Category Archives: Politics

I’m good with Judge Gorsuch

Posted on by

David Hardy found a couple firearms cases with Judge Gorsuch contributions and doesn’t find much to directly indicate how he will rule on 2nd Amendment issues.

But from what I have been able to find out, such as here and here, he is an originalist and textualist. That is what I am looking for in a SCOTUS judge. And he is relatively young and should be around for many years. So, I’m good with Judge Gorsuch.

Now to see if the Republicans can get him past the obstructionist Democrats in the Senate.

Quote of the day—Roger Kimball

Posted on by

Now some of this is just adolescent play-acting, even if many of those involved, being professors, are far beyond the chronological limits of adolescence.  Academia has an infantilizing effect. I understand that. Many professors dress and act like adolescents right up to the time they are ready to hand in their tenure and live off their generous pensions. The Peter-Pan aspect of academia is not entirely the professors’ fault.  After all, the points at which the real world intrudes upon academia are so few and so tenuous that academics may be forgiven for some of their hyperbole and inadvertently comic displays of self-importance.  They exist, like kept women of yore, entirely at the pleasure of an affluent society they despise. So in a way it is not surprising that they endeavor to transform their entire campus into a sort of existential boudoir, which is French for “room for pouting in.”

Roger Kimball
January 15, 2017
A Modest Disposal
[Interesting observation.—Joe]

Lead Ammo ban

Posted on by

As a parting gift to the shooting community, the Community Organizer in Chief, BHO, had the US Fish and Wildlife issue a new regulation  banning lead ammo on most Federal lands. All federal lands administered by the F&W, parks and refuges. With less than a day left in the outgoing administration. Yeah, he’s just that kind and considerate. But at least it’s easily undone, and it’s (yet one more) thing that highlights the contemptuous attitude of the regulatory masters.

Drain the swamp.

CRA – not tired of winning

Posted on by

This popped up on a couple of different sources at about the same time, not sure who was first. Likely the WSJ, as this ZeroHedge post cites it. Short version: when congress passes a law and the president signs it, it will often have an outline of what’s to be done, and it directs the appropriate agencies involved to write up the implementing regulations and guidelines. A three page law might have hundreds of pages of legalese added to the Federal Register. Heck, the entire edifice built on “title IX” is standing on a single sentence! Anyway, a law passed in 1996 called the Congressional Review Act requires that after the regulations are written they have to send a report to congress, where they must be voted up or down by simple majority vote within 60 days. Congress was trying to keep an out-of-control agency from getting too hog wild on the details that were delegated to them.

The clock stars ticking when the regulations are published, or when the report gets sent to congress, whichever is later.

Well, it seems that the last administration was a tad sloppy on their paperwork. They rarely sent a report to congress. Trump can direct any agency under his command (effectively all of them) to send a report to congress if they have not done so already. If it gets voted down, the law is on hold until they can put together regs that are acceptable to congress, and the next attempt at reg-writing cannot be to simply re-submit essentially the same thing again. So a whole bunch of junk passed in the last 8 years might be, ah, revisited.

Suddenly Trump’s statements about reducing regulation hugely doesn’t sound so absurd.

Nope, not tired of winning yet.

Quote of the day—Maura Healey

Posted on by

My actions have never been about taking away guns from people. I respect the Second Amendment, but we have a law on the books, and it’s an important law. It says that civilians can’t walk around with or be in possession of military-style assault weapons…

Maura Healey
Massachusetts Attorney General
January 25, 2017
Gun rights group challenging state’s assault weapon ban
[No matter how many times it happens it always surprises me when someone contradicts themselves in sequential sentences. To me that is clear and convincing proof of insanity. But in the political world it appears that is the sign of a good politician. It allows the reader/listener to take away whichever fragment they want and ignore the rest.

It think it means they are evil and/or have crap for brains and hence are unfit for anything other than closely supervised menial labor.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Defens

Posted on by

Once the Trump death squads start patrolling and the cattle cars full of liberals start rolling to the concentration camps, I’m sure the panic-buying will kick in on the other side, initiating Gun Culture 3.0.

Defens
January 24, 2017
Comment to Quote of the day—Lawrence Keane
[It is, of course, a joke.

