Category Archives: Politics

This didn’t end well last time

Posted on by

Via an email from Rolf:

Left-Wing Minister Wants to Confiscate Guns Owned by Members of Right-Wing AfD

A left-wing interior minister in Germany has launched a plan to confiscate all firearms owned by members of the right-wing political party AfD.

Interior minister of the German state of Thuringia, Georg Maier, wants to withdraw gun licenses from Alternative for Germany members, a political party that holds 81 seats in the German parliament and 9 seats in the European parliament.

“Maier, who belongs to the Social Democrat Party (SPD), has tasked his employees with establishing a working group on “Weapons and Extremists” to move forward on the issue,” reports Remix News.

“They plan to create the “AG WaffEx,” which would be located at the state administration office and help local authorities “in the processing of relevant cases.”

The move would ostensibly target “right-wing extremists,” but that list includes AfD members, over 30,000 Germans, who would have “appropriate revocation procedures” initiated against them under the plan.

AfD members who are hunters or marksmen and legally own guns would have them confiscated by the state, with Maier citing the reason that the AfD in Thuringia is “proven to be right-wing extremist.”

See also pages 57 and 59 in  ”Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny:

§ 12

A firearms acquisition permit is not needed by:

…

3. Departments of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and their offices as specified by the Fuhrer’s deputy;

…

§ 15

(1) Firearms acquisition permits or firearms carry permits are only to be granted to persons of undoubted reliability, and only if a demonstration of need is set forth.

(2)  Issuance should not take place.

  1. to persons under 18 years of age;
  2. to persons under trusteeship and the mentally retarded;
  3. to Gypsies, or to persons who are itinerant like Gypsies;
  4. to persons under police supervision or known to have lost their civil rights, for the duration of police supervision or the loss of their civil rights
  5. to persons convicted of high treason, or against who facts are presented which give reason to suppose that they are actively subversive,
  6. to persons, who, on account of: deliberate attacks on life or health; public disorderly conduct or trespassing; resistance to government authority; an offense dangerous to the public or misdemeanors; for the punishable offense against property; a hunting or fishing offense legally punishable by more than two weeks imprisonment, if three years have not elapsed since the sentence was served. The punishment of imprisonment may stand as prescribed, be reduced, or commuted into a fine; in these case the three-year periods begins with the day on which imprisonment ends, or is reduced, or is converted into a fine. If this punishment is wholly or partly imposed after probation, the probation period should be added to the time period.

That was March 18, 1938. As an exercise for the reader, I’ll leave the determination of the details of what happened in the next few years to the Gypsies and others not favored by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

Quote of the day—John Cardillo @johncardillo

Posted on by

The left pushed deviance and their hatred of America way too hard.

Normal Americans are finally pushing back much harder.

The tide is turning so the left is going to become even more demonic and vicious.

Take nothing for granted. Do not let your guard down. Buy guns and ammo.

John Cardillo @johncardillo
Tweeted on July 1, 2020
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kathy Hochul

Posted on by

We’re not going backwards. They may think they can change our lives with the stroke of a pen, but we have pens, too.

The founding of a great country that cherished the rights of individuals, freedoms and liberty for all.

I am standing here to protect freedom and liberty here in the state of New York.

Kathy Hochul
New York State Governor
July 2, 2022
N.Y. Lawmakers Respond on Guns and Abortion After Supreme Court Rulings
[This was shortly before signing a gun owner control bill:

The state’s new gun law bars the carrying of handguns in many public settings such as subways and buses, parks, hospitals, stadiums and day cares. Guns will be off-limits on private property unless the property owner indicates that he or she expressly allows them. At the last minute, lawmakers added Times Square to the list of restricted sites.

The law also requires permit applicants to undergo 16 hours of training on the handling of guns and two hours of firing range training, as well as an in-person interview and a written exam. Applicants will also be subject to the scrutiny of local officials, who will retain some discretion in the permitting process.

As Lyle has frequently said (paraphrasing), they demand the freedom to do evil.

