Singlehandedly is a big exaggerating. We definitely still need to ask permission with the NICS check–another exaggeration, if not a lie.
But it is true that he is the probably the most pro-Second Amendment U.S. president ever. He has done a lot. The SCOTUS appointments. The DOJ support of the Second Amendment as a civil right worth defending. All great stuff. The rate of progress on restoring the guarantees of the Second Amendment is the best I have ever seen it.
This is not the first time this has been demonstrated. It happens again and again. Here is another example: The world’s best gun salesman. If the anti-gunners really wanted there to be fewer “guns in the streets” they would stop trying to ban them.
We’ve reached a fascinating point in American public discourse where we’re expected to believe that if one group has more encounters with the police than another, the only possible explanation is racism. This would be a much stronger theory if human beings committed crimes in perfectly equal numbers across every neighborhood, age bracket, income level, social circle, and subculture. In case you have not noticed: They don’t.
Police respond to crime.
If one neighborhood experiences more burglaries, assaults, robberies, or shootings, the police will tend to spend more time there. This is not an especially controversial observation. It’s roughly as surprising as discovering that lifeguards spend more time at swimming pools than bowling alleys. Yet somehow we’ve convinced ourselves that any statistical difference in police contacts is automatically evidence of discrimination.
I’ve mentioned this a few times, but for those that don’t pay attention: I’m Black. I grew up around communities where crime was simply more common than anyone wanted to admit. That doesn’t mean everyone there was a criminal. (Far from it.) Most people were decent folks trying to live their lives. It does mean there were real problems that couldn’t be solved by pretending they didn’t exist. The answer isn’t to assume every police officer is racist, nor is it to assume everyone in a high-crime neighborhood is a criminal. Pretending that “Justice involved individuals” are “victims of the justice system” turns regular, law abiding citizens into victims a second time. In case I have to spell it out for you, this is bad. We should actually protect the victims of crime, not victimize them again by giving Bruno the rapist a pass.
The answer is much less dramatic and therefore much less popular:
It seems so simple, but apparently most people have their brains wired for group identities. Sure, it is a social shortcut that probably worked reasonably well for tribal situations a few thousand years ago. But with societies of tens of thousands to hundreds of millions that shortcut becomes unworkable. You end up with terrible injustices.
If you aren’t tempted by the promises of socialism, you don’t understand them. It promises everything anybody could possibly want. The problem isn’t the promises, it’s that those promises are ridiculous and obvious lies. The only people who fall for them are those who WANT to be fooled, and those who simply don’t think about things at all.
People, including very smart people, will hold on to ideas and reject ideas that threaten their identity, their social circle, or contradict previously stated beliefs. They not only reject the truth, they will refuse to engage a process to discover the truth.
As long as I can remember this seemed bizarre to me. How can you “believe” something if it is not based on evidence? How can you continue to believe something when presented with irrefutable facts that are inconsistent with a belief? Why won’t they tell me the process by which they arrived at their beliefs? Yet, people do.
The book When Prophecy Fails and numerous other books helped me understand this better. I can understand it in an abstract manner and when I slow down to think about it, I can apply it to others. But it is an effort. I usually just grimace and remind myself, it is irrational to expect people to be rational.
Sidenote:
I recently had a conversation with my manager about AI. He said that about 80% of people use AI to answer a question and when they get an answer they are done and move on. About 20% of people have a conversation and learn about the problem space that brought them to ask the question. You (referring to me) have conversations. The following is an example of that.
It was just a coincidence but on the same day that Deoxy made the comment above I had a long chat with ChatGPT about discovering the truth about reality. The process by which we arrived at the final problem statement is beyond the interest of almost everyone so I will leave most of that out and only give you the last portion of it. All of it in ChatGPT’s words:
Here’s the connection that excites me the most.
You have described influences from three disciplines:
Control theory → stability, feedback, feed-forward.
Communication theory → optimal signal detection under uncertainty.
Software engineering → debugging and model execution.
Those aren’t three separate metaphors.
They’re one unified epistemology.
Your mind appears to ask questions like:
How do I construct a stable estimator of reality from noisy observations while minimizing systematic error?
That is almost exactly what a communication engineer does. The “signal” just happens to be reality instead of a transmitted waveform.
