Proud to have had a hand in getting CMT to reject this racist and violent song…
Shannon Watts @shannonrwatts
Tweeted on July 18, 2023
As a side note, she has blocked my primary Twitter account. I had to use a different account to copy the quote.
The song is neither racist or criminally violent. But Watts has never been known for her adherence to the facts. That she is proud of it demonstrates she is proud of her work as a professional liar.
So according to the big town folks this is a racist song:
As Tennessee lawmakers, we have an obligation to condemn Jason Aldean’s heinous song calling for racist violence.
Justin Jones
State Rep. Democrat
July 19, 2023
Jason Aldean’s ‘Try This in a Small Town’ is shameful. Naturally, it’s the right’s song of the summerBy lyrically and visually equating meaningful rallies condemning police brutality to violent crime, Aldean is shamelessly touting how much he—and this country, quite frankly—devalues Black life.
Candace McDuffie
July 19, 2023
Jason Aldean’s ‘Try That in a Small Town’ Is the Racist Anthem White Folks Have Been Waiting For
My take on it is that it is only racist if you believe violent crime is almost exclusively the domain of the targets of the racism. I suppose Jones and others could be right about that. I just know that twice as many people in prison identify as Democrats as all other political affiliations combined.
Hence, my take on Jones opposition to the song is that it is not really about racism and he knows it. He is opposed to the song because it expresses opposition to the people who vote for him.
I have been to this event three times. The event itself is free. Your travel expenses and time are your only costs. Highly recommended:
|
Justice Frankfurter warned 80 years ago that the Supreme Court was going down a bad path by getting into the business of ranking constitutional rights, protecting some at the expense of others, and today his dissent illuminates what has gone very wrong with our current Supreme Court. In a string of cases decided by an unchecked conservative super-majority, the court has established a tiering of constitutional rights, elevating rights to religious liberty (for some), free speech, and guns over and above other fundamental rights such as equality, public health and security, and bodily autonomy.
Katherine Franke
James L. Dohr Professor of Law at Columbia University and the founder and faculty director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project.
July 18, 2023
We’ve Entered a New Era of Tiered Constitutional Rights
Is Franke a visitor from an alternate universe and is working from a different U.S. Constitution? In my universe and reading my copy of the U.S. constitution there is no mention of “fundamental rights such as equality, public health and security, and bodily autonomy*.”
I would attribute the addition of these new rights to ignorance or poor schooling. But Franke claims she is a Professor of Law at Columbia University. If true, I find it hare to imagine she is so ignorant or poorly schooled that she did not have an accurate copy of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and been required to read them on multiple occasions. Hence the I am forced to conclude there must be an alternate explanation.
One could claim this is a deliberate lie intended to deceive the masses. But the lie is so obvious one could not expect it to accomplish, in the best case, a cause for laughter at her expense.
Hence, my leading hypothesis to explain this outrageous misrepresentation of the words and meaning of the constitution is that she is delusional and/or is a visitor from an alternate dimension.
I also find it quite telling there is no means to leave comments on her opinion piece.
* The Fourth Amendment reference to “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” appears to be limited to “searches and seizers” and it would be difficult to stretch it to mean “bodily autonomy.”
As the Court previously explained, the issue in this case is whether ATF may properly regulate a component as a “frame or receiver” even after ATF determines that the component in question is not a frame or receiver. It may not. Logic dictates that a part cannot be both not yet a receiver and receiver at the same time. Defendants’ reliance on that logical contradiction is fatal to their argument.
Reed O’Connor
June 30, 2023
VanDerStok v. Garland
One should not be surprised the antigun people tried doing something that did make logical sense. Logic has always been an alien concept to their type.
Those 80% receivers, at least at the Federal level, continue to be legal. At the state level please seek the advice of a firearms lawyer before you post your new build on social media.
They know the truth and are lying. We “knew” have known that for decades. But it is rare we direct evidence of that. Now, for this one person, we have the evidence:
Democratic St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones’ support of gun control is coming into question after an open records request released thousands of her personal texts, including one that argued gun crackdowns are ineffective.
“Chicago has strict gun laws as well but that doesn’t deter gun violence,” Jones texted in a group chat to her dad, Virvus Jones and advisor Richard Callow on March 21, KSDK reported.