They won’t stop until they are prosecuted or die off.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Editorial Board @ WSJ

Posted on by

When the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that segregated schools were illegal, many politicians in the South refused to obey. In Virginia opponents of the Court’s decision proudly called this “massive resistance,” and a decade of social strife followed. These days the massive resistance is on the political left, as exemplified by New York state’s new gun law that defies the Supreme Court’s late June ruling solidifying individual gun rights.

The Editorial Board
Wall Street Journal
New York’s ‘Massive Resistance’ to the Supreme Court on Guns
Albany passes a law that willfully defies the ruling that the right to bear arms extends beyond the home.
[I find it very telling that in both cases it is the Democrats who are opposed to the exercise of civil rights to the point of defying the Supreme Court of the United States.

I hope they Enjoy Their Trial.—Joe]

Long live Clarence Thomas

Posted on by

I found this interesting:

Clarence Thomas is at the peak of his power

Clarence Thomas is suddenly, for the first time since his confirmation, the main character at the Supreme Court.

Why it matters: Thomas is more powerful than he’s ever been inside the court, and ideas that the legal establishment once treated as his quirky hobbyhorses now carry increasing weight.

…

The big picture: Thomas has spent years essentially laying out a whole parallel understanding of the law. He’s one of the court’s most prolific authors of solo dissents, according to Adam Feldman of Empirical SCOTUS, and has also written a slew of solo concurrences similar to last week’s.

  • Thomas doesn’t just write a dissent here and an additional point about a majority holding there, but rather has created a whole ecosystem of opinions that build on and reference each other almost in the same way as the court’s actual precedents, except for the fact that they are all one man speaking only for himself.
  • Thomas’ solo opinion in last week’s abortion case cited 11 of his past opinions, 10 of which were solo opinions. It drew more heavily from the Clarence Thomas Cinematic Universe than from the rest of the court’s historical precedents, dissents and non-Thomas concurrences.

But as the makeup of the court has shifted around him, Thomas’ views have gotten more influential. And that influence will only grow.

Thomas is a huge influence for good. Not just in the gun rights arena, but in rolling back the power of big government.

Quote of the day—Edward-Isaac Dovere

Posted on by

After string of Supreme Court setbacks, Democrats wonder whether Biden White House is capable of urgency moment demands

Edward-Isaac Dovere
CNN on July 6, 2022
[Read the entire article! It is as if they were writing some of their best fiction about President Trump.

When the Democrat President has lost CNN you known things are really bad.—Joe]

No concept of overstating things

Posted on by

You have to wonder how they imagine people will take them seriously when they say things like this:

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority is a threat to the world

The Supreme Court spent recent weeks triggering political and legal earthquakes across America. But its latest audacious blow could affect the entire planet.

After advancing the Republican Party’s agenda by overturning the federal right to an abortion and loosening gun laws, the conservative court majority built by former President Donald Trump on Thursday limited the government’s capacity to fight climate change.

In a 6-3 ruling, the justices held that US law did not give the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to set caps on planet-warming emissions from power plants.

The lies are so outrageous they are funny!

I regard the fact that the legacy media and the politicians they support get away with such extreme lies more of a threat than anything SCOTUS has the power to do.

Quote of the day—Mark Oliva

Posted on by

President Biden stood on the campaign stage in one of the early debates and said that firearms manufacturers are the enemy; not an adversary, not an opponent, an enemy. That is compelling when our commander in chief views the industry that provides the means to protect our nation, protect our communities, and protect ourselves, as the enemy.

Mark Oliva
Managing Director
National Shooting Sports Foundation
July 4, 2022
Gun Makers Go South
The firearms industry abandons blue states to avoid crushing regulations
[Not that it should be a surprise to anyone. But it is something to keep in mind. This is what the current administrations thinks of our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It, and those that exercise it, are their enemy.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John @6102cd

Posted on by

A self-centered political philosophy.

