I’m all about diversity. Let me share a little bit of it with you.
I found this on Gab via Jan Conboy @javelina:
My bullet collection is far more diverse than this but I don’t have a good picture of it.
I have this to keep some of the mud out of the hitch on my SUV:
I received this shirt on Friday from Maj Toure @MAJTOURE:
And from 13 years ago:
Via Dana Loesch:
Liberals Unable To Pass Background Checks Necessary To Buy The Guns They’ll Need To Take Guns Away From Law-Abiding Gun Owners is satire, but most of the points are completely valid. For example:
“And I know it’s gonna work,” Harris said, “because we’ll be taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. Obeying the law is what they do. It’s not like we’re trying to take guns out of the hands of criminals.”
Fast and Furious was a Justice Department program that allowed assault weapons — including .50-caliber rifles powerful enough to take down a helicopter — to be sold to Mexican drug cartels allegedly as a way to track them. But internal documents later revealed the real goal was to gin up a crisis requiring a crackdown on guns in America. Fast and Furious was merely a pretext for imposing stricter gun laws.
…
Team Obama conspired to derail investigations into who was responsible by first withholding documents under subpoena — for which Holder earned a contempt-of-Congress citation — and later claiming executive privilege to keep evidence sealed.
But thanks to the court order, Justice has to cough up the “sensitive” documents. So far it’s produced 20,500 lightly redacted pages, though congressional investigators say they hardly cover all the internal department communications under subpoena. They maintain the administration continues to “withhold thousands of documents.”
Paul Sperry
May 21, 2016
The scandal in Washington no one is talking about
[Via Say Uncle, Miguel.GFZ, and Andrew Branca.
Will the criminals finally be brought to justice?
Check out the date on the quote. That was over three years ago. So the answer is, almost for certain, no.—Joe]
It’s very slow going but the courts are giving us wins:
Today, New Jersey Second Amendment Society received Judge Hurd’s order denying NJ’s motion for summary judgement, granting NJ2AS’ motion for summary judgement, and subsequently ordering the State of NJ to provide New Jersey Second Amendment Society with unredacted copies of Attachments A, B and C to the 2005 New Jersey State Police Firearms Applicant Investigation Guide within 30 days.
It has been 8 years since we first filed our lawsuit to gain access to the guide.
I remember listening to Alan Gura talk a year or so after the Heller decision. He said something to the effect of, “Don’t expect this to change anything overnight. This is just the start of something that people will still be working on 20 years from now.” That it took the New Jersey Second Amendment Society 8 years to get access to a few pieces of paper is very telling. The anti-gun forces really, really don’t want the public to know what they really think about, and how they treat, the Second Amendment.
It’s been 11 years since Heller and with the current rate of progress it looks to me like it could still be another 20 years before we might accomplish something that I might consider approaching an acceptable victory over the forces of evil.
Liberty Defense is developing Hexwave, a new disruptive technology that was exclusively licensed from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) uses 3D radar imaging and artificial intelligence to detect concealed weapons in urban settings.
…
Hexwave could be the next technology that replaces X-ray machines, such as for scanning bags in airports or other venues, and it also provides 3D scans of a person’s exterior as where X-ray can only provide 2D scans.
“Hexwave provides 3D imaging at a rate that is in real time — it can assess for threats while the person is still walking, which means it is well suited for higher, faster throughput,” Riker told VentureBeat.
The urban security market by 2020 to 2025 in North America is set to increase by 33%. The new 3D detection machine can revolutionize security at indoor high traffic crowded areas, like schools, malls, hotels, and places of worship, and protect outdoor high traffic areas, like airports, sports venues, government buildings, and bus/subway stations.
Will this sneak by the Fourth Amendment? If used in a common access public place, does this constitute an unwarranted search? The courts danced around the Fourth Amendment issues when doing searches at airports by saying, in essence, “You can still drive, ride a bus, and walk without being searched hence you are consenting to these searches.”