Nevertheless, as always, I’ll be glad to teach liberals how to shoot.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lawrence Keane

Posted on by

We don’t expect a collapse, we expect organic growth that isn’t all fear-driven. We are likely to see the market normalize, which is better for the industry long term. It is hard to respond to constant spikes. Slow and steady wins the race.

Lawrence Keane
Senior vice president, government and public affairs
National Shooting Sports Foundation
January 20, 2017
Though champion of gun rights, President Trump could jam firearm sales
[I understand I’m not exactly normal but my purchases pretty much stopped after the election. I have lots of stockpiled ammunition and components that I’m going to “burn” through before I make many more purchases. Still, it’s good to hear a subject matter expert believes there won’t be an industry crash.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mead Gruver

Posted on by

In grizzly country, comments by President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for education secretary that schools should have guns on campus to protect against the bears aren’t a punch line.

Mead Gruver
January 19, 2017
In Wyoming, DeVos gun remark more about safety than politics
[One year my (ex) sister-in-law taught school in Barrow Alaska. They would sometimes have polar bear warnings at her school. One day she took the usual short cut, rather than going through the main part of town, even though a polar bear had been spotted recently. Her students were extremely unhappy with her and scolded her about that. She was informed, in no uncertain terms, the polar bear warnings were extremely serious. She was more careful after that.

That people who scoffed at, and made fun of, Betsy DeVos suggestion that people at some schools may need a gun to defend against bears only show how out of touch with reality, not how smart, they are.—Joe]

He’s doing it wrong

Posted on by

Donald Trump, God Emperor, is vehemently opposed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people worldwide. Both yesterday and today huge crowds marched and protested his coronation. They are concerned about their rights. That this new Hitler like dictator will cause them physical harm.

As one of his first acts as God Emperor he signed an executive order “giving federal agencies broad powers to unwind regulations … which might include enforcement of the penalty for people who fail to carry the health insurance that the law requires of most Americans.” This same article says:

Also late Friday, Reince Priebus, Trump’s chief of staff, issued an executive memorandum ordering a freeze on regulations for all government agencies.

He has also Wants to Allow Concealed Weapons Everywhere and opposes any new gun regulations and may be an advocate for repealing weapons laws nationwide and put judges in the federal courts which will turn back many of the gun safety laws in place in various states and cities.

What all this means is that our new “God Emperor”, “Hitler dictator” wannabe is doing it all wrong. Dictators need an abundances of laws and regulations. Remember what Ayn Rand said:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

And if the people protesting had any connection with reality they would realize that socialized medicine was a powerful tool for Nazi Germany:

No profession in Germany became so numerically attached to National Socialism in both its leadership and membership as was the medical profession. Because of their philosophical orientation toward finding a more scientific basis for medical research and practice, government funding for research, and the practical benefits of acquiring university positions and medical practices from the many banned and exiled German Jewish doctors, many physicians supported Nazi policies. One of the first Nazi laws, passed July 14, 1933, was the “Law for the Prevention of Progeny of Hereditary Disease,” intended to “consolidate” social and health policies in the German population and prohibit the right of reproduction for persons defined as “genetically inferior.” After 1933, the connection between the theory and practice of politicized medicine advocated by many in Weimar Germany became actual in Nazi Germany.

…

Following the sterilization laws, the National Socialists next implemented a strategy of euthanasia to solve the remaining problem of those whose conception and birth had preceded these laws. The pediatrician Ernst Wentzler, while developing plans to improve care in the German Children’s Hospitals in Berlin, personally decided (as consultant to Hitler’s Chancellery) on the deaths of thousands of handicapped children. Hans Nachtsheim placed delivery orders for handicapped children for his pressure chamber experiments on epilepsy. Joseph Mengele delivered genetic and anthropological “material” from Auschwitz to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and conducted his infamous twin experiments on the child victims of the Holocaust.

And in another disconnect from reality they apparently don’t realize that all good dictators ban and confiscate weapons in the hands of ordinary people. Such as Nazi Germany’s, Weapons Control Act of 1938 and the policies of the USSR.

So, I must conclude that, the claims that President Donald Trump is “God Emperor”, “Hitler”, or a dictator of any sort, are premature at best. The actions taken and professed directions of his polices make a dictatorship and mass infringement upon the rights of ordinary people more difficult. I’m far from convinced that he going to usher in utopian Libertarian era, but there are significant indicator that he is going in the wrong direction to implement a dictatorship.