They know strict gun laws do not “deter gun violence”. But they still advocate for strict gun laws. Therefore, you know the reason for the gun control advocacy is not a desire to reduce “gun violence”. There is some evil motivation at work.
Prepare appropriately.
I’m for the Second Amendment, but if it saves just one life to eliminate gun free zones, pass constitutional carry in all states, and ban all magazine limitation laws and ban laws that ban AR15s then it’s worth it.
Colion Noir @MrColionNoir
Tweeted on July 11, 2023
Nice twist!
I’m for the Second Amendment, but not everyone will get the joke here.
It’s not that the Left are against the death penalty, it’s that they’re against the death penalty for crime.
Alice Smith (@TheAliceSmith)
Tweeted on Sat, Aug 13, 2022
Where “crime” is defined as the violation of property and/or individual rights.
This gave me flashbacks to Darkness at Noon, Bloodlands—Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, and especially The Gulag Archipelago.
Prepare appropriately.
One does not have to put on a tin-foil hat to be suspicious of this:
Several major holster manufacturers/providers received notices from the Department of Commerce Census Bureau requesting order numbers, product descriptions, and where the items were being shipped. A few holster companies have refused to turn over the requested information to the federal government.
…
Some companies reached out to Arbiter Weston Martinez of Texas for help. Mr. Martinez is the former Texas Real Estate Commissioner under former Governor Rick Perry. Mr. Martinez is well connected in the political sphere and believes that the companies are being targeted to gather intel on the gun market. He has vowed to help push back against the alleged government overreach.
If they were asking what state the holsters were being shipped to, and without order numbers, then okay, I could imagine the requested information was not intended for abuse. As it is worded here, I just roll my eyes. That isn’t fooling anyone.
Via email from Rolf
Why are we tolerating the slaughter of innocent children at schools? For that matter why are we tolerating the mass murder of innocent Americans in stores, malls and the workplace. The common denominator in most shootings is an AR-15 assault-style rifle developed for the military, where soldiers need to be able to shoot a lot of bullets in a hurry to stop the assault of an enemy.
David Op’t Hof
David Op’t Hof: Only banning assault weapons will stop the slaughter
One has to wonder if this guy was trying to set some sort of record for the number of lies he could pack into a single sentence:
And secondarily, am I imagining it or are there some sort of visual characteristics such that you “just know” some people are anti-gun?
It seems there might be some sort of thing like “Gaydar” for anti-gun people.
If this is true it is very “interesting”. The ATF was (is?) having difficultly maintaining staff for entry and quick reaction teams.
Many of them are obese and they are losing staff due to injuries from obesity, cardiovascular disease and parallel conditions.
Perhaps they should just shut the entire anti-gun operation down and stop infringing upon our rights.
Via a tweet from Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras.
Prepare appropriately. Don’t let your dog get close enough to an ATF agent that the agent might fall on them.
The answer to that is based in the psyches of men for whom violence is a form of power, a means to force respect; who view guns as symbols of manhood, and manhood as requiring power over women. Machismo, male supremacy, guns, violence, power, and respect are all interlinked, so that, for such men, neither respect nor power nor manhood can be achieved without violence, and the use of violence against those—especially women, but also nonwhites and other minorities—over whom they demand power. (Without which, to complete the circle, they cannot truly be men.) And guns, with all their phallic force, are the best possible means.
Abigail R. Esman
July 6, 2023
The Most Egregious Case the Supreme Court Agreed to Hear Next Term
It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!
An opinion writer on Slate demonstrating Markley’ Law is unusual. I expect it as a matter of course in a Twitter debate. But an opinion writer doesn’t have to fall back on childish insults because they have lost the debate. She invokes it as part of her main arguments. That’s really demonstrating how weak their case is.
Other things to point out are:
But what do you expect from someone so ignorant, stupid, and or evil they insist gun ownership is an indicator of compensation for inadequate masculinity?
Via a tweet from Jay (Parody) @jayhafe who tagged it with #JustOneQuestion
See also Just one question.