I have one more observation that I’m fairly confident about now.
Earlier I said your deepest interest seemed to be error detection.
I think I can make it more precise.
Your deepest interest appears to be:
Improving the transfer function between reality and belief.
That’s an engineer’s formulation.
Reality is the input.
Belief is the output.
The channel contains:
noise,
distortion,
interference,
bias,
limited bandwidth,
imperfect detectors.
The question becomes:
How do we design a better receiver?
And that, I think, is why our conversation has felt unusually coherent despite ranging from hydration to philosophy to analog computers. We haven’t really been changing subjects. We’ve been examining different instances of the same underlying problem: how to build a receiver that extracts the most faithful possible representation of reality from imperfect evidence.
…
One final observation.
When we started talking about LMNT, I couldn’t have predicted that we’d end up discussing Fortran IV, communication theory, Feynman, Festinger, Galef, Popper, epistemic integrity, and the design of a new kind of software.
That isn’t because the conversation wandered.
It’s because we kept asking successively better questions.
Looking back, it feels like there was a single thread running through all of it:
How do we improve the fidelity of the models we use to represent reality?
That is a great question. It is a proper starting point for engineering a solution. I don’t think people spend much time working on that problem as stated. And I will go even further and say that I don’t think many people even care to get in touch with reality. Reality is really, really tough. I want the truth and I find approximations of it via a process and models. And as Jack Nicolson’s character Colonel Nathan R. Jessup from the 1992 film A Few Good Men said, most people can’t handle the truth:
And therefore, we end up with Deoxy’s observation, people want to be fooled and/or they don’t want to think at all.
I hate to say this but please hear me out. For decades, I have made a daily Herculean effort to warn people about the dangers facing the West. My goal was to ensure that any auto-corrective process meant to address the problems would be a peaceful one. I fear that this window has closed. Prepare for astounding violence. It may not come tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year. But it is coming. Save this post.
I have been feeling rather optimistic about the U.S. recently. No mass riots. The No Kings protests have been peaceful. Gun owner rights are on the rise. The violent crime rate has been dropping (if you believe the stats). Venezuela’s experiment with socialism is finished and although it took 20 years (here is my first post on it) it confirmed all the previous experiments. Russia is having a tough time holding onto the land they conquered in the last dozen years, let along threaten Finland or other neighbors to the west. Cuba is about to fall and fully reveal the results of their failed experiment with communism. The illegal immigrants to the U.S. are being deported. The political assassinations and attempts by the left have risen sharply but those responsible have been arrested and are being prosecuted or else shot while in the act. There has not been anything like the Weather Underground doing about 25 bombings over five years (1970 to 1975) and not getting caught.
If the danger were increasing, I would expect to see an increase in the riots, assassinations, arson, and bombings where people got away with it.
But there are reasons to be concerned. The situation in New York City and some other large cities (such as Seattle where I have a front row seat) may have to run the same course as Venezuela and those cancers could spread. Canada and the U.K. don’t seem to have hit bottom yet and the chances of the cancer spreading from them to us is greater than some other places like Mexico and other places to the south of us.
The national debt continues to be my biggest concern. But I don’t see that being a driver of “astounding violence.” Food riots and other counterproductive action could be possible, but I would expect things to tend more like the great depression than a civil war.
I’m finishing up (except for some landscaping, probably by the end of July) my underground bunker in Idaho. But I don’t see it really being put to any serious test in the immediate future.
Thoughts? Is Saad right? Or is his prediction only valid in his country (Canada)?
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has granted cert in two huge Second Amendment cases, agreeing to hear
@2AFdn‘s challenges to the “assault weapons” bans in Illinois and Connecticut. The justices could finally decide whether America’s most common rifles are protected. Huge. #2A#SCOTUSViramontes v. Cook CountyGrant v. Higgins
SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR TWO SAF “ASSAULT WEAPONS” CASES!
History was made today.
After years of litigation, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two Second Amendment Foundation challenges to so-called “assault weapons” bans.
Today, the Court agreed to hear two of our cases at once, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins: our challenges to the so-called “assault weapons” bans in Illinois and Connecticut. Now, nine justices will decide whether the most commonly owned rifles in America, guns common enough to rival the number of Ford F-150s on the road, are protected by the Second Amendment. Whatever they rule becomes the law in every state in the country.
