it means. But then it’s clear, that to Shearer, words mean whatever she wants them to mean. Apparently she expects people to forget that if there needs to be some exception carved out of the Bill of Rights there is an amendment process for that. The constitution doesn’t give Federal judges the power to rewrite the constitution.

But, again, she doesn’t want to acknowledge the judges don’t have the power. She appears to thinks the constitution means whatever she wants it to mean.

Ms. Shearer, please get yourself a copy of the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and a dictionary. Words mean something and you, and especially judges, don’t get to redefine them to suit your whims.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Adam Lankford

Posted on by

I am not interested in giving any serious thought to John Lott or his claims.

Adam Lankford
Professor at the University of Alabama
August 2018
Shock study: U.S. had far fewer mass shootings than previously reported
[Of course not. Liars have no desire for the truth.

Lankford claimed the U.S. has more mass shooters per capita, by far, than any country. And has, what appears to be, a socialist explanation:

Mr. Lankford, who claimed to be the first to attempt a global survey, said his results suggested there was something to the American psyche that left people disaffected when they failed to achieve the American dream. He said they turn to violent outbursts with firearms.

“It may thus be the lofty aspirations and broken dreams of a tiny percentage of America’s students and workers — combined with their mental health problems, distorted perceptions of victimization, delusions of grandeur, and access to firearms — that makes them more likely to commit public mass shootings than people from other cultures,” he postulated in his 2015 paper.

He refuses to share his data and his exact methodology and John Lott, and others, easily find many more mass shootings in the rest of the world that what Lankford claims. This results in:

Mr. Lankford studied the period from 1966 to 2012 using data from the New York City Police Department’s active shooter report, a 2014 FBI active shooter report and some foreign accounts.

He identified 292 incidents worldwide in which at least four people were killed — the FBI’s definition of a mass murder. Of those, 90 were in the U.S. — 31 percent of the total among –Jooe171 countries.

…

Mr. Lott, meanwhile, turned to data from the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database and followed up with Nexis and web searches to try to catch cases that the database missed.

He said good data exist only for recent years, so he looked from 1998 to 2012 and found 1,491 mass public shootings worldwide. Of those, only 43 — or 2.88 percent — were in the U.S. Divide that by per capita rates, and the U.S. comes in 58th, behind Finland, Peru, Russia, Norway and Thailand — though still worse than France, Mexico, Germany and the United Kingdom.

Looked at from the number of victims in those shootings, the U.S. again ranks low, with just 2.1 percent of mass shooting deaths, Mr. Lott said.

Lott released his data and even sent it to Lankford. Who, of course, has an agenda to support and is “not interested in giving any serious thought” to it.

They have to lie to even attempt to win, and they know it.—Joe]

Preliminary injunction on 3-D printed guns granted

Posted on by

The Seattle judge found the arguments of the tyrants more convincing than those of who yearn to be free:

The private defendants raise the more substantive argument that a preliminary injunction will impair their First Amendment rights, a loss which, “for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373-74 (1976). The First Amendment argument raises a number of challenging issues. Is computer code speech? If yes, is it protected under the First Amendment? To answer those questions, one would have to determine what the nature of the files at issue here is: are they written and designed to interact solely with a computer in the absence of the intercession of the mind or will of the recipient or is it an expressive means for the exchange of information regarding computer programming and/or weapons manufacturing? Are the export controls of the ITAR a prior restraint giving rise to a presumption that they are unconstitutional? Is the AECA a general regulatory statute not intended to control the content of speech but only incidentally limiting its unfettered exercise? Or is the government attempting to regulate distribution of the CAD files because of the message they convey? Depending on which level of scrutiny applies, does the regulation advance important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and avoid burdening more speech than necessary or is the regulation narrowly tailored to promote a compelling Government interest?

The Court declines to wade through these issues based on the limited record before it and instead presumes that the private defendants have a First Amendment right to disseminate the CAD files. That right is currently abridged, but it has not been abrogated. Regulation under the AECA means that the files cannot be uploaded to the internet, but they can be emailed, mailed, securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States. The Court finds that the irreparable burdens on the private defendants’ First Amendment rights are dwarfed by the irreparable harms the States are likely to suffer if the existing restrictions are withdrawn and that, overall, the public interest strongly supports maintaining the status quo through the pendency of this litigation.

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. The federal defendants and all of their respective officers, agents, and employees are hereby enjoined from implementing or enforcing the “Temporary Modification of Category I of the United States Munitions List” and the letter to Cody R. Wilson, Defense Distributed, and the Second Amendment Foundation issued by the U.S. Department of State on July 27, 2018, and shall preserve the status quo ex ante as if the modification had not occurred and the letter had not been issued until further order of the Court.

I’m on the side of Code Is Free Speech and suggest you get your 3-D printed gun CAD files there.