Also of great concern is the often used phrase “concealed means concealed” will no longer be true. Statists will use this technology to claim you don’t need to have a gun to protect yourself because they have the ability to prevent bad guys (everyone except agents of the state) from having a gun. While individual and groups of criminals are of obvious concern and a reasonable justification for private ownership and carry of self-defense firearms that isn’t the primary reason we have the Second Amendment. The primary reason is defense against the state. This technology could tip the balance in favor of dependency of the state for personal protection. This leading to inability to justify in the public eye the private carry and eventual ownership of firearms. This, of course, puts people at great risk of wholesale slaughter when our government goes completely rogue:
Via Boomstickbiker @Boomstickbiker:
I could see this having potential for some home defense situations but in the more general case I’m going to stick with semi-auto small arms.
The only reward for putting up with craziness is more craziness.
Thomas Sowell
March 6, 1999
THOMAS SOWELL: Back again – random thoughts
[Barb and I have decades of experience with this on a personal level. And we all are seeing the clear and irrefutable truth of this in the political arena. We see it in economics, immigration policy, and especially with our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
The only way to deal with crazy is to not tolerate it. In many cases it is quite surprising how quickly they can put on a semi-rational face when you just say “No!” and have the means and will to enforce it..—Joe]
The 2nd Amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms. It guarantees it won’t be infringed. This is clear from the wording and from the U.S. Supreme Court:
The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
Chief Justice Morrison Waite
U.S. Supreme Court
U S v Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)
Sign the petition to change the wording on the White House web site to reflect the correct meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Background is here.
Time is important. A total of 100K signatures are needed in 30 days. At this time it needs 99,039 signatures by July 27, 2019 to get a response from the White House.
Via ripper.
This was certainly true in Europe a few decades ago:
Is it true at on this continent at this time? Maybe not. But if we decide it isn’t true, act accordingly, we are making that choice for not only ourselves but all of our descendants and probably for all time. If that is the wrong choice we won’t get to change our response.
The risk far too great to take the chance. Do not give up another inch of our right to keep and bear arms.
There are two types who want gun control: those who understand the failures inherent to it but use it to further an ulterior motive.
Then there is you: not able to put the pieces together to see you are nothing more than what Lenin would have called a useful idiot.
Hellhound Phoenix #AKF @PhoenixTruths
Tweeted on June 27, 2019
[Excellent observation!—Joe]
In 1986, Congress enacted the Firearm Owners Protection Act (“FOPA”), which includes a ban on the transfer or possession of a machinegun not lawfully possessed and registered by May 19, 1986. 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). But before § 992(o) came 26 U.S.C § 5861(d), which makes it unlawful “to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered” (emphasis added). After FOPA, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”) no longer accepted the registration of and payment of taxes on new machineguns. In stripping § 5861(d) of all revenue-raising potential, § 922(o) mooted § 5861(d)’s constitutional warrant under Congress’s Taxing Power.
In addition, § 922(o) renders § 5861(d)’s application a violation of appellant’s right to due process. Because ATF will not accept the registration of new machineguns, compliance with § 5861(d) is impossible. Section 5861(d) is thus in irreconcilable conflict with § 922(o), and since Congress enacted the latter after the former, it controls.
Amici also caution against what we perceive to be a concerning departure from fundamental rights jurisprudence. By refusing to present an analysis of why the regulation of machineguns is beyond the scope of the Second Amendment, the courts are glazing over an important constitutional question. If a class of arms can be regulated nearly to the point of a categorical ban—which machineguns may well be—the American people deserve to at least know the constitutional justification.
Ilya Shapiro and Matthew Larosiere
June 20, 2019
BRIEF OF THE CATO INSTITUTE AND FIREARMS POLICY COALITION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
[My translation is as follows:
The original constitutional justification for the regulation of machine guns was that it was a transfer tax ($200) each time the gun changed ownership. Since congress had the constitutional power to tax they could require the registration of machine guns to enable them to collect the taxes.
In 1986 congress declared the ATF shall no longer accept registration and taxation of new machine guns. This removed the possibility of collecting taxes on new machine guns. This means that the original constitutional justification for the regulation of machine guns no longer exists.
Hence, we, the people, are entitled to either the ability to purchase new machine guns or a constitutional justification as to why not.
I did not expect a challenge to machine gun law for at least several more years. I hope it’s not too soon. I would have preferred it wait until Trump has appointed another SCOTUS justice or two and we had a ruling that said semiautomatic rifles were protected.
We live in interesting times.—Joe]
Los Angeles and San Francisco usually control most of what we get in the state of California. We don’t appreciate them dictating to us like they’ve been doing.
