It’s never a “used car’’ but rather a “pre-owned vehicle.’’ Instead of “torture,’’ it’s “enhanced interrogation methods.’’ There are some things you just don’t say — and Rep. Elizabeth Esty is here to tell you why, at least in terms of the gun debate.
Esty told audience members at a Pride Fund event Wednesday to always sub in “gun safety’’ for “gun control,’’ lest you lose the support of 15 percent of men.
By framing the issue as “safety” they avoid the negative connotations of “control”. Nevermind that it is extremely rare any of them have ever taken a gun safety class, let alone advocate that people take such a class.
Seduced by the lure of power, drunk on visions from “higher” dimensions, visions that tell them the violence they do is just, both coalitions have betrayed this chance at peace. Neither coalition will ever persuade the other to see things its way. There will never be a pan-American consensus. There will never be a universal vision of the common good. And because the “reasons” that justify each vision come from “higher” realms that are invisible to the uninitiated, reason will be impotent to bring these coalitions closer together.
And when men and women cannot deal with one another with reason, they will deal with one another by force.
What began as a tense exchange of name-calling and profane insults took a turn when counterdemonstrators began throwing glass bottles, bricks and balloons of “foul-smelling liquid” at officers, Portland Police said. Officers used pepper spray to push back the counterdemonstrators and closed the park where they had gathered, threatening to arrest anyone who remained.
…
In addition to the arrests, a large pickup truck flying two large American flags cruised past hundreds of anti-fascist protesters and honked its horn. Several people in the group ran up to the truck and ripped out the flags, bringing them into the crowd as others applauded. Others threw multiple large water bottles, sticks and other projectiles at the truck, which then sped away.
Why are progressives so violent? My hypothesis is that we have the fundamental reason, and there is a much more recent reason which has bubbled to the surface.
The recent reason is the loss of political power. Not only are they very weak at the Federal level they are losing big time in the states. They are nearly frantic about making “progress” and they are visibly losing political power. Without political power they are increasing, as historically they have always done, the criminal violence.
My prediction is that this most recent turn to violence will further decrease their political power and after another election cycle or two (two to four years) the criminal violence will decrease as they become aware that their actions are making things worse for them. Between now and then there will likely be some heavy violence but law enforcement and perhaps the National Guard will keep it fairly well contained.
The simple explanation is that these thugs are breaking the law. They don’t have the political power to change the law or, in most areas, cause the laws against street violence to be ignored. So eventually they will tire of the tear gas and jail time. They will then resign themselves to having lost the current (5th generation) war. They may only go into seclusion and pursue a 6th generation war, but they will dramatically scale back the violence.
Centuries upon centuries of Islamist aggression and murder, and it’s the internet’s fault. Your freedom, and mine, is to blame.
One report claimed some fifty shots were fired by police to stop three Muslims armed with knives. I could understand that number of shots if they’d been taking return fire, but against knife wielding punks it seems like an awful lot of shooting.
At least one person was wounded by police gunfire. When that happens (and it sometimes will) and it’s a police bullet, it is a footnote. If a regular concealed carry holder in America were to do the exact same thing, never mind that lives were saved; the howls of accusation would last for weeks.
Practice on moving targets. Aerial clay targets are good, if you can find a place to do it safely;
With only a knife, it is relatively easy to murder innocent, unsuspecting people, in a country that talks about freedom and rights but has forcibly disarmed its citizens and practically turned self defense into a crime.
The Brits have invited this upon themselves with their idiotic policies and their embrace of Progressivism, and we in America are not far behind. They’ll ramp up their police state, clamp down on the internet (control of which has been coveted by authoritarians since its inception) spend more of their tax payers’ wealth, and accomplish next to nothing.
Once again, as always it seems, at least one of the perpetrators was known to the British security network. The result of that knowledge was that they were able to say, after the fact, that they’d been watching that person.
The only way jihad will ever stop is if they’re all convinced that it is utterly hopeless, or foolish, or morally wrong, to continue. There are several ways to accomplish that end, only one of which involves a commitment to total extermination. Theresa May eluded to one of them, but I don’t believe that there is currently a government on this planet that is either principled enough or committed enough, or politically capable of any of those ways.
Maybe it’s not really a government’s problem to solve. What was that saying? Something about a people, or ideology, or process, which created a problem will never be the one to solve it.
We all make typos. Butt-dials happen. Interruptions occu….
I found the world’s reaction to the partial information broadcast far and wide fascinating at many levels. At 12:06 AM Wednesday morning, the 31st of June, The Real Donald Trump (the God Emperor and President of the united States) sent a tweet. As with so many things said or typed at odd hours of the night, and from our president, it wasn’t phrased with quite the perfect polish and eloquence some might have hoped. Continue reading →
Clinton seeks to present herself as the most forceful opponent of the Trump administration. Should the president be impeached, she’ll be able to say: Hey, I called it! But she isn’t leading the national conversation, she’s mouthing along with it, like any other retiree talking back to cable news at home. Even if the Trump administration proves to be the catastrophe she foresees, there is no reason the Democrats would turn back to her for a third run. Every time she draws attention to the Trumpian flaws that were conspicuous to all during the campaign, she doesn’t hear the obvious rejoinder echoing in every American’s mind: Then why couldn’t you trounce him?
