There are terrorist organization and terrorist organizations. One has structure, hierarchy, provides weapons and plans (9/11 Hijackers, Hamas) Occasionally, someone will act individually according to their principles but have no formal connection with them.
The other speaks and fervently prays to whatever depraved gods they serve that someone with no formal connection will take up arms and do the evil deed for they are too cowardly to do it themselves.
The lawsuit continues recurring conflicts between local authority and Trump administration advocacy for gun rights that has played out in other cities and states.
A similar Justice Department lawsuit is pending against the District of Columbia over its restrictions on certain kinds of automatic firearms. The restrictions require registering many AR-15 and AK-47 style guns.
The District of Columbia has been joined by civil rights groups such as the Brady: United Against Gun Violence and the Giffords Law Center in asking a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit.
“Civil rights groups“??? I am amazed at their willingness to adapt such an Orwellian mindset. I didn’t expect that until much later in their march to totalitarian socialism. My presumption is their delusions have expanded even further outside of reality.
At least they are making it exceeding clear that the book Nineteen Eighty-Four is an example of their utopia instead of a dystopian novel.
Times are good and possibly getting even better for those who value guns, gun rights and the Second Amendment.
The changes brought by President Donald Trump are simply stunning. In just one year we went from an ATF that targeted individual gun owners for imaginary crimes to one that’s focused on arresting real bad guys with illegal guns.
Constitutional Carry, known by the other side as permitless carry, is growing. Today, 29 states allow law-abiding adults to carry firearms without a state permit, and the number is expected to grow.
So, it’s understandable that those who want to restrict and subvert the Second Amendment are getting desperate. In fact, they’re willing to try almost anything to restrict access to firearms while President Trump is in office. It’s as if they never even heard of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Enter the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.
These egg-headed goons want to roll back the clock to the late 1980s. Their just-released “Public Carry Permitting: Model Policy Guide” is pretty much what some states offered decades ago. It’s laughable—a trip back in time. Nowadays, it’s likely too restrictive for even the bluest of blue states.
Of course, the Center begins their report with lies—absolute deception—about guns, gun owners and gun rights.
The media is not supporting the anti-gun groups like they have in the past. Hence, we see John Hopkins, Everytown, etc. as doing their usual thing and it appears to out of touch when they don’t have major media support.
Even the DOJ lawsuits against existing law do not yield a “Blood in the streets!” response. CNN is essentially just reporting the facts”. The same tone is seen with the New York Times and Washington Post articles on the same lawsuits. I would expect them to frame it as the fascist Hitler forcing freedom on innocent people or some such nonsense.
I don’t know what to make of this. Grok has this to say:
The constitutional framing of the Second Amendment as protecting an individual civil right is now unavoidable in serious legal reporting—Heller/Bruen made it binding precedent, and the current DOJ is enforcing it. This doesn’t mean these outlets have become pro-gun or neutral overall; their opinion sections and long-term editorial stance still favor stricter controls, and they highlight gun-control group perspectives in other contexts (e.g., mass shootings or state wins). But in straight-news coverage of these DOJ suits, the tone is more balanced and less advocacy-heavy than it was 15–20 years ago. Your pro-gun-rights feeds make the contrast sharper because they celebrate every development as a win while noting the relative downplaying in MSM.
If you’re seeing mostly silence or isolation of the old advocacy groups, it’s because the national legal story has moved on to court battles where the rights framework now has the upper hand federally. The groups are still fighting hard—just more at the state level and in response mode right now.
I would like to think they are becoming more accepting of gun ownership as a civil right. But they may just be grumbling to themselves about how times have changed or biding their time for a more favorable atmosphere to spread their lies.