Jeff Williams
Mayor of Needles California
June 24, 2019
Needles declared itself a “2nd Amendment Sanctuary” city; wants exemption to some state gun laws
[You have to wonder what all the geniuses who thought of up the “sanctuary city/county/state” stuff for criminals think of sanctuary for people exercising their specific enumerated rights. I suspect we are soon going to find out.—Joe]
YEP. I’M COMING FOR YOUR AR15
You heard me. No apologies. The same reason you don’t need a lion to protect your home, is why you don’t need a rifle that shoots at 3X the speed of sound and splits concrete like ice. It’s an unreasonable risk.
Nate McMurray @Nate_McMurray
Tweeted on June 24, 2019
[McMurray is not some random troll bot. He is running for U.S. Congress.
It looks to me like he is confessing to the violation of 18 USC 241 and is trying for 18 USC 242 as well.—Joe]
For years I’ve wanted to be able to legally conceal carry in Oregon. It seems that there are several times a year when Barb and I go through there. Last weekend I shot in the USPSA Area One Championship (results here, I came in 81st out of 118 in Limited) outside of Bend Oregon. About a year ago we visited Crater Lake (where Barb proposed to me) and several other interesting parks with interesting geological attractions. We have gone to Portland to Powell’s City of Books and Voodoo Donuts. And while Lava Beds National Monument is actually in California, I would like to take her to visit that someday. It is just over the border from Oregon and we would probably drive from Washington. The problem is that Oregon doesn’t recognize concealed carry license from any other state.
Since I was going to be in central Oregon for several day for the match I looked up the requirements for getting an Oregon Concealed Handgun license.
Most of the counties will not accept non Oregon residents even though the law allows for it. The counties add further restrictions such Columbia County:
You must have a current Washington State Concealed Handgun License to qualify for your Oregon permit. This permit can be used as one piece of identification when applying for your Oregon CHL. You must write a letter to Sheriff Dickerson stating why you want an Oregon Concealed Handgun License.
Your reasons must be compelling in nature. There will be a $10.00 administrative fee. The fee is applied to the cost of regular monitoring of criminal histories of Washington residents holding any type of Columbia County licenses or permits through the Sheriff’s Office.
Or Gillian County:
OUT OF STATE APPLICANTS: All out of state new applicants and renewals must include a statement of compelling business interest or other legitimate demonstrated need which exhibits a correlation to Gilliam County.
Oregon has 36 counties. I looked up the CHL requirement for 17 of them, working my way outward from my travel paths for the match, before finding one. The Grant County Sheriff’s office was very friendly to me. I made an appointment for 9:00 AM, showed up about 8:20 because I was concerned about finding the place. I offered to come back at the appointment time but the nice deputy, Anne Marie (I think), told me to come on in and she would take care of it.
About a half hour later I walked out with my Oregon CHL. It’s a nice addition to the family:
We have SCOTUS decisions. They have insulting cartoons.
I think we are ultimately headed for some kind of violent showdown between the left and everyone else. They no longer know when to back off, and they lack the moral filters necessary to coexistence. We’re going to end up in an existential fight for our most fundamental rights, and literal self-preservation.
The Annoyed Man
June 22, 2019
Comment to MN: Self defense shooting trial built on gun control bumper sticker
[Certainly a case can be made for that. But it seems to me that they back off when they get some serious push back. I think at least some of them are more in touch with reality than we sometimes give them credit for. They may be crazy but they may not be stupid. They can “sober up” for short periods of time if they really need to.
Think about it. For a while there were marches with vandalism and sometimes riots nearly every week all over the country. And now how often do you see that?—Joe]
In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.
In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”
During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.
Stephen P. Halbrook
December 2, 2013
How the Nazis Used Gun Control
[See also the Belgian Corporal.
Avoid gun registration as best you can. And never register your guns in such a way that you can’t plausibly deny still owning them a month or two later. “Tragic boating accident” is the classic out. But there are lots of other ways.
Trading guns with close relatives in another state is sometime a legal and viable option. Or a chain of legal trades/purchases across families linked by marriage might work too.
If you don’t need for the trail to go cold in the short term quietly buy a gun from an elderly relative. In a dozen years or so the trail dies with the relative.
Move to another state, even if for a month, and purchase or trade there.
Never put yourself in a position to have your guns confiscated.—Joe]
