Quote of the day—Madison Dibble

If recent policies have any indication on Democrats’ intentions, the candidates have stopped their consideration for the rights of gun owners. Here are six ways — big and small — that 2020 Democrats plan to strip gun owners of their access to firearms.

Madison Dibble
April 30, 2019
2020 Democrats Find Unity in Targeting the Second Amendment: 6 Ways They Plan to Limit Gun-Owner Rights
[Yeah, I think those are pretty good indicators. Politicians frequently lie but depend on them expanding the power of government.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Steve Scalise

Their ultimate desire to take and confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens is where they have always wanted to go, but they know the public is not there, the country is not there, so they try to go in backdoor ways.

Steve Scalise
House Minority Whip
April 28, 2019
Steve Scalise: Far-Left Democrats Want Gun Confiscation
[It’s not the most coherent expression of someone’s thoughts but the essence of what he says is correct.

The question is, can he and other gun rights supporters in the house do something about the criminals attempting to infringe upon the rights of the people?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

They will not trust their fellow, gun-owning Americans to act responsibly with firearms, because they do not perceive their fellow American to be harnessed or dedicated to the common good. No republic is established or long stands on such a foundation.

Jeff Snyder
2001
Nation of Cowards, Who’s Under Assault in the Assault Weapon Ban? page 65.
[And here we are, 18 years later, talking about Civil War II.—Joe]

This will not end well

We should all know how this turns out:

Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot Announces He Won’t Prosecute ‘Low-Level’ Crimes

Former Dallas County Prosecutor, Judge Mike Snipes said, “I think it’s forward looking. I think it’s pioneering… People who have minor offenses have a better chance of rehabilitating their life and getting back on track.”

Creuzot said he’ll dismiss many criminal trespass cases as well, charges he says are most often brought against the mentally ill and homeless.

He also said his office will no longer prosecute theft cases involving personal items worth less than $750, unless evidence shows it was for economic gain.

But Andrew Arterburn, the owner of One Stop Express in Uptown said a shoplifter just stole $120 worth of laundry detergent on Thursday and he’s not happy to find out cases like this could be dismissed.

“It’s a slap on the wrist. They go to jail, get a meal, get let go. And they’re not going to be prosecuted at all for it,” said Arterburn.

The President of the National Black Police Association, Sgt. Sheldon Smith, said he worries it will lead to more crime.

“It opens the door for some people to think they can commit crimes,” Sgt. Smith said.

Yup. More crime will be the result. People will know they can steal small items and get away with it. For some people this will be their normal way of life. They will walk into a grocery store and walk out with lunch without paying for it. Prices will rise and other people will realize they are being suckers if they don’t get their “fair share” of the free stuff.

More and more people steal without guilty. Yeah, that’s really forward thinking there Mr. Creuzot. It’s easy to see this as the path to the destruction of society. It’s hard to imagine that isn’t his goal.

If they don’t have an impeachment process and utilize it tar and feathers should be the backup plan.

Quote of the day—Margaret Gruter

Law is . . . not simply a set of spoken, written or formalized rules that people blindly follow. Rather, law represents the formalization of behavioral rules, about which a high percentage of people agree, that reflect behavioral propensities and that offer potential benefits to those who follow them.

Margaret Gruter
1991
Law and the Mind: Biological Origins of Human Behavior
[I found this quote in the book The Mystery Of Capital Why Capitalism Succeeds In The West And Fails Everywhere Else in chapter 6. It is an interesting book in more than the domain it was intended.

There is a lot of discussion regarding the formulation of law in developing countries, former communist countries and how certain laws came to be the U.S. and some other western countries. In many cases the rulers set down some law and the common folk ignored it and created their own alternate law which served the people better. In the examples given the rulers frequently gave up even after, in some cases, the military was brought in, burned peoples houses down and drove them off. When the people, as a whole, disagree with a law the rulers frequently adopt, at least in part, the law of the people and give up on their own decrees.

I could not help but make the connection to the gun sanctuary movement in this country.—Joe]

What if the 2nd Amendment was treated like the 4th?

Here is how the 4th Amendment is treated:

That bit of chalk left on your car’s tire by a parking officer is unconstitutional, a federal court ruled Monday.