No surprise

Posted on by

The site of the mass shooting in Jacksonville today has this in it’s rules of conduct:

a. The commission of any act defined by Federal, State or local ordinances as a criminal act is prohibited. These include, but are not limited to: graffiti, property damage, defacing, damaging or destroying any real or personal property, etc.

b. Possession of a weapon, even if legally carried (except by law enforcement officers) is absolutely prohibited on Landing property

c. Using or possessing fireworks is prohibited

A mass shooting in a “gun free zone”. This comes as no surprise. It is to be expected. Most people will be hard pressed to name a mass shooting that doesn’t occur in a “gun free zone”.

Of course this won’t stop the anti-gun people from demanding the entire country be turned into a gun free zone.

Quote of the day—Robert Lasnik

Posted on by

You know, it’s a little bit frustrating to be sitting in this chair as a United States District Court judge and seeing this is an issue that should be solved by the political branches of government. And I really hope and wish that the executive branch and Congress would face up to this and say, it’s a tough issue, but that’s why you got into public service to begin with.

Robert Lasnik
U.S. District Court Judge
August 21, 2018
3D-printed guns: Federal judge in Seattle frustrated over case, could make decision by Monday
[My initial response was, “The issue was resolved long ago and is still resolved. There is no Federal law against 3D-printing a gun. Therefore there isn’t anything the court can say except, ‘Case dismissed.’”

But reading a little closer it appears the argument of the anti-freedom people is a little more twisted:

The legal dispute before the court centers on ITAR, a law that involves regulating the export of certain weapons — not the potential dangers that may result if criminals print out guns and later use them to commit offenses.

Okay, unless ITAR is directly challenged, which it is not, the court has to assume ITAR is valid law. And then the question, “Is the Federal government following the letter of that law?” is a fair question that is a valid for the court to get involved in.

Wilson’s lawyer has to be scoring some points with this argument:

Chad Flores, a lawyer representing Wilson, also raised the arguments that other files for 3D guns are already available online, and Wilson could simply disseminate his plans legally by other means.

My client could mail the files at issue to everyone in the country and violate no law.

Next week we find out which side is more convincing to Judge Lasnik.—Joe]

Quote of the day—George Parry

Posted on by

The gun control advocates may not realize it, but they lost the fight long ago. It’s all over but the shouting.

In the meantime, as the war of words continues, there sits DD’s founder, Cody Wilson, having more fun than should be legally allowed. Like a mischievous adolescent waving a laser pointer, he has the gun control cats racing in circles knocking over furniture and banging into walls as they try to catch and hold the elusive bouncing red dot of readily available firearms. Due to the efforts of Wilson and his little company, the government is once again being exposed as a lumbering and ineffectual colossus. All in all, it’s a dramatic public demonstration of the limits of government power and the fecklessness of those who worship at its altar.

And from out here in the cheap seats, it sure is fun to watch.

George Parry
August 6, 2018
The Utter Futility of Gun Control
[While it is futile in the sense of keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals it is possible to make life difficult for those who wish to be able to keep and bear arms openly.—Joe]

It’s the Russians!

Posted on by

Interesting:

Facebook announced on Tuesday that it has identified a coordinated political influence campaign, with dozens of inauthentic accounts and pages that are believed to be engaging in political activity ahead of November’s midterm elections, according to three people briefed on the matter.

In a series of briefings on Capitol Hill this week and a public post on Tuesday, the company told lawmakers that it had detected and removed 32 pages and accounts connected to the influence campaign on Facebook and Instagram as part of its investigations into election interference. It publicly said it had been unable to tie the accounts to Russia, whose Internet Research Agency was at the center of an indictment earlier this year for interfering in the 2016 election, but company officials told Capitol Hill that Russia was possibly involved, according to two officials briefed on the matter.

…

Like the Russian interference campaign in 2016, the recently detected campaign dealt with divisive social issues.

Facebook discovered coordinated activity around issues like a sequel to last year’s deadly “Unite the Right” white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va. Specifically, a page called “Resisters,” which interacted with one Internet Research Agency account in 2017, created an event called “No Unite the Right 2 — DC” to serve as a counterprotest to the white nationalist gathering, scheduled to take place in Washington in August. Mr. Gleicher said “inauthentic” administrators for the “Resisters” page went as far as to coordinate with administrators for five other apparently real pages to co-host the event, publicizing details about transportation and other logistics.

Mr. Gleicher said it disabled the event on Tuesday and notified 2,600 users of the site who had indicated interest in attending the event.

Coordinated activity was also detected around #AbolishICE, a left-wing campaign on social media that seeks to end the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, according to two people briefed on the findings. That echoed efforts in 2016 to fan division around the Black Lives Matter movement.

…

American intelligence and law enforcement officials have been warning for months that Russia’s efforts to undermine American democracy remain active and pose a threat to this year’s elections. If in fact Russian, the activity would provide vivid evidence that the kind of cyber operations used around the 2016 campaign were still in use.