Hence, I have to conclude most of those millions of people protesting are suffering from some sort of mass delusion. Those which are not suffering a disconnect from reality are protesting because they have been distanced from the levers of power by the election.

Quote of the day—John Robb

Posted on by

In Trump’s post cold war world, US foreign policy will be dominated by trade policy.  Even national security policy will be subservient to trade policy.  If trade policy is dominant, we’ll see China, Mexico and the EU (Germany) become competitors.  Russia, in contrast will become an ally since it doesn’t pose a trade threat.

National security under this regime will be used to reinforce and grow positive trade relationships.  For example, military tension with China creates the opportunity for sanctions that simulate the function of tariffs (allowing the US to circumvent trade organizations and domestic resistance to tariffs).   In a national security policy slaved to trade, any and all security guarantees extended to other nations will require a positive trade arrangement with the US.  The US simply won’t protect or extent security guarantees to any nation that has a non-beneficial economic relationship with the US (i.e. runs a trade deficit).

John Robb
January 19, 2017
Will the World be Safer or More Dangerous Under a Trump Presidency?
[Interesting. Very, very interesting.—Joe]

Commemorative 45

Posted on by

Trump will, later today, become our 45th President. He’s a gun owner, and generally pro-gun as near as I can tell. I wonder how many variations of “Trump Commemorative 45” will be produced and offered if he starts living up to even a modest fraction of his hype / hope / potential? An ironically logo’ed 45 pistol suppressor after the Hear Protection Act is passed? All manner of revolvers and semi-autos, obviously. I’ve already seen a 1911 slide. What would you like to see, and be willing to pay a little extra for just to make it a little less PC, and a part of history? A .45-70 Govt? A .45 Colt? A 45 Trump Magnum? A 1911 long slide with “Trumpenator” on it? A slick-finished 45 ACP with “Teflon Don” on it?

The joy of another inauguration with Hillary Clinton watching someone else taking the oath.

Quote of the day—Mac McCauley

Posted on by

You worthless Democrats are in the civil rights crushing business. You make felons non-criminals and felons out of the law abiding.

Mac McCauley
January 19, 2017
Comment to For first time in history, California dealers sell more than a million guns in a single year
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jay Sekulow

Posted on by

This was a fake, false investigation from the outset.

Jay Sekulow
Chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice
Previously U.S. Treasury Department in the Office of Chief Counsel for the IRS
October 13, 2017
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider
[Read the whole thing. Take your blood pressure meds before you start. This is especially true if you have, or have had, a security clearance.

It is understandable though. Think of it from the point of view of FBI Director James Comey or Attorney General Loretta Lynch at that time. Even if you remove the possibility of Arkancide it was going to be difficult for them to charge Clinton without having extremely strong moral character.

It looked like Clinton was a shoe-in to win the election. If they charged her and she still won the country would have a complex, highly emotional, problem to solve. Riots would be likely and property and lives may have been lost. Or, quite likely, Obama would have just pardoned her and she became president anyway. Imagine the career options they would have had with President Clinton as their boss.

If, after being charged, Clinton lost the election Comey and Lynch would have been blamed for the loss. Then they, and probably their children, would have been in fear for their lives from the angry and violent left for a decade or more. The country would have been even more divided than it is now.

So, I can see why Comey might have just decided the best of all the bad options was to let the voters decide and risk letting a known criminal become president. I don’t think I would have chosen that option but it’s hard to say until you are forced to make the decision. And it is entirely possible Comey and/or Lynch could see Arkancide as a high probability event in their futures.—Joe]

They prove themselves unworthy

Posted on by

A thought occurred to me.

All the smartest people* in the nation -nay, the smartest people in the world- said two things over and over in 2016:
A) We plebs need to give more power and control to the government so all the really smart technocrats can make life better, more fair, safer, cleaner, more productive, and nicer for everyone because they were so smart and had all the data; and
B) Trump would never win.

It seems to me that (B) disproves the premise that they are the smartest people in the room, and further is a strong indicator that (A) should never be done because they just demonstrated they are clueless more often than not.

 

* we know they are the smartest people in the world because they tell us constantly.