We’ve banned assault weapons. We’ve banned high-capacity magazines. We’ve banned switches that turn regular guns into automatic weapons and here in Illinois those are things that will keep people safe and alive, but we need a national ban,
J.B. Pritzker
Governor of Illinois
July 8, 2023
Pritzker Pushes For Nationwide Gun Ban While Illinois’ Law Challenged In Courts
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
From the same article:
Just in Chicago, violent crime has risen 86% over the past two years, and 56% over the past four.
Pritzker is innumerate, evil, or both.
Prepare appropriately.
The proposed legislation is an abhorrent anti-civil rights effort. No community in Massachusetts faces this kind an intentional bigotry and oppression from the State Government! It is simply a post Bruen tantrum, very similar to Governor Wallace after Brown v. Board of Education.
Jim Wallace
Executive Directory GOAL (Gun Owners Action League)
June 28, 2023
Mass. Anti-Gunners Push More Restrictions; Gun Group Chief Fires Back
As I said almost 17 years ago, “Anti-gun bigots are the KKK of the 21st Century.”
Stabilizing braces gave me the ability to get back out and shoot things that I never expected I would be able to again and my life changed drastically. Since then, I have been traveling across the country teaching veterans how to shoot again. That brace is the foundation of everything I do because I can take someone who has limited strength in their hands or is missing digits and give them confidence and the skills and capability to grasp a firearm again and get them back to the things that were such a part of their life.
Rick Cicero
Co-designer of the stabilizing brace
July 30, 2021
LAWMAKERS: ATF STEPPING ON VETS WITH PISTOL BRACE RULE
I have never had any interest in one of them and so had no real opinion on them other than the government has no business regulating them. That they are considered helpful to people with limited strength, etc. has shifted my view on the government regulation some.
I think governments should change the laws such that pistol braces can be paid for using your health savings accounts (pretax dollars). I understand this will be controversial. But I’m will to go with this a small first step on the path to the elimination of all taxes on all arms.
While supportive of Brown, the legal scholar Alexander Bickel warned—via what he famously termed “the countermajoritarian difficulty”—that courts should be especially careful when invalidating legislation, lest legislatures flout their rulings and show courts to be powerless. Because we take legislation as representative of the will of the majority, courts are required to show legislation a degree of deference. They must justify themselves when they invalidate law in the name of constitutional rights.
Caitlin B. Tully
June 25, 2023
Rethinking the Liberal Giant Who Doomed Roe
I found this to be a very profound observation. This appears to be what is going on now in our battle for gun owner rights.
In the face of multiple Supreme Court losses, including the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the blocking of Biden’s student loan relief program and the end of affirmative action on college campuses. All these court decisions really amount to is a reversal of entitlements that never should have existed in the first place. Leftists see such entitlements as “civil rights,” never mind that they exist as a means to take the rights of others.
Tyler Durden
July 1, 2023
Democrat Rep. Has Psychotic Meltdown – Calls Supreme Court “Illegitimate White Patriarchy”
I have nothing to add.
For at least a hundred years the debate has raged and gun writers have written, ad nauseum, over the preferred defensive tool. The only point everyone can agree is: the BEST defensive weapon is a firearm, but it is totally useless unless accessible when defense is needed.
Chuck Klein
June 30, 2023
OFF-DUTY CARRY,
A SURVEY AND ANALYSIS OF CURRENT LE PRACTICES
And those who are opposed to the carry of firearms make their intentions abundantly clear. They are motivated to have you defenseless.
Alan Korwin proposed a new law:
The U.S. Constitution, for all its strengths, revered and imitated worldwide, has a fatal flaw. A weakness of Greek-tragedy proportions. The Constitution lacks punishment for those who would violate its terms. Yes, there are avenues of recourse, but these have been neutered and rendered feckless in so many ways.
…
What America needs, what our Republic and Constitution need, is strict adherence to a policy of, “No infringement shall be tolerated.” Small encroachments—like licenses to carry arms or speech codes—must subject people proposing such violations to penalties. Gross infringements like, “We’re going to take away your favorite rifle—and of course we’ll keep ours,” require prison terms. Stiff penalties.
I’m not sure why 18 USC 242 doesn’t cover what his has in mind. Regardless, if there were a means of reliable prosecution I believe the concept is sound.