You’ve probably getting quite used to my voice. Sir, I’m calling this evening because what I want you to do is I want you to take a firearm. I want you to put it in your hand. I want you to walk into the Oval Office. I want you to put that firearm to the President’s head, and I want you to pull the trigger and I want you to kill him. I am petitioning you, Senator for redress of grievances. My redress of grievances is that this president is awful . . . He’s a liar among all liars. He’s a great deceiver. He’s the antichrist. I want you to walk into the Oval Office with a gun in your hand. I want you to put it to his temple, and I want you to pull the trigger. That is what I want you to do as my agent. That’s what I want you to do as my elected official. That’s what I am petitioning you to do with my free speech. I want you to kill the President. I want you to assassinate the President. That’s what I want you to do.
The following posts on X are from April 26, three days earlier, in reference to the assassination on April 25th at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner. It is apparent that the political right can predict the nature of the political left’s intent and actions quite well. I do not see a similar prediction ability of the political left. I certainly have my biases so if any leftist reading this would like to make similar predictions of the intent and actions of the political right, please make them in the comments and we can evaluate the accuracy in the coming weeks.
One side of the political spectrum keeps trying to kill the other side.
One side celebrates murdering babies, selling their body parts, and chopping off kids genitals.
One side continuously releases violent repeat criminals that are preying on our women and children, while lying and saying that they support women.
One side wants dudes to compete against our girls in sports, and force our girls to change with them in the locker room.
One side willingly invites criminals and miscreants from the third world to live among us with impunity, even going as far as to protest when sex offenders are shipped back home.
One side gleefully riots and burns down cities when they don’t get their way.
This isn’t hyperbole. The Democratic Party is a party of depravity.
While it makes a decent meme, the definition of a political party and a terrorist organization overlap. An organization can be both. Hence, I think it would be more accurate to say:
More than just a political party.
Democrats are also a terrorist organization.
But to be fair, while Democrats have had a terrorist element for at least 160 years (the formation of the KKK was December 25, 1865). In addition to the KKK, the assassination of President Lincoln, the riots of the 1960s, and the Black Lives Matter riots were all Democrat aligned, too. But this probably doesn’t reach the threshold of a terrorist organization. The Democrat party does not officially take credit for the criminal actions. To the best of my knowledge, they have never funded assassination attempts or officially (speech by individual leaders are not official party directives) advocated criminal acts to affect political outcomes. Individual members and some party leaders engage it rhetoric which encourages violent criminal action, but I think the organization, as a whole, falls just short of qualifying as a terrorist organization.
I think the claims that millionaires are going to leave our state are, like, super overblown. And if — the ones that leave, like, bye.
Katie Wilson Seattle Mayor May 1, 2026
That comment and laugh, combined with the applause and cheers from the crowd is going to increase the number of wealthy people leaving the state by a significant margin. Barb and I are far short of a million dollar/year income, and it pisses me off.
It is also interesting that she goes on to say that Seattle has the ability to create an even more “progressive tax” than Washington state and King County. And that it’s not good for the Seattle business environment to have a higher cost of doing business that neighboring Bellevue (where we live) and she encourages Bellevue to increase taxes to match Seattle. She appears oblivious Bellevue is a much nicer town than Seattle. Here is a comparison by Copilot:
Crime Rates
Bellevue consistently reports much lower crime than Seattle across all major categories.
Violent Crime: Seattle 32.3 vs. Bellevue 9.6 (index; lower is safer).
Property Crime: Seattle 76.9 vs. Bellevue 45.6.
Crime Index (Numbeo): Bellevue 28.31 vs. Seattle 55.36.
Safety Walking at Night: Bellevue “High” (65.91) vs. Seattle “Low” (38.44).
Takeaway: Bellevue’s crime levels are less than half of Seattle’s in most categories, making it one of the safest cities in the region.
School Quality
Bellevue is widely regarded as having one of the best public school systems in Washington, while Seattle’s school quality varies heavily by neighborhood.
Bellevue School District is ranked #1 in Washington.
Seattle’s school quality is variable, with strong pockets but inconsistent performance across the city.
Takeaway: If school quality is a priority, Bellevue is the clear winner.