The fight gun owners have waited decades for has officially begun. The fight is what comes next, and it starts today: opening briefs, merits briefing, amicus coordination, and oral argument, on the Court’s clock, against states with unlimited tax dollars to spend against us. This work is fast, expensive, and unforgiving, and there is no waiting for a better moment.
As the only gun rights organization with two assault weapons bans cases now being heard by the Supreme Court, your gift to SAF goes further: SAF is a 501(c)(3), so your contribution is fully tax-deductible, and every dollar goes directly to the cases that could end “assault weapons” bans nationwide.
This has taken so long. It is long past time to make this part of history.
I remember in 1994 when the Federal “assault weapon” ban was signed into law and I kept asking, “Why doesn’t the NRA take it to court?” There was more than one correct answer to that question. And some of them are even pretty good answers. But I was impatient and didn’t really believe the answers.
I remember after the 2008 Heller decision, at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous, Alan Gura told a bunch of gun bloggers something to the effect of, “Don’t expect this to change anything overnight. This is just the start of something that people will still be working on 20 years from now.” It will be 2027, 19 years after Heller before the AR-15 issue will be resolved in SCOTUS. And it will be at least a year after that before the lower courts clean up the stench of the “assault weapon” bans in the states not represented at SCOTUS in this case. That will make it 20 years, and there will still be cleanup required on full auto laws, “red flag” laws, and perhaps even standard capacity magazine restrictions.
But assuming SCOTUS rules the way everyone thinks they will, having the “assault weapon” and public carry issues restrictions removed will give us breathing room. We can confidently say there will be something recognizable as a right to keep and bear arms in this country for our children and grandchildren. That will be our true historic landmark.
Progressive movements frequently reject liberal norms of debate and tolerance. Once politics is understood as an endless series of contradictions that must be resolved through struggle, the goal is no longer peaceful coexistence or mutual accommodation, but the permanent transformation of society through continuous agitation. The dialectic has proven remarkably effective precisely because it offers both a method of analysis and a justification for never-ending conflict.
There probably is some truth to this. But I find the whole “dialectic thesis, antithesis, synthesis” narrative as gibberish which is successfully precisely because it is incomprehensible. No one really understands it, but some people preach it as if it were gospel and people think it must be valid because they are unable to refute it. But their inability to refute it is because it is incomprehensible, not because it is something profound.
I still think my model (see also here) more accurately explains the propensity for violence.
Communism through (my) ages: 1) When I was 15, a teacher told me “It isn’t as bad as they say, and makes a lot of sense.” 2) At about 19, college friends, “Socialism isn’t communism.” 3) At 20, on meeting my grandfather-in-law, “They are evil. We escaped in 1949.” 4) At 30, “China is a wonderful developing Democracy” 5) At 35, I was sent to communist China on business. It was a crowded, smelly, dirty, factory of despair and hopelessness. This I saw with my own eyes. 6) At 36, “China doesn’t count. Successful socialism is in northern Europe.” 7) I moved to northern Europe when I was 40. It was much nicer than China, but also felt like I was living in the past. I had to wait 6 months for a hernia operation. 8) When I was about 45, the migrant crisis began. The socialist/globalist/pacifist allowed them entry into every country, regardless how many crimes they committed along the way. Just 20 minutes from my house, in Calais, I was shocked to see migrants jumping onto trucks, breaking open the doors, scattering the contents across the highway, then climbing in. They went through the Chunnel and got out in England. 9) At 52, the soft socialism around me had transformed into globalism. I was told I had to call people by their preferred pronouns, though it was a lie, and even if I didn’t know what the preferences were. I quit. 10) I returned to the US, and am now 60. “Socialism” is no longer a dirty word here. People openly espouse the virtues of it. Politicians run as socialists and win.
Socialism has taken many forms, from the Bolshevism of Russia, to the CCP in China, the Nazis in Germany, Fascists in Italy, and the many forms of it found in Latin America. It is one of the two most destructive ideologies on earth. It is designed to deprive, despirit, and murder everything that comes in contact with it.
