BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has launched an online petition calling on Attorney General Pamela Bondi to launch investigations into restrictive gun control laws in a dozen states, and “to ultimately seek injunctions and/or restraining orders against any and all state laws and local regulations which are determined to infringe and/or impair the exercise of rights protected by the Second Amendment.”
CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said the petition will underscore the widespread public interest in the Committee’s request that Bondi direct the attention of her recently-announced “Second Amendment Task Force” at restrictive laws in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington.
“Response to our original request to Attorney General Bondi for 2A Task Force investigations in the states we suggested has been stunning,” Gottlieb said. “Hundreds of people from various states reacted to a report at Washington Gun Law, which has been viewed by more than 54,000 people. Similar coverage of our request at Guns & Gadgets has been viewed by more than 56,000 people and garnered almost 1,500 comments.
“Clearly,” Gottlieb continued, “embattled gun owners in the ‘Dirty Dozen’ states are crying out for relief from a pattern of penalization by state governments for crimes they didn’t commit. They are encouraged by the creation of AG Bondi’s 2A Task Force, and our online petition provides a platform by which they can make their case with the loudest, unified voice.”
The CCRKBA petition reminds the attorney general that “legislative attacks on our Second Amendment rights will continue unabated unless and until they are legally challenged.”
“A Task Force investigation of even one of the states on the ‘Dirty Dozen’ list would send a legal shot across the bow of lawmakers in all of those states to cool their jets where restrictive gun control is concerned,” Gottlieb said. “After years of incremental gun rights erosion by anti-gun politicians, the time has come to put them on the defensive and reveal just how constitutionally repugnant their gun prohibition crusade has become.”
I signed the petition. I encourage you to sign it as well. It may aid in taking another step closer to the day we get to enjoy their trials.
Our rights should not be held hostage by the failure of Democrats to control crime in the cities they run. Baltimore, one of the cities suing Glock, is a perfect example. That city represents 9% of Maryland’s population, but 38% of the state’s gun-related homicide. Ya guys, sure, Glock did this to you.
This type of thing happens so often. You might think they let crime run rampant on purpose, so they have an excuse to ban guns.
Okay. Sure. That is one of the leading hypotheses as to why the crime rates are so high. The other promising hypothesis is the culture in Democrat run cities is defective.
“Let me be clear. No DNC officer should ever attempt to influence the outcome of a primary election on behalf of an incumbent or challenger,” Martin, 51, told DNC members during a call.
“If you want to challenge incumbents, you can do that. Just not as an officer of the DNC.”
Hogg is not very bright.
I’m looking forward to the time he is fired from this job. I hope he ends up with a long career as a toilet cleaner.
Invading the privacy of law-abiding firearms owners and tracking their purchases is Orwellian and is unlikely to accomplish anything other than multiple daily violations of the Fourth Amendment. The very nature of this legislation automatically suspects every gun owner in the state of planning a violent crime and allows their privacy to be violated. This is 2025, not 1984, and ‘Big Brother’ should not be watching anybody.
The irony here is stunning. Democrats are constantly harping about things they say are a threat to democracy. Shredding the Constitution is the ultimate attack on our democracy.
The legislation presumes criminals will buy their guns and ammunition using credit cards. It is yet another manifestation of the anti-gun liberal mindset that most criminals get their guns and ammunition through traditional retail outlets, which underscores how detached from reality these people are. This will only further drive the real criminal market for guns and ammunition further underground.
Contrary to what gun prohibitionists must believe, New York firearms owners enjoy all constitutional protections, not just rights protected by the Second Amendment. By signing this legislation, Gov. Hochul has reinforced the belief that she and other Democrats consider gun owners to be second-class citizens whose every move, and every purchase, must be monitored and regulated by a government that treats them with fear and disdain. We are left to wonder which constitutional right Hochul and her colleagues will erode next.
Gottlieb wonders what right is next? I don’t wonder and I don’t think he does either. It is all of them. It is very clear freedom of speech has been under attack for years. Freedom of association and freedom of religion? Check. Right to a speedy trial? Check. Right to free and fair elections? Check. I could go on about taxes and many other things, but you get the drift.
Republicans have their faults as well with their insistence on infringements of social freedom.
I just want the government to leave me and my family alone in my underground bunker in Idaho.
It is far easier to concentrate power than to concentrate knowledge. That is why so much social engineering backfires and why so many despots have led their countries into disasters.
Today’s repeal of the Zero Tolerance Policy and the comprehensive review of stabilizing brace regulations and the definition of ‘engaged in the business’ marks a pivotal step toward restoring fairness and clarity in firearms regulation. We are committed to working with all stakeholders to ensure our policies are balanced, constitutional and protective of Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
the reason that men generally would prefer to marry women with a low-to-zero “body-count” is that the women tend to adjust their set-points to the best of each trait for the men they have slept with.
So to have a good chance at a long-lasting marriage, you have to be as nice as her first, as well-hung as her 5th, as long-lasting as her 8th, as rich as her 15th, as handsome as her 23rd, have as much free time as her 30th, be as ambitious as her 32nd, etc., etc., etc. That’s an impossible standard to meet, so they become bored / dissatisfied. If you are the only one she’s been with, then… you are the best of each of those things, and the odds of staying together are much better. If you point this out, high-body-count women will just slam you as “insecure,” of course.
…
Women control access to sex. Men control access to commitment.
A key that opens nearly any lock is a rare and valued item. A lock that can be opened by nearly any key is worthless.
We are not the same.
Citations? Just look at the research relating to divorce rates and number of partners the woman has before marriage. “Alpha widow” is a very real thing.
This just did not sound right to me from my recollection of the literature. I did not recall ever reading anything like this. I went searching for “What is the divorce rate for women versus the number of sex partners before marriage?”
I’ll save you the reading time and just give you his graphs:
Probably the most interesting data in Figure 1. is from prior to the year 2000. Women with just two partners prior to marriage had higher divorce rates than any other groups!
And note that 10+ category included those with 100+ partners!
The lowest divorce rate in all years is those with zero partners prior to marriage. But from Figure 2, we see they are also the highest percentage of women who attend church weekly. This leads us to ask, “Which is causation, if any, and what is merely correlation?” An alternate hypothesis to the number sex partners causing divorce could be in play. For example, “Church going women are less likely to divorce and have fewer partners due to social pressure.”
In any case that the data for two to nine partners is negatively correlated with the divorce rate! Also of important note, it is only for marriages in the 2000s that the 10+ group makes an obvious jump.
Some analysts of the study point out there may be other causative factors for divorces in high count marriages:
The presence of children from a previous marriage/relationship causes extra stress on the most recent marriage.
“Excess baggage” (mental/physical health issues, financial issues, family relationships, etc.) resulted in many broken previous non-marriage relationships.
Age at time of marriage.
I did another search on something somewhat related, “What is the divorce rate for U.S. swingers?” I found only one number for this question, 2.8%. There was no citation given for this number and I don’t believe it.
There were studies that looked at martial and sexual satisfaction of swingers versus monogamous marriages. These tended to show the swingers scoring higher (no pun intended) than monogamous couples. But the studies had potential issues with selection bias. Hence, I don’t take those studies as definitive.
There was one other thing that I found extremely interesting about my searches. There apparently has been little or no interest in looking at the divorce rates versus partner counts for men. I do not have a decent hypothesis for this.
Getting back to the Rolf’s