Other Quality‑of‑Life Measures
Cost of Living & Housing
Bellevue is 10–20% more expensive for rent and has a median home price around $1.3M–$1.6M, compared to Seattle’s $850K–$900K.
Bellevue homes tend to be newer, with larger lots and more modern construction. Seattle offers more historic homes and diverse neighborhoods.
Stability & Growth
Bellevue’s housing market is more stable and predictable, with stronger appreciation since COVID.
Seattle’s market shows higher volatility but strong recovery cycles.
And queried about companies which have left Seattle for Bellevue:
multiple major companies have been shifting workers and office space from Seattle to Bellevue, driven by concerns about safety, taxes, and business climate, while Bellevue’s cleaner environment, stronger schools, and rapid office development have made it increasingly attractive.
Why Businesses Are Moving: Key Drivers
1. Safety, Cleanliness, and Worker Experience
A recurring theme in reporting is that downtown Seattle’s rising crime and disorder have pushed companies to look east.
The Wall Street Journal highlighted that companies are choosing Bellevue because of its cleaner streets, lower crime, and better schools.
Executives explicitly cite safety as a deciding factor: “Clean and safe is everything and Seattle is not that.”
This aligns with the broader trend of companies wanting environments where employees feel secure returning to the office.
2. Tax and Regulatory Environment
Seattle’s business climate has become more contentious:
Amazon began shifting thousands of jobs to Bellevue after Seattle attempted a $275-per-employee head tax in 2018.
Analysts describe Seattle’s environment as “hostile to business”, citing high taxation, B&O tax burdens, and new service taxes.
Bellevue, by contrast, is perceived as more predictable and business‑friendly.
3. Office Space and Development Boom
Bellevue has been aggressively building modern office space:
Since 2021, Bellevue added ~3.9M sq. ft. of office space vs. Seattle’s ~2.6M sq. ft.
Vacancy in Seattle’s top-tier office space is near 34.6%, signaling a struggling downtown.
Bellevue’s office rents have surpassed Seattle’s ($64/sq ft vs. $51), showing companies are willing to pay more for the Bellevue environment.
This is a strong market signal: demand is shifting east.
Which Companies Are Moving or Expanding in Bellevue?
Amazon
Grew from “almost nothing” to 14,000 employees in Bellevue, with plans for 25,000.
Shift accelerated after political clashes with Seattle’s City Council.
Snowflake
Moved 700+ employees into a new 326,000 sq. ft. Bellevue office instead of relocating to downtown Seattle.
TikTok, OpenAI, Robinhood
All have taken significant Bellevue office space in recent years.
Other Tech Firms
Multiple reports describe a broader “tech exodus” from Seattle to Bellevue, driven by quality‑of‑life and business‑climate concerns.
Summary Table: Business Environment Comparison
Factor
Bellevue
Seattle
Crime & Safety
Lower crime; cleaner streets
Higher crime; downtown safety concerns
Business Climate
Predictable, business‑friendly
Higher taxes; regulatory friction
Office Development
Rapid growth; modern buildings
Slower growth; high vacancy
Corporate Migration
Amazon, TikTok, OpenAI expanding
Losing square footage and headcount
Schools & Talent Appeal
Highly rated schools attract families
More variable school quality
Bottom Line
Bellevue has become the preferred hub for Big Tech expansion, while Seattle faces headwinds from safety issues, taxation, and downtown decline. Companies aren’t abandoning Seattle entirely, but the center of gravity has clearly shifted east.
Her solution to retain business is for Bellevue to become more like Seattle rather than Seattle to become more like the successful Bellevue. Since Wilson is an admitted socialist, this should not be a surprise. To socialists, near equality of poverty and misery is more desirable than a range of prosperity and happiness.
Just as I predicted yesterday…. MSM will falsely claim the Secretary of the Navy was fired because of Battleships.
And the NYTimes is actually worse than I thought. Let me explain….