I sometimes have contact with current or former people in the intelligence community. I don’t have any specific information but “it is well known” the Russians like to create internal conflict in their enemies. It is a part of their culture and even have a word for it (sorry, I don’t remember it). I have been told they organized both anti-Hillary and anti-Trump events in 2016. It’s what they do. Hacking into the DNC and Hillary’s email servers and releasing the contents wasn’t necessarily to help elect Trump. It was to create conflict.

I have to wonder… is a lot of the conflict on social media regarding firearms fueled by Russia? When you are debating some twit on Twitter are you actually wasting time talking to a paid Russian troll?

Quote of the day—Josh Horwitz

Posted on by

Anthony Kennedy is retiring. Those four words could set the gun violence prevention movement back forty years.

In the past week, we’ve seen how devastatingly influential the Supreme Court can be to social justice in this country. With the news yesterday, it could get a whole lot worse.

A “guns everywhere” society.

Josh Horwitz
Executive Director
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
June 28, 2018
[Via email.

A “guns everywhere society”? Like everywhere someone might need to defend themselves or other innocent people from predators? Sure, what’s the problem with that?

And since Horwitz wants to prevent gun violence instead of punish people who commit crimes with guns I hope his movement is set back, not just 40 years but, to sometime approaching the beginning of time. I know that is a bit too much to hope for. I’d settle for something like 10,000 years. That’s a reasonable compromise, right?—Joe]

Don’t think it can’t happen where you live

Posted on by

I used to live a five minute walk from here. My kids daycare was a block away. I have filled up my car at this station many times:

Redmond Police officers shot and killed a man outside a busy Safeway gas station in Kirkland Thursday evening.

The shooting happened just before 5:00 p.m. outside the Kingsgate station near 124th Ave. NE and NE 144th St.

According to police, the officers recognized the man, who they say was considered armed and dangerous.

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

Posted on by

No one in mass media is talking about murder and murderers. Watch. They’re only talking about shooting and shooters. By itself, shooters and shooting is not anything bad—and they know that. Being a shooter and shooting is what good Americans do all the time.

Murder is ugly, too ugly to bear. Murderers are horrible, to be rejected outright by society. No glory in being a murderer. Especially no prize for being a mass murderer. So the media avoids it, and in their conspicuous campaign against private arms, they avoid dealing with the murder angle.

The media are leading the nation down a path of perdition, turning shooters and shooting—people and activities with wonderful, excellent attributes—into targets for fear, loathing and legislative assault. And they’re good at it.

Alan Korwin
February 26, 2018
The Problem Isn’t the Shootings. It’s the murders.
[Interesting point.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charles Krauthammer

Posted on by

This is the final verdict. My fight is over.

Charles Krauthammer
June 8, 2018
A note to readers
[Krauthammer is no friend of gun owners. I’m glad he is out of our fight.

May his passing be as comfortable as is practical and may his family and friends have a chance to say their goodbyes and cherish their memories of him.—Joe]

It’s in her nature

Posted on by

I’m written about Rachel Dolezal before and she once suggested a more complex label would be appropriate. Well, it appears she has obtained a simpler label:

Former Spokane Chapter NAACP President Rachel Dolezal is now facing legal trouble that could land her behind bars. KHQ has confirmed that Dolezal, who legally changed her name to Nkechi Diallo in 2016, is accused of 1st Degree Theft by Welfare Fraud, Perjury in the 2nd Degree, and False Verification for Public Assistance. Her potential punishment under RCW 74.08.331 could include up to 15 years in prison.

That label would be “criminal”.

It is quite clear fraud is in her nature and has been for quite some time.

Quote of the day—Don Kilmer

Posted on by

There are no significant Second Amendment obstacles to local and state gun control at this point.

Don Kilmer
May 15, 2018
California Cities Are Free to Regulate Gun Stores Out of Existence
[The twisted bit of reasoning that led to this particular situation is:

No historical authority suggests that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to sell a firearm.

If you read the appeals court ruling a little deeper you will see they don’t see any reason why the manufacture of all firearms couldn’t be regulated out of existence. Sure, you have a right to keep and bear “arms” of some sort, but no right exists for someone to build them or parts to repair them. The same would appear to be true for ammunition.

Assuming you want to retain some semblance of the right to keep and bear arms in the all the states there are three paths ahead of us.

  • Change the culture.
  • Get gun friendly justices into the Federal Courts with particular attention to the SCOTUS.
  • Take up arms and use them effectively and efficiently.

Option 1 is probably a lost cause in places like California, New Jersey, New York, and other tyrannical states.

Option 3 is far too uncomfortable to give serious consideration until all other options are exhausted.

We have to get behind option 2 and make it a reality while preparing for option 3.—Joe]