“This thing scares me, so ban it” (guns)

“This thing is difficult for me to get, so provide it.” (Healthcare)

“I want to break this law, so don’t enforce it” (drugs)

John @6102cd
Tweeted on June 13, 2022
[In response to the question:

Ultra progressives seem to want both more laws (e.g., gun control) but also less punishment for breaking laws (e.g., criminal justice reform).

How can we interpret this seeming contradiction?

It appears to be a very strong hypothesis.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Timur

Posted on by

Propaganda that knows what strings of human nature to play is a powerful weapon. In fact, propaganda is more dangerous than the atomic bomb. Because it is propaganda that sooner or later will justify its use.

Timur
June, 2022
A Russian journalist asked his former classmates about the Ukraine war. The answers were disturbing.
[Propaganda of the anti-gun people is of this type.

Of course, if you look at the fundraising propaganda of any successful political organization it will play on the “strings of human nature”. Use cold reason and be especially wary of crowds cheering a charismatic leader.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brad Polumbo

Posted on by

While our constitutional republic is meant to give the people the ultimate power over our government, the Bill of Rights specifically serves to constrain the will of the majority when it comes to individual rights. The idea was that some things are off-limits, even if 51% of the population would vote to restrict them. Pure, absolute democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority. At different points in our history, things such as slavery, segregation, denying women the vote, speech bans, and more would have garnered majority support among voters. That’s why we added amendments to take these egregious injustices off the table.

In the same way, the right to defend your life is an inherent human right, one that the Second Amendment simply recognizes. And the very point of the Bill of Rights is that such rights aren’t supposed to be up for debate at the federal or local level.

Democrats should realize that it’s not an argument against the court’s ruling to point out that a majority of New Yorkers support restricting this right — it’s a reminder as to why the court’s decision is so desperately needed.

Brad Polumbo
June 24, 2022
What Democrats get wrong about Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decision
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alice Smith @TheAliceSmith

Posted on by

If the Left got the “bodily autonomy” they claim to want, there wouldn’t be much of their State remaining.

So, you really want bodily autonomy do you, including autonomy in time, resources, property, wealth, speech and health, do you?

Naw, thought not.

Alice Smith @TheAliceSmith
Tweeted on June 26, 2022
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

She probably doesn’t trust numbers

Posted on by

This is very telling:

She probably feels this way because she doesn’t trust numbers to give her the correct answer.

Quote of the day—Kevin Sorbo @ksorbs

Posted on by

Politicians should be limited to two terms: 1 in office and 1 in prison.

Kevin Sorbo @ksorbs
Tweeted on June 20, 2022
[This merits serious consideration. In a few rare cases, after completing their term in office, the death penalty is probably too harsh.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Snyder

Posted on by

A historic economic nightmare is here, and the guy in the White House is all out of answers.

So buckle up and try to enjoy the ride.

The months ahead are going to be quite chaotic, and you probably don’t even want to think about what is coming after that.

Michael Snyder
June 2, 2022
Americans Will Never Forget The Historic Economic Collapse During Joe Biden’s Presidency
[I want an underground bunker in Idaho.—Joe]

What gun for riots?

Posted on by

Do you want to know what type of gun used to be advertised for riots?

Skip the riot shotguns. Go straight to the real thing.

Read the fine print:

image

I expect that even with moderate application of the belt fed 30.06 there would be very few repeat offenders.

Originally tweeted by Sal the Agorist @SallyMayweather

Referred to me via a tweet from Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras.

FPC mission

Posted on by

From Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation:

Our Mission

  1. Establish a regulatory environment in which every individual adult in the United States who is not prohibited from exercising rights under an analysis consistent with the Constitution’s text, informed by American history and tradition, can:

    • Acquire and possess (“keep”) all bearable arms in “common use for lawful purposes”:

      including but not limited to semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns regulated as “assault weapons”;

      firearm magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds; blades; and, other defensive arms.