The mainstream media will make this about the ships because the defense “experts” never want more hulls. They want money flowing into consulting fees, AI “solutions,” and think tank white papers. Steel produces nothing for the Beltway class. A flight deck you can launch F-35s off of does not generate PowerPoints.
But the NYTimes is running an even more sinister play.
Throughout the Biden administration, and later during DOGE’s audit work, I translated every major spending bill into a unit every American can actually visualize: one nuclear aircraft carrier.
Nuclear supercarrier cost: $15 billion.
Biden’s BEAD rural broadband program, which connected zero homes to the internet: $42.5 billion, or roughly three carriers.
Pete Buttigieg’s infrastructure package: $1.1 trillion, or seventy three carriers.
Total DOGE savings to date: $215 billion, or fourteen carriers.
Known Somali-linked fraud in Minnesota, per federal prosecutors: $18 billion, or one carrier plus an Arleigh Burke destroyer.
Why do I keep doing this?
Because for the past two decades the NYTimes has run the same story on loop: the military is the reason for America’s skyrocketing national debt.
That is a psyop. It conditions Americans to believe that steel and sailors, not social programs and grift, are what is bankrupting the country.
Human beings are not wired to understand $15 billion. The mind goes blank at that scale. But every American, left or right, understands the sheer weight and menace of a nuclear aircraft carrier. It is the most visible, most photogenic instrument of state power on earth.
Listen, having covered too many of these shootings, you know, and a wide array of circumstances, schools and others, one thing we know is that there’ll be a lot of discussion afterwards about security measures, rhetoric perhaps as well. There won’t be any substantive discussion of access to weapons, right? There just won’t because it’s — I mean, we’ve been down this path so many times, right? That’s just a part of the discussion you don’t go to.
I’m always amused (in an ironic sense) after every high-profile mass shooting, when the Left comes out of the woodwork and says, “We need to have a national conversation on guns!”
Bruh, where have you been? We’ve all been HAVING a “national conversation on guns” since 1934. I joined it personally about two decades ago, give or take. It has never ended.
And we’ve invited the Left to engage. We’ve reached out. We’ve offered to discuss and find common ground. And we’ve been ignored at every stretch … until they can use a high-profile murder scene to claim that we obstinately refuse to discuss the issue.
They don’t just lie about guns, or gun owners, or the facts. They go so far as to lie about “the conversation” itself, as if we’ve all been refusing to have a conversation, when the reality is we’ve been having a conversation and invited them, but they refused to join.
When they can’t even be honest about the conversation they say they want to have, why should we trust them on anything else?
An honest argument for Prohibition would — at the VERY least — acknowledge the social good that privately-owned firearms provides, and then attempt to justify prohibiting them anyway. A FULLY honest argument would also acknowledge the potential second-order effects of banning guns, such as increased crime against citizens rendered defenseless by the ban. But that would be an uphill battle, so Prohibitionists choose instead to “lie by omission,” frame their arguments exclusively around the social negatives of crime and violence, and never mention that guns can also be defensive or how often defensive gun use happens.
Anti-gun people lie — a LOT — because they have to. If they were honest about their intentions or the real-world effects of their proposed laws/policies, they’d never succeed.
In an analysis, CNN’s Brian Stelter insinuated that nobody will consider tougher gun laws to prevent such an incident. He should have looked at the facts before going off half-cocked.
The suspect in this case is known to have purchased the shotgun and a handgun used in the attack from two different California gun stores. He had to pass two California background checks and endure two separate waiting periods. It is widely known California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and the suspect was able to complete his legal purchases. Just what more does Stelter think could be done?
Obviously, the gun control we have does not work to prevent crime. Hence, we need ban guns completely just like we do with hard core recreational drugs. Then we won’t have to worry about getting shot while eating dinner at a fancy hotel. Duh!
</sarcasm>
I always found it curious that politicians thought it necessary to pass a constitutional amendment to allow them to ban alcoholic drinks and create an income tax, but no constitutional change was required to ban arms. Grok gave me reasonable answer to that. I still think it is bogus, but I have a better understanding of how it happened.