A three-judge panel took up the case of Alison Taylor, a Michigan woman who received 15 parking tickets during a three-year feud with a single parking officer, Tabitha Hoskins of the City of Saginaw.

Taylor’s lawyer argued that the city’s physical marking with chalk, done to note how long a vehicle is parked, amounted to searching without a warrant — a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously agreed.

The city “commences its search on vehicles that are parked legally, without probable cause or even so much as ‘individualized suspicion of wrongdoing’ — the touchstone of the reasonableness standard,” the court’s opinion states.

The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” And the city’s chalking of cars “to raise revenue” does not qualify as a public safety concern that could allow a search without a warrant, the court said.

The court’s decision affects Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

“Trespassing upon a privately-owned vehicle parked on a public street to place a chalk mark to begin gathering information to ultimately impose a government sanction is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment,” Taylor’s lawyer, Philip Ellison, said in a court filing reported by NPR.

Ellison said that covertly marking a tire with chalk is not unlike police secretly putting a GPS on a car without a warrant, according to the Associated Press.

So what would it look like if the 2nd Amendment were treated like the 4th?

Certainly all the laws against owning a gun, knife, or pepper spray would go away. No licenses or registration could be required for any type of arm. For your 4th of July party you could rent an old M40 and purchase its ammo on Amazon. And Glock 17s would be in blister packs of six at Costco.

Quote of the day—Kirk Freeman @KirkFreemanLaw

The entire U.S. military could not disarm 17,000 illiterate fanatics in Afghanistan, which has the square miles of one state, but Eric Swalwell is going to disarm tens of millions of wealthy, educated people who can now make guns with a click of a mouse.  Good luck, Skippy.

Kirk Freeman @KirkFreemanLaw
Tweeted on April 10, 2019
[See also Boots on the ground.—Joe]

Quote of the day—George Monbiot

We’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it.

George Monbiot
April 11, 2019
Tweeted by Novara Media @novaramedia
[Some of the most repressive nations ever, the Soviet Union and Communist China, were not able to completely exterminate capitalism no matter how many people they murdered. Free markets always find a way.

Yet, this loon wants to try yet again.

Just keep saying no until you run out of ammo.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Morse

We did everything we could to work across the aisle. There just wasn’t any way to do it.

There is nothing to even talk about.

There are plenty of times where you cannot make a deal with the devil and other times where you have no business making a deal with the devil. This turned out to be both.

John Morse
Former Colorado Senate President
April 14, 2019
Gun control case study: A mass shooting, major reforms, then a political backlash
[This is what they think of you. We are in league with the devil.

I find it interesting they couldn’t find anything to compromise on. It must have been the Republicans didn’t make an appropriate counter offer. Had it been me I would have been willing to at least discuss things. My initial offer would have been to suggest to the prosecuting attorney that the death penalty might be dropped if they all plead guilty and fully cooperated with prosecution of all the other conspirators.—Joe]

Amazing

I shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve long said it is irrational to expect people to be rational. But yet, I’m still amazed at times. This is my current example:

Donald Trump’s proposal to move migrants into sanctuary cities raises logistical, legal issues

A myriad of logistical and legal obstacles await President Donald Trump if he follows through on his threat to place migrants arriving at the border into so-called sanctuary cities, a move apparently designed to punish Democrats for refusing to support his immigration policies.

Donald Trump’s use of government power to conduct corrupt, vindictive operations smells like Watergate,” said Becerra, a former congressman from California. “It’s a sobering reminder that our nation is only as strong as our democratic institutions and the rule of law.

And declaring your city a sanctuary for illegal aliens is legal? The last I heard aiding and abetting a criminal is illegal.

The politicians of “sanctuary cities” are only concerned with the rule of law when it is to their advantage. Either you have to conclude that liberalism is a mental disorder and/or they are knowingly committing criminal acts. It either case these politicians should be tried and sent to prison.

Quote of the day—Jim Goad‏ @jimgoad

If multiculturalism was truly intended to engender harmony, they would shut the fuck up about white people. The fact that they don’t suggests a different motivation altogether.

Jim Goad‏ @jimgoad
Tweeted on April 9, 2019
[Someone famous, a long time ago said, paraphrasing, “By their action you will know them.”

The same applies to “gun safety” people.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Aesop

Because most of the country, like most people who read and post here, have two settings:
1) Vote
2) Fuck it, kill every last one of them.