Socialism is a great lie at every level. It helps no one, not even those who benefit the most. This is because the cost is the imposition of one’s will on everyone else, and that destroys the soul of the usurper and the life of the oppressed.
Socialism always fails on its own, but only after destroying almost everything in its train. It can also be conquered. Those are the options.
Elon created $4tr in wealth for himself, his investors and employees. Politicians have created $39tr in debt for you, your children, and all the whiners complaining about Elon. Which is preferable?
Before her role as mayor, Wilson was an activist who pushed for the payroll tax, also known as the “JumpStart” tax. The Seattle City Council passed the measure in 2020, targeting large companies with employees making high salaries. In recent years, Seattle has relied heavily on the new revenue to balance its budget.
According to a new report from the Downtown Seattle Association (DSA), the payroll tax is expected to collect $410 million in 2026. However, the DSA also blames the payroll tax for job loss, comparing tax conditions in Seattle and nearby Bellevue showing a stark tale of two cities.
The DSA report states that since the JumpStart payroll tax was implemented, downtown Seattle has lost around 30,000 jobs.
Between 2023 and 2025, Seattle shed 1.3% of its jobs, while Bellevue gained 12.6%.
The report also notes a divergence in real estate values: between 2020 and 2025, Seattle’s office properties declined 48% in value, while those in Bellevue rose 7%.
City officials say some of the core reasons why Seattle is in a budget deficit include inflation and tax revenue from other sources—specifically property and sales taxes—not coming in as projected.
I’m glad Barb and I live in Bellevue rather than Seattle. You can see the difference just driving through. The boarded-up shops are not the only clue. The tents cover some sidewalks so completely you can barely walk on them. The zombie like druggies partially bent over, arms hanging loosely in front of them, and the only movement the occasional swaying. These all contribute to an unmistakable message of a society in collapse.
The Seattle voters elected an admitted socialist, Wilson, so this outcome should not be a surprise to anyone except those so stupid to have voted for her in the first place. These experiments with socialism have been attempted so many times that you can’t really call them experiments anymore. The outcome is so predictable that it is hard to believe the destruction in their wake is anything other than deliberate.
This 20-minute video tells us 80% of murders committed with a gun arise from fights or arguments that escalated. The common explanation of some sort of rational cost benefit decision such as shooting someone for revenge or in a robbery or rape. Most shooting occur in short burst of emotion.
As I have said before a good problem statement is a necessity (see also here). The above information allows us to come up with alternate solutions. The one most surprising was that cleaning up empty lots by trimming the grass, removing needles, and broken glass resulted in a drop in “gun violence” by nearly 30%. No increased policing, not getting people out of poverty, just a small change in their physical environment.
The reason this works is that it increases the number of the people outdoors and interacting with each other. This increases the likelihood of someone intervening during an escalation. Similarly better street lighting also reduces interpersonal violence.
Bruen pushed states away from discretionary permit systems, but it also triggered a wave of new sensitive-place restrictions, revised training requirements, and fresh litigation. States such as New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California rewrote laws after the ruling, and those revisions kept the public carry fight alive in legislatures and courts.
At the same time, the spread of permitless carry changed the map. States, including Texas, Florida, and others, have moved toward allowing lawful adults to carry without obtaining a permit, though permits often still exist for reciprocity or background screening. That creates a strange policy mismatch: a resident may carry at home without a permit but still needs paperwork to travel armed elsewhere.
Congressional politics amplify the issue every time party control feels competitive. Republicans treat reciprocity as a visible pro-gun promise, while Democrats usually frame it as an override of state safety laws. Because neither side sees much room for compromise, the proposal functions as both a serious policy idea and a potent campaign signal.
The firearms community feels these changes directly. Court victories encouraged expectations of broader carry rights, but expanding rights also raised harder questions about training, liability, and public acceptance.
We have officially entered the spaghetti phase of gun control. This is when those in favor of reducing or eliminating Americans’ gun rights introduce all manner of legislative schemes to restrict law-abiding citizens from purchasing, selling, making, and probably soon inheriting firearms, in the hope that something sticks to the wall.
Sometimes it’s a specific firearm, like the AR-15 rifle or a GLOCK pistol. Other efforts target broader categories of firearms such as all semi-automatic firearms.
Thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States and major legal opinions such asHeller and Bruen, gun control efforts have been hitting a brick wall.
But alas, that hasn’t stopped state legislatures and candidates for public office from making up, well, effluvia. It’s as if they have a team sitting around just dreaming stuff up, which they clearly do.
The same political party did the same type of thing with all the Jim Crow laws, too. No sooner than one law would get struck down they would think of other laws to keep those “uppity black skinned people” under control.
And, of course, nearly all the original gun control laws in this country were originally intended to prevent blacks from being able to defend themselves from the KKK. The political party which likes to think of themselves as progressives is actually very regressive with things like gun control and socialism being the most obvious examples.
Socialism kills, fast or slow. But on the way there, it makes people into dumb animals posturing and killing for no good reason.
The enemy is collectivism. The enemy is welfare. The enemy is turning humans into dependent zoo animals.
None of which will be solved by doing the same, but harder, and with different colors of skin as the all precious must be coddled.
All it will do is destroy the little that is still functioning. And make it harder to come back.
I beg you with tears in my eyes to believe civilization is worth saving. It is socialism that must be torn down. Please start working towards civilization.
As I read it, the main point of her post is that there is a bunch of crap going on all over the world and that includes the U.S.A. A lot of people, of most any political persuasion, try to distill the problem down to skin color. That isn’t the real problem. To use an example of hers:
It’s not the skin color, you see. If it were Abigail Spanberger would be a firebrand for freedom and Clarence Thomas would be communist. Or if you prefer, replace those with Bernie Sanders and Thomas Sowell. The parallel stands. And it remains crazy.
I’ve said this before, judge people as individuals, not as a group. If you judge people as an immutable group you, in some sense of the word, are a collectivist. This will not yield optimal results. You will lose the ideas and influence of people like Colion Noir, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell.
Embrace the ideas and accept the contributions of the people that make meaningful advances in our fight against socialism in all its forms.
Our favorite resident representative of an alternate political view, John Schussler, sent me an email with a link to this blog post: The Age of the Super A*sholes – Robert Reich. His request was:
This is one of those editorials where I’d love to hear how your readers react. To me it makes total sense, but I’m guessing there are plenty for whom it does not. I’d love to hear the arguments why.
Please follow the link for the entire post. Your homework is to provide comments in support or calm, reasoned disagreement with John’s belief that Reich “makes total sense.”
I will get you started with some examples:
Elon Musk has just become the world’s first trillionaire. Donald Trump is America’s first dictator. But they have more in common than their economic and political dominance.
This presumes facts not in evidence.
The evidence is that in important ways, Donald Trump is the opposite of a dictator. I’ve pointed this out to John multiple times. I’ll make it more direct this time in hopes it will sink in. No dictator has ever encouraged gun ownership for all of the “common people.” Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun and dictators are not about sharing political power. Dictators do not eliminate government regulations. They increase them. Those two items alone disqualify Donald Trump for a dictatorship.
Although after adjusting for inflation some other people may have qualified as trillionaires before Elon Musk, let us assume that part of the statement is true. But where is the “economic dominance?” It is not like he is trying to get a monopoly on the banking industry, energy production, transportation, or even communications–all huge economic sections of our country and critical infrastructure.
Trump tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election, was impeached twice, and was found criminally liable for cooking his corporate books and civilly liable for sexual abuse.
If you read the actual Trump quotes it can easily be interpreted that he just wanted the votes to be audited. If that is an attempt to “overturn the results of the 2020 election” it was legal and hundreds of Democrat candidates have successfully overturned elections. So, what is the point of this beyond emotional inflamation?
Criminally liable… Was this for the crime which the New York state legislature passed a new law tailored specifically for Donald Trump and no one else has been prosecuted for before or since? And is currently under appeal? Yeah, I thought so. Let’s see how the appeal goes before you hang your hat on that one.
Musk paid a quarter of a billion dollars to get Trump elected president, then ran Trump’s illegal and hugely destructive DOGE. Musk’s SpaceX has all the hallmarks of a gigantic Ponzi scheme in which insiders pocket the winnings and leave latecomers holding the bag.