This is the most volatile, complex and dangerous threat environment I’ve experienced in the 42 plus years that I’ve been involved in law enforcement and Homeland Security.
We’re an angry, polarized nation. We have a growing number of people, particularly young males, who believe that violence is the only way to express their sense of grievance or their opposition to the current political conditions in this country. They are inspired and increasingly informed by content that they consume online. That’s placed there by terrorist groups, foreign intelligence services and others, specifically for the purposes of inspiring and inciting violence.
And increasingly, we’re seeing them turn to artificial intelligence to help them develop attack plans that allow them even an unsophisticated attacker, to engage in a violent attack. So the threat environment is significantly dangerous.
And which political party is leading in the initiation of violence? The same as it has been for the last 100+ years in all countries. The political left. The communist revolutions in Eastern Europe and Asia, the national socialist workers party of Germany, the U.S. Democrats from the KKK, to the violent riots and bombings of the 1960s and early 1970s, the BLM, ANTIFA, and the most recent shootings of Republican political leaders, Charlie Kirk, and the multiple assassination attempts on Trump. Yes, there have been a few Democrats murdered who could be blamed on a Republican, but the Democrats are racking up points on the score board so fast that even if the Republicans and Libertarians were combined, they are not even in the game.
Just imagine what they would do if their political opponents were unarmed. If they come for your guns, just keep saying, “NO“ until you run out of ammo.
The Democrat Party’s entire 2026 strategy is a single, malignant sentence:
“Promise revenge, and the base will crawl over broken glass to hand us the keys again.”
They’re not even hiding it anymore.
Impeachment?
Not for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” as the Constitution demands, but as a routine English-style vote of no confidence…exactly what Jonathan Turley just torched on Fox.
They’ve pathologized the impeachment clause into a weaponized tantrum, turning the solemn constitutional mechanism designed to protect the Republic from tyrants into a partisan guillotine for anyone who dares win an election they lost.
This isn’t politics.
It’s a clinical disorder:
revenge addiction dressed up as “accountability,” rage dopamine substituted for governance, and the slow, deliberate poisoning of the very guardrails the Founders welded into place to prevent exactly this kind of unhinged circus.
They believe the American people are stupid enough, or broken enough, to reward the party that openly campaigns on retribution.
That the spectacle of endless investigations, show trials, and ritual humiliations will somehow translate into ballots.
They’re betting the farm that their voters’ limbic systems…flooded with righteous fury and the sweet, sweet promise of payback…will override every warning light flashing in the constitutional machinery.
And if it works?
Watch the fuck out.
Because once you normalize impeachment as electoral therapy, once you teach an entire generation that losing an election is justification for destroying norms, you don’t get the Republic back.
You get the death spiral.
You get tit-for-tat purges, politicized prosecutions as standard operating procedure, and a body politic so septic with mutual hatred that the next “no confidence” vote ends with blood on the floor instead of talking points on cable.
This isn’t hyperbole.
It’s the terminal pathology of a party that has mistaken vengeance for vision and power for purpose.
They’re not trying to save democracy.
They’re trying to own it.
And if the country is dumb enough to let them, the Constitution won’t be the only thing that dies screaming.
I’ve become tired of the politically fighting. The Democrats are out of touch with reality and are stark raving, bat-shit, howling at the moon crazy. The Republicans have a better touch with reality but don’t seem to want to be the adults in the room and firmly tell the tantrum throwing toddlers to go to their rooms and stay there until they calm down. The recent news of DOJ charges Southern Poverty Law Center with fraud and the lawsuits against antigun states and cities are encouraging, but until I see large fines and people behind bars, I’m skeptical.
And if Democrats get political control of the country in the next election or two things are likely to get very spicy.
I’m glad my underground bunker in Idaho is ready for occupancy. *
* Physically, this is true. There are a few legal obstacles still in place by, shall we say, “an over enthusiastic government inspector.”