Kyle Smith May 31, 2017 Has-Been Hillary [Most people know the answer. Clinton’s flaws were worse than those of Trump. Just one data point to consider in this regard is that if we had equality before the law she would be in jail for the rest of her life.—Joe]
Scott Meyer appeared before the state Senate’s judiciary committee during a public hearing on a Republican bill that would allow people to carry concealed weapons without permits or training. The NRA supports the measure.
Meyer told the committee that the cost of training can prevent minorities from obtaining concealed carry licenses, adding that guns were one of the great equalizers for “the blacks” after emancipation.
Sen. Lena Taylor, a Milwaukee Democrat who is black, chastised Meyer. She told him calling African-Americans “the blacks” doesn’t help cultural diversity.
What matters to Democrats is whatever the politically correct rule of the day is rather than the substance of what someone has to say or is doing.
I have a message for Sen. Lena Taylor. It doesn’t help you or the people you care about when you attack people trying to make your life better. These types of attacks are big part of the reason the Democrats have been losing elections and we have President Trump. He was, and is, willing to stand up to your B.S. and call you out it.
The passage of this bill conveys a special message. It tells me that these Democrat politicians are more concerned with the lives of convicted felons who used a gun in the commission of their crime than they are about law abiding gun owners who are guilty of nothing more than the unspeakable act of merely owning a gun. There really is no other way to logically interpret this. To them, law abiding gun owners are bad, but using a gun in the commission of a felony is acceptable.
The insanity in this state has reached previously unfathomable levels, and it shows no signs of reversing course.
Don’t you ever give up your guns. If people lose that right, forget about it. Politicians — they will take everything away from you. And then what are you going to do, protest with a rock? Because that’s what they do in Europe.
There have always been strong poll numbers for specific gun control proposals, and the NRA wins time and time again. Clearly, the polling data is not giving us the full picture.
The polls don’t measure the passion for voting on the gun issue. Someone might think a gun ban is a good idea but give up on that issue in favor of a promise of lower taxes.
A legislator might be inclined to vote for “smart guns” then have it explained that it cannot possibly achieve the claimed benefits.
A majority of the public might like the idea of a gun ban and confiscation but the legislators know confiscation cannot work without violation of the 4th Amendment even if there might be a path past the 2nd Amendment.
We do not have a system of simple majority rule. There also exist minority rights that is upheld, to a least a certain extent, by the judicial, legislative, and the executive branches of government. Polls do not measure the strength of this type of opposition.
Polls also indicate one of the most popular parts of ObamaCare is the elimination of restrictions regarding preexisting conditions. But things like someone buying insurance while on a stretcher after an auto accident in the emergency room (it used to happen in Washington State) prove the folly of government attempting to change the laws of economics or human nature.
Democrats should just keep on polling … and loosing.—Joe]
Cleansing a sickness from our souls doesn’t come easy. It’s gruesome…
John Morse Colorado Democratic Legislator March 8, 2013 In the context of advocating for the passage of oppressive gun laws. [This has been widely, and erroneously, quoted as:
People who own guns are essentially a “sickness on our souls” that must be “cleansed. … Cleansing a sickness from our souls doesn’t come easy. It’s gruesome…”
While that could seen to be a valid interpretation of his intent, that is not what he said. He claims,
“To insinuate that I referred to gun owners as a ‘sickness from our souls’ is obscene,” Morse said Tuesday, according to KDVR. “As a former police officer and a gun owner myself, I believe in the right to bear arms. And as a legislator, I am committed to making our whole society healthier and safer.”
The claim, “I believe in the right to bear arms” does not mean he respects the right. And from the context we know he is admitting that that he is intent on knowingly attempting to violate that right.
While we can’t definitely read his mind the erroneous version of the quote can’t be far from the truth of what he believes.—Joe]
The left did not mourn the mass destruction of the moderates. Instead it celebrated the growing purity of the Democrats as a movement of the hard left. It did not notice or care that it was no longer a political force outside a limited number of cities. It anticipated that voters would have no choice but to choose it over the “extremist” Republicans.
Delusions are often functional. In this case they cannot see the truth because it would destroy their entire system of belief. What we have here could be another chapter in the book When Prophecy Fails (my website about this amazing book it is here). As their prophecies fail instead of admitting they were wrong they proselytize more. Converting more people to believe as they do reduces the psychological stress of their discovery that they were wrong. That proselytization has a lower cost than admitting they were wrong.
Read Greenfield’s whole pamphlet. I alternated between seeing it as a nearly unbelievable conspiracy theory and brilliant insight. Perhaps it is both.—Joe]
Soviet organisation has made possible the creation of armed forces of workers and peasants which are much more closely connected with the working and exploited people than before. If this had not been done it would have been impossible to achieve one of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism—the arming of the workers and the disarming of the bourgeoisie.
We believe that this is really not about the Second Amendment, it’s about public safety.