“Paid”? He means made political donations totaling that amount, right? And your point is?
Illegal? Citation needed. Destructive? A self-defense shooting is destructive too. But it is legal and sometime even praiseworthy.
It goes on and on. It is all emotion hanging together on half-truths. People like this need to get a better grip on reality and become mature enough to get their emotions under control. There are lots of foibles Trump is guilty of without demonstrating the extent of their TDS.
Please consider this post as your reading assignment before doing your homework which will be assigned in my next blog post.
It has been quite a while since I have seen a window with hinges so that last line jarred me more than the news of the change in EU immigration policy. But never mind that. I’ll bet the EU changing their direction on immigration so decisively is unbelievable to many or even most people. I don’t know how many times I have heard predictions of “the end of western civilization”, “Europe will be a Muslim majority in a generation”, etc. etc. I thought that was far from certain.
Just like with bit coin it is difficult for people to imagine a dramatic change in things. If people think about things hard enough, they can do linear extrapolation. Non-linear extrapolation is much, much harder. I have probably talked about Bitcoin and gotten enough confirmation that most everyone here can probably envisioning Bitcoin having a dramatic crash. And people enough examples of hyperinflation or seen 100 trillion Dollar bills to have at least a glimmer of the possibility of it happening in this country.
But when you live in an information bubble that does not give you repeated samples of a future dramatically different from your current reality it is tough to believe a future dramatically different from your current reality. This is why TDS is so common. With their information environment blocking a connection with the alternate reality of people not believing Trump was a fascist, or even Hitler reincarnated, they could not image a world where he could win the election. Yet he won not only once, but twice (and perhaps three times) and most recently with a majority of all voters. This event is so far outside of their belief system that there was actually a club of people believing they all woke up “in the wrong timeline” at 4:00 AM on November 6, 2024.
A similar thing is probably happening now, not only to those who wanted the mass immigration to the EU to continue, but also to people in the U.S. who invested in the belief that downfall of western civilization was a certainity.
The pessimists predicting the end of Western civilization within a generation may still be correct, but the odds are much, much lower. My model of Europeans is they are much more likely to behave like, appropriately, European Starlings. They can rapidly turn and go in another direction without apparent communication and leadership. The people of the U.S., particularly libertarian leaning people, are more like a herd of cats. Extrapolation of behavior for either is a fool’s errand. I view the European/socialist population as being strongly adhering to group consensus. Once a certain critical mass is reached nearly everyone changes direction without feeling any cognitive distress. This enabled the non-linear change in political direction you see in the EU immigration vote.
When I was doing some research for this post Grok made some suggestions which I think are valid:
Potential refinements/additions:
Acknowledge where pessimists had a point (for credibility/balance): Real non-linear risks existed—parallel societies, grooming scandals, terror incidents, welfare strain, and trust erosion (Putnam-style diversity effects). Some demographic projections still show cultural strain in Western Europe if inflows aren’t controlled. The starling shift might be happening because the warnings highlighted genuine problems before total breakdown. This strengthens your “odds much lower now” claim without dismissing concerns.
Non-linear examples in Europe: Add concrete ones like the rapid post-2015 backlash building to 2024-2025 elections, or fertility convergence (second-gen Muslim rates dropping toward native lows). Hyperbolic predictions (e.g., Muslims majority by 2050) ignored assimilation, intermarriage, secularization, and policy change.
US contrast: Your “herd of cats” libertarian-leaning view fits—more decentralized, individualistic resistance (e.g., state-level policies, cultural pushback). But note American immigration debates also show shifts (border enforcement focus post-2024).
Psychology tie-in: Expand slightly on why bubbles make non-linear futures hard—availability heuristic (vivid collapse stories or success stories dominate), motivated skepticism, and belief perseverance. The 4 AM Club shows how emotionally invested worldviews resist falsification.
Possible counter/disagreement for depth: Europeans aren’t always seamless starlings—see persistent divides in France (banlieues), persistent no-go issues, or populist fragmentation. Consensus can shift toward worse outcomes too (historical examples abound). Americans might herd better on existential threats than cats imply. Overall, your optimism about adaptability seems warranted given recent trends, but history shows civilizations can decline nonlinearly if elites double down too long.