We move to #2 slowly, but it’s nigh irrevocable once it happens, and unstoppable until we run out of targets. Which will happen long before we run out of ammunition.

This will not be the Alamo x 1000.
It will be Little Big Horn.
And this time, we get to be the Indians.

More than a few hereabouts are already wearing bibs every day to contain the drool at joy of such a prospect.

Most of the rest, while rather horrified, are quietly resolved on the inevitability of the coming bloodbath, and have their hipboots and bandoliers ready.

Aesop
March 28, 2019
In Case You’re New To The Discussion
[Nearly everyone about to initiate a hot civil war thinks it will be quick and extremely one-sided. Reality appears to have always corrected such delusions once things progress from the fantasy to the blood letting stage.

We are currently involved in a civil war. It may be 5th-Generation Warfare, but it is a war. This type of war is not clean. Turning it into 4th Generation Warfare model does not appear appear to be good option either. It is my opinion that hope such a war being quick and clean is going to require a new warfare model. I don’t believe the current planners are up to the task.

Let’s concentrate on changing the culture.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Via Colion Noir:

AntsGunLaws

This appears to be 100% accurate.

This obvious and universal truth enables us to realize gun control is not about murderers.

Quote of the day—Jose Nino

Previous social-democratic governments had implemented strict gun control, which Hugo Chavez not only took advantage of once he got into power, but expanded upon to disarm and subjugate the Venezuelan population. When the wrong political players are in power, today’s “common-sense” gun control legislation could be tomorrow’s stepping stone for gun confiscation.

Modern-day politics doesn’t care for unintended consequences nor long-term policy implications of regulations. For that reason, elected officials like Bernie Sanders have such strong followings.

As socialism becomes popular, other facets of human activity such as self-defense and privacy will be under the chopping block. Socialism does not operate under a vacuum and is indeed an all-inclusive package of human control.

As the great economist Ludwig von Mises said best, “Great conflicts of ideas must be solved by straight and frank methods; they cannot be solved by artifices and makeshifts.”

In this case, the forces of liberty cannot afford to back down.

Jose Nino
April 6, 2019
Gun Rights Will ‘Feel the Bern’ Under a Sanders Presidency
[Politically, even if not by constitution, many states are lost to socialism and the federal government, for the first time, has multiple legislators who are openly admitting they are socialists. The best hope we have is for the federal courts to keep them in check while we attempt to change the culture. Failing that we could see a shooting war break out.

Because of this we need to put a lot of effort into changing the culture. One would think that because of all the dramatic failures of socialism throughout history, and even those unfolding before our eyes, that it should be easy to convince people of the folly of socialism in all its flavors. This is not true.

I suspect there is a deep rooted, perhaps genetically implanted personality trait, that makes socialism attractive. Perhaps this trait had evolutionary advantages in family units and tribes of up to a few hundred people. But as soon as social units became large enough they can’t solve the free rider problem through peer pressure the sharing of resources by the whole group fails. That is the most basic failure of socialism.

As the free rider problem becomes obvious to the population, instead of transitioning to private ownership and an individual rights social organization, what almost always happens is they adhere to their preprogrammed attachment to shared ownership and implement a forced rider model. This, which can be shown by countless examples, is a death spiral into extreme poverty, mass executions, and even genocide.

I can explain this in a logical fashion. I can’t explain it in the proper, I suspect it must be emotional, fashion to override the preprogramming. Leaving deprogramming methods involving high velocity lead off the table, does anyone know how to do this? Any ideas?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Derek Hunter

These leftists have to be destroyed because they aren’t going to stop, and they don’t face consequences for their anti-American actions. Simply pointing out how bad they are is not enough; they don’t care, they know what they are. It’s time to learn from the success of President Trump and hit back twice as hard. Liberals have to be made to take their own medicine, it’s their own fault it’s a suppository.

Derek Hunter
March 14, 2019
It’s Time For Conservatives To Choose: Fight Back Or Surrender
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Virginia Kruta‏ @VAKruta

Gun control advocacy on Twitter.

Day 1: Wish violence, rape, or even death on @NRA members & anyone who supports gun rights — and their children for good measure.

Day 2: Wonder why the people you just threatened don’t want to give up their guns just yet.