    • Carry (“bear”) loaded, operable arms on their person and in their vehicles, in public, for self-defense and all lawful purposes;

    • Personally build (self-manufacture) arms, including by and through the acquisition and possession of the tools, information/files, and materials/supplies to do so; and,

    • Protect the resources, markets, and conduct essential to the above.

  2. Expand young peoples’ understanding and adoption of the philosophy of natural rights and private property, and the adoption and lawful use of the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of speech, and other essential liberties to maximize preservation and expansion of freedom in future generations.

  3. Establish clear protections against prohibition and/or seizure of personal property, as well as unjust incarceration for the exercise of fundamental rights.

  4. Opportunistically leverage changing cultural, political, and legal environments to achieve tactical victories and divert enemy resources (i.e., funding and personnel) away from strategically critical areas to reduce enemy effectiveness.

  5. Upon achieving all of the above, establish a new vision and strategic objectives consistent with the Organization’s Purpose and expanded field of operation.

I support this. I like the way the content is expressed.

And from the Firearms Policy Coalition

OUR CURRENT AREAS OF OPERATION

CULTURE: Using the FPC Team of advocates:

  1. Grow and support a nation-wide network of informed, vocal individuals who actively promote the philosophy of natural rights and work to eliminate laws and policies that limit or otherwise conflict with liberty;
  2. Support policy changes consistent with the [FPC] Purpose and Mission;
  3. Encourage the People to draw a hard line and reject government expansion and interference with the People’s rights and liberty (i.e., “Fuck you. No.”).

I follow them on Twitter and I really like their constant engagement and feisty attitude.

Each month I donate, matched dollar for dollar by my employer, to the foundation

Exaggeration does not help their case

Posted on by

When I read something like this I am inclined to dismiss everything they say because of the exaggeration (emphasis added):

In overruling Roe v. Wade, and with it nearly 50 years of American law, and expanding the reach of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, which is a jurisprudential innovation of more recent vintage, the Supreme Court wants the public to accept that history rules the present — and that our founding charter, which is hailed as a beacon of liberty pointing to a more perfect union, reflects rules set in stone that no judge should dare disturb.

This is just one example from the article.

I almost want to scream at them:

Judges must interpret the law as written! They don’t get to change it.

If the constitution needs to be changed to allow a new law, or strike down an existing one, then there is a process to change the constitution. USE IT! Do not expect judges to be some sort of super legislators.

Quote of the day—Chet

Posted on by

The problem is not Mental illness! In the best-case gun control is a stupid attempt to address a symptom of the breakdown of society. The ills of society that we are seeing is due to that very society and addressing the symptoms cannot fix the ills. It is society that has gone amuck. It is society that needs fixing.

Look back 50+ years. Guns could be purchase if you had the money. You could live in a shack if that is what you could afford. There were definite expected roles for men and different expected roles for women. Boys were given a gun on becoming of age usually in their early teens. There were jobs even for people on the lower half of the IQ curve. A single wage earner was sufficient to raise a family though it was preferable not to be a hired hand.

So today, it is women and POC that get the jobs and the promotions. What is a young man to think when society is saying that he has no role? That he is not wanted? Yet, he can look at what is being achieved and be alarmed.

Does recognizing reality make him mental ill?

Chet
June 12, 2022
Comment to Insightful observation
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Justice Samuel Alito

Posted on by

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?

The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?

The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1

The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.

Justice Samuel Alito
June 23, 2022
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.
[I suspect that to Alito these are actually rhetorical questions. By now it should be increasingly clear anti-gun people are not rational. To many of them it is perfectly obvious that if someone, not an authorized government employee, possesses a gun they are “a bad guy”. That is their default way to determine good from evil. If someone has a gun they are evil and/or have intent to do evil, and should be taken into custody to prevent the crimes which they know will happen. That we want private citizens to be able possess guns is blindingly obvious proof that we want to create more criminals and crime. It’s “common sense” to them. No further discussion is needed.

And it happens at the Supreme Court of United States of America.

That is how messed up and prevalent their thinking is. It is how they justify summary execution and genocide for gun owners.

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]