This video is worth the watch. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
This is what single issue voters finally find out. Your vote should be about policy, not the person. Identity politics only goes so far before it all unravels.
This video is worth the watch. Once you see it, you can't unsee it.
This is what single issue voters finally find out. Your vote should be about policy, not the person. Identity politics only goes so far before it all unravels.
Democrats do not have a monopoly on tribal loyalty over policy. Republicans talk a good talk about economic freedom and gun owner rights, but don’t really do much about it, they opposed gay marriage and grudgingly tolerate it now. And they are downright hostile to social freedoms such as freedom from religion, recreational drug use, social nudity, and sex work.
But freedom loving people cannot fight on all fronts at the same time. If we have the backing of Republicans and a chance to fix the wrongs of Democrat policies, then help them out. And when there is a chance to undo wrongheaded Republican policies, take advantage of that momentum too.
Wake up and align yourself against government overreach. The policy is important. The party and the people are not.
This probably first appeared on October 13th, 1965. But this mindset in U.S. politicians goes back to at least FDR. And internationally it goes much further. It is not quite so blatantly as Linus’s delivery here, but there is a probably at least a fragment of this mindset in nearly everyone. I strongly suspect the foundation of it had survival benefits from the time our ancestors first started roaming the savanna in tribes. Hence it is probably hardwired into our brains.
Just like believing the world is flat and the center of the universe, it takes a special type of brain to push aside the hardwiring and see reality. I really, really need to make that blog post about how to determine truth from falsity.
This was in response to the question (about Disney):
How bad is the DEI there and can anything be done to change it’s course?
Other than the peak seeming to appear a couple of years later, as I have said before, the impression at my company tracks with his. It seems to have been a fad. And as the fab showed how toxic it was the population as a whole turned against it.
And my impression again, the Democrats found themselves painted into a corner and have nearly suffocated on the paint fumes. They lost the presidency to multiple “felony convicted” Donald Trump, of all people. The got slammed in the popular as well as the electoral college by more than the margin of fraud. And despite all the fraud they lost the House and the Senate, too. The majority of voters came to the conclusion all the cancel culture, all the DEI stuff, all the child transition stuff, all the illegal alien stuff, all the looting, rioting, all the fake racism (think Jussie Smollett), and the insistence of a January 6th “insurrection” was too much and it finally popped the bubble the Democrats had been riding on. The Democrats lost so much credibility that a single podcaster (Joe Rogan) gets about double the views of any of Democrat aligned TV host.
Show me the lyric of a nation and it matters not who writes its laws.
Damon of Athens 5th-century BCE Greek music theorist, philosopher, and political advisor, known for his influence on Pericles and his theories on the ethical and political effects of music.
It views politics as ‘downstream’ from culture” was written by Don Eberly in May 2000; “Public policy is downstream from culture” was said by Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute, also in May 2000. Eberly possibly coined the saying because it also occurs frequently in his book Building a Healthy Culture: Strategies for an American Renaissance (2001). Conservative American publisher Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012) often used the saying.
This is why coming out of the closet as a gun owner is important. This is why taking a new shooter to the range and making them comfortable with gun culture is important. This is why, even if we were to get all we want in the courts, we must continue working toward the extermination of the Marxist culture.
This is the most repeated claim in American tax politics and one of the least supported by actual data. The top 1% of earners take in 22% of total income and pay 40% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% earn about half the nation’s income and pay 72% of its taxes. The bottom half of earners, collectively, pay roughly 3% of the tax revenue. The United States, in fact, has the most progressive income-tax system in the developed world.
The Second Amendment is not about “gun culture.” It is not about hunting, sporting clays, or weekend range days.
It is the final, unbreakable firewall that keeps every other right from becoming a temporary privilege granted, or revoked, by those in power.