Patti Brigham Co-chair of the Florida Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence Gun control groups claim victory in Florida – for now [They claimed victory because no pro freedom bills were passed, not because they were able to pass one or more laws infringing upon our rights. They have to try and keep their morale up somehow.
Aside from blocking the bills which would have reduced the infringements upon the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment what annoys me is that Brigham thinks she can bypass the Second Amendment with an argument about “public safety”. Apparently she is ignorant of and/or disagrees with Ben Franklin on the tradeoffs involving safety and liberty. Even if I knew nothing of the issue I would be substantially more inclined to side with Franklin than with Brigham.
“Public safety” doesn’t outweigh individual rights. This is particularly true when it involves prior restraint. If it did one could make a winning case for banning speech and writing which advocates socialism. Far more people have lost their lives because of socialism in the last 120 years than have lost their lives because of private ownership of firearms.
And that doesn’t even touch upon the fact that the Second Amendment is about public safety.—Joe]
Instead of making it difficult for law-abiding gun shop owners, fully prosecute straw purchasers, felons in possession of a firearm and people who unlawfully use a weapon. Incarcerate more criminals, and you’ll get less crime. Make it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, and you’ll get more crime. Which goal is Sen. Harmon trying to achieve?
Dan P. Eldridge May 10, 2017 The gauzy misdirection and untrue smears of an anti-gun-rights activist [It’s a rhetorical question but I’ll answer anyway. Senator Harmon, Democrat, has a vested interest in getting votes. As there are over twice as many Democrats in prison as all other political affiliations combined and convicted felons are not allowed to legally vote the senator wants fewer of his constituents sent to prison. Furthermore the more crime the easier it is for the senator to spin the story that he is needed to protect them from the crime. If people realize they can, and should, protect themselves from crime then they will have less, imaginary, need for him. He does not want this.
So, DUH! The senator wants to make it harder for citizen to protect themselves and fewer violent criminals going to prison.—Joe]
Gun control activists who previously worked for Watts in various state organizations are said to be frustrated and feeling burned by her, according to one source.
“Staff who worked for Shannon quit or are fired faster than the organization can replace them. She’s a nightmare,” the source told TheDC.
Another source close to the organization said in a written statement, “Two beliefs unite nearly all gun control supporters: background checks save lives, and Shannon Watts is a self-promoting tyrant.”
In order to be a gun control supporter you have to have a very low opinion of individual rights and a high opinion of the use of government force to infringe upon those rights. That one of the most prominent promoters of rights infringement is also a tyrant is as one would expect.
Once an empire starts falling apart, trying to stop it is like trying to stop a tree from falling once its roots have rotted. It can’t be done, and it’s best not to be around when it happens.
The Cultural Marxists and other enemies of Western Civilization are in total control of the education system, so the next several generations of young people are corrupted. They control the media, so they control the prevailing intellectual climate. They control the NGOs, and the “think tanks” that infest DC and other major capitals. They control the Deep State.
So, no, Trump can’t reverse it. Among other reasons because he himself doesn’t have a philosophical or ethical core. He’s just a businessman; his object is just to make things more efficient. Like Mussolini, to make the trains run on time, as it were. He’s a good influence in that he hates the Cultural Marxists, and they hate him. But it’s not like he can offer a positive alternative for people to believe in.
It creates a backdoor registration of gun owners who wish to follow the law.
It significantly increases the time and expense of gun ownership.
It increases the demonization of gun ownership.
It drives a wedge between gun owners and the police.
It creates a legal beachhead which degrades a specific enumerated right into a privilege reluctantly granted by the government.
It fails to reduce violent crime. But Seattle voters are overwhelmingly Democrats and one should not expect them to have any interest in placing restrictions upon their constituents.—Joe]
If you are a politician seeking power, and everything is going well, there isn’t any urgency to pass laws beyond those needed for the general maintenance of the status quo, because everything is awesome. You need an enemy or problem to rail against, to be the target of you legislation. You need a boogieman to scare people into supporting you. But what?
You want something that cannot fight back. If you demonize a group they will object.
You want something BIG, because sane people won’t get very worked up about the trivial.
Really big. So big that everyone must be involved, and any dissenters can be easily demonized.
You want something distant in time. You can’t use something that can be disproven next week, or even within the next few election cycles. It’s got to be an ongoing chronic thing hanging out in your children’s and grandchildren’s future.
…but not too distant. Immediate action must be demanded by the hugeness of the problem, not something that can be dealt with mañana.
Far reaching. It must impact every aspect of life, which in turn calls for regulating every aspect of life.
Have many possible parts to the potential solutions. If any one part of the “solution” appears to work it can never be enough, but if some other part doesn’t, it can be used as a call for more spending, more laws, more actions, more something. There isn’t any one magic bullet because the problem is so huge, but many parts that might help some, but they are individually so small that nothing can be proven one way or another. There is always another reason to demand more research, more knowledge, more data, and a reason to demand “doing something” in the meantime “just in case.”
Not an actual threat. If you don’t get everything you demand, no sweat: everything is still going to be OK. But you can always demonize others for failing to do enough, while excusing your own continued high-living lifestyle.