Violence and the left – pathology and party

Posted on by

Interesting interview by Stefan Molyneux of an academic researcher. Dr. John Paul Wright is a Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati and the author of “Criminals in the Making: Criminality Across the Life Course.” More links and discussion at his youtube page.

Not a lot we here didn’t already know, but interesting. I like some of his observations about why this sort of connection are not normally the subject of research.

Quote of the day—warddorrity

Posted on by

It’s been said that when blacks riot, cities burn. When whites riot, continents burn.

warddorrity
December 29, 2016
Comment to From A Reader
[I used to know a Ward Dorrity. That was nearly 20 years ago when the Microsoft Gun Club email list was quite active. Here are some quotes by him I saved from that time:

I wonder if it is the same guy.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

Posted on by

This should put to rest, once and for all, the notion that support of Israel is a bipartisan issue. This talking point is fiction. The Democrats are the party of nuclear Iran, the supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, the enemies of of Israel. The Republicans are the party that supports Israel in spite of the shameful fact that 80% of American Jews reliably vote for the Democrats.

Robert J. Avrech
December 28, 2016
Israel Responds to Antiochus Obama and the UN
[Obama and his colleagues are continuing their destruction of the Democrat party.—Joe]

Courage

Posted on by

The New York Times Editorial Board claims Europe Takes a Braver Stance on Gun Control. They tell us:

The proposals, which are headed toward a final vote by members next year, would extend bans on semiautomatic assault weapons to more models, institute medical checks for gun buyers, tighten sales on the internet and track the resale of guns to foil black-market dealers.

…

The final compromise did not ban all of the most dangerous semiautomatic weapons, like the AK-47, as some nations wanted, nor limit ammunition magazines to 10 cartridges for all of them.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

As well as other errors such as saying there were 300K homicides (most were suicides and many were justifiable homicides) committed with guns in the last ten years in this country they are wrong about Europe being “brave”.  They further claim  that in the United States, “Congressional leaders, unfortunately, show no sign of mustering the courage of the Europeans.”

This is clearly in error. Courage would be the NYT Editorial Board taking point on the door to door enforcements of the bans they advocate for.

I’d even give them partial credit for being “brave” and “courageous” if they were to tell the truth when they write about guns. But since I haven’t seen anything approaching that from them in the last 20 years it is unlikely they will develop the integrity or courage anytime soon.

Quote of the day—Charles C.W. Cooke

Posted on by

On the face of it, the AHSA was an answer to the NRA—a grassroots group for gun owners who want more gun restrictions. In reality, it was a front group masterminded by a contractor for the Brady Center, a donor to Handgun Control Inc., and a founder of Stop Handgun Violence. When, in 2010, AHSA announced that it was shutting its doors for lack of members, nobody was especially surprised: That’s what happens when you build a political outfit to accommodate a political bloc that doesn’t actually exist.

Charles C.W. Cooke
December 26, 2016
Phantoms Of Gun Control
[It’s all Potemkin Villages.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

Posted on by

Undaunted by history, the same kind of thinking that had cheered international disarmament treaties in the 1920s and 1930s once again cheered Soviet-American disarmament agreements during the Cold War.

Conversely, there was hysteria when President Ronald Reagan began building up American military forces in the 1980s. Cries were heard that he was leading us toward nuclear war. In reality, he led us toward an end of the Cold War, without a shot being fired at the Soviet Union.

But who reads history these days, or checks facts before leading the charge to keep law-abiding people disarmed?

Thomas Sowell
Senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
December 23, 2016
Sowell: Gun-control laws do not make us safer
[To answer the question about facts, there is a good chance that it is like the one admitted Marxist I was having a discussion with about gun control in Chicago (where he lives).

This Marxist told me there were some very dangerous places in Chicago and “you just don’t go there because you will get shot”. I told him that it that couldn’t be possible because guns were banned there (this was before the Heller and McDonald rulings). He told me they got their guns from the surrounding areas where guns were not banned. “Oh! You must be really at high risk of getting shot in those areas then.”, I told him. “No, actually, those areas are pretty safe.”, he replied. I then told him, “Gun control doesn’t make people safer.” He told me, and I’m not making this up, “I disagree with your facts.”

It’s called reality. These people should check it out sometime.—Joe]