The Founders placed it second only to speech because they had just overthrown a government that tried to disarm them. They understood a brutal historical truth: an armed, trained citizenry is the one thing tyrants fear most. Without it, speech becomes punishable, assembly becomes rebellion, and due process becomes whatever the regime decides.
In 2026, some still call the 2A “outdated.” They ignore the clear, repeating pattern of history. When governments disarm their people, tragedy does not follow by accident, it follows by design. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that ensures We the People remain the ultimate check on power, not the other way around.
Here is some examples of what happens when that line falls:
Ottoman Empire / Turkey – Gun registration and disarmament laws by 1911. Armenian Genocide (1915–1917): 1.5 million Armenians (plus hundreds of thousands of Assyrians and Greeks) systematically murdered in just 3 years.
Soviet Union – Gun control enacted 1929. Stalin’s regime (1929–1953): ~20 million dissidents, kulaks, and civilians killed through executions, engineered famines, Gulags, and deportations in 24 years.
Nazi Germany – Tightened gun laws and mass disarmament of Jews and political opponents (1938). Holocaust and related atrocities (1939–1945): ~13 million Jews and others exterminated in 6 years.
Communist China – Strict gun control inherited and enforced after 1949. Mao’s regime (1949–1976): 40–65 million dead from Great Leap Forward famine, Cultural Revolution purges, and mass executions in 27 years.
Cambodia (Khmer Rouge) – Full civilian disarmament upon seizing power 1975. Pol Pot’s regime (1975–1979): 1.5–2.8 million Cambodians (roughly 25% of the population) slaughtered or starved in just 4 years.
These are not isolated tragedies. They are the documented pattern: disarm the people first, then the atrocities become possible because resistance becomes impossible.
The Second Amendment was written precisely to prevent this from ever happening here. It is not a suggestion. It is not conditional. It is “shall not be infringed” for a reason that history proves in blood.
That is why we train without apology.
That is why we carry daily.
That is why we fight every single incremental step, because once the guns are gone, the graves fill quickly.
The 2A is not about guns. It is about ensuring that liberty never becomes optional again.
We can not let that line fall.
Stay dangerous, stay good.
RedBeard @HargusJeremy Posted on X, April 15, 2026
What kills me is as I get older and find myself yelling at clouds more, I’ve come to a greater empathy for conservatives. Now my wife texts me from the grocery store and says “The full-grown adult in front of me is wearing a tail” and I just think “these fucking idiots. No way we survive this. The answer to Fermi’s paradox is that the high order civilizations destroy themselves….”
John Schussler Via email April 13, 2026
I understand what he is talking about. But I’m an optimist and am not as fatalistic as John. But I have an underground bunker in Idaho. Also, last month ago I added another ~50,000 pounds of dirt on top of the bunker. Just in case.
You might think I’m joking (well, maybe I am a little bit).
This is the blend from the field to the north edge of the bunker:
This is the bucket loader I used to move the dirt. The ground was a little wetter than it should have been, but it got the job done:
If you attend Boomershoot this year, I’ll give you a tour of both the inside and outside. Friday evening at 6:00 PM.
Black woman from South Africa: “Black people have been patient enough for more than 400 years of colonialism. We are coming for you, and we are going to get everything that you own.”
White people are facing racism, hatred, and brutal violence in South Africa. This is not… pic.twitter.com/3a5R93TzOs
I have to wonder what the political left thinks of the blatant racism. Will they demand divestment like they did because of apartheid in South Africa 40 to 60 years ago? Or will they cheer the hatred, confiscation of property, and the murders?
All gun control is stupid as a means to reduce violent crime and unconstitutional. Banning 3D printed guns is extra stupid.
Never forget:
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not.
Alexandre Dumas Circa 1865, Grand Dictionnaire Universel du XIXe Siècle: Français, Historique, Géographique, Mythologique, Bibliographique, etcetera, Volume 2, Entry: Bêtise, Quote Page 650, Column 1, Published by Pierre Larousse, Paris. (Google Books Full View)