Rinse and repeat.

Virginia Kruta‏ @VAKruta
Tweeted on March 31, 2019
[This is generally correct. It’s not limited to Twitter. It doesn’t take a day, it can be seconds, between the time they let you know that they want you dead and the time they call us paranoid for thinking we need a gun for protection.—Joe]

Path to victory

The world as we know it is changing:

Once Trump’s latest picks to the 9th Circuit, including Ken Lee and Dan Collins, are confirmed as expected and remaining vacancies are filled, 13 of the 29 active seats on the key appellate court will be filled with judges picked by Republican presidents. At this time last year, 16 judges on the 9th Circuit were appointed by Democrats, with only six chosen by Republicans.

And the democrats know it. From the same article:

… has led to repeated howls of protest from California’s two Democratic senators, Kamala Harris and Judiciary Committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein.

Combined with the changing character of the Supreme Court we have a decent chance of reversing some of the most oppressive gun control laws. We still need to vote against the politicians and fund the lawsuits (I’m donations thousands of dollars a year to SAF and FPC which is matched dollar for dollar by my employer). But the bottom line is we have a path to victory. It’s not certain, but it certainly looks possible, and it’s a lot better option than voting from the rooftops.

Rightly shot

Via Batteries not included‏ @BobPage43582244:

RightlyShot

I’m willing to entertain the hypothesis the expressed theory is somewhat overstated.

Quote of the day—satexaskommando‏ @DogalRorn

A fucking southern California Latin American judge just cited fighting Communism as a valid reason for owning standard capacity magazines and has just struck down California’s magazine size limit ban.WHAT FUCKING DIMENSION DID I JUST ENTER INTO?

satexaskommando‏ @DogalRorn
Tweeted on March 29, 2019
[That’s a valid question. I have no answer.—Joe]

Statistics do not apply to individuals

I’ve been thinking about making this blog post for a week or so and reading VIRGINIA DUNCAN, et al., v. XAVIER BECERRA has inspired me to actually do it.

This is the critical section that makes my desired point on a specific issue:

Generalizations like these are no more than generalizations, and personal, not expert, opinions.  Yet, for such an important context as the defense of self and loved ones, generalizations are dangerous.  Relying on generalizations like these may lead to a thousand underreported tragedies for law-abiding citizen victims who were supposed to need only 2.2 rounds and no more than 10 rounds to scare off criminal assailants.

In the context of answering questions about double taps and the Mozambique Drill. Founder and Chief Instructor at Insights Training Center, Greg Hamilton frequently tells his students, “Statistics do not apply to individuals”. Hamilton’s conclusion is, that most of the time such a practice will work. But you should use something that works all of the time. If someone needs to be shot you shoot until they no longer a threat or you lose your sight picture.

Some large majority, say 90% for argument’s sake, of the population is predominately heterosexual. Traditional male/female marriage works for them. But for those individuals who are not predominately heterosexual a only male/female marriage societal custom is a big problem.

The following is a brief list of other examples with the details left for the reader which also illustrate this point:

  • Insurance (health, life, car, property, etc.)
  • Place of residence (apartment, condominium, house, boat, RV, etc.)
  • Racial/gender/etc. inequality
  • Transportation (buses, trains, bicycles, cars, SUVs, trucks, etc.)
  • Wage rates
  • Working hours

It is predominately the political left which wants to control people based on the statistics of groups. Our constitution is written to protect individuals and encourages individuality. Therefore, the political left finds the U.S. Constitution an obstacle.

I had one admitted Marxist, in all seriousness, tell me:

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

If true, then that means since he has kept his body in pretty good shape for the last 30 or 40 years and there a half dozen other people that lived life of poor eating, cigarettes, and alcohol who need organ transplants the statistic tell us it is perfectly acceptable that the guy with the good organs should be chopped up into parts for the others.

Such a social policy would result (and has resulted) in terrible atrocities.

Yet, it appears to me that this use of “statistics” and the good of the many over the good of the few is an inherent part of the belief system of the political left.

Since, with a little thought, it is clear than Hamilton’s claim that “Statistics do not apply to individuals” is an irrefutable truth one can deduct another irrefutable truth.

As long as the political left uses statistics to arrive at public policy directed at individuals they will necessarily infringe upon the rights of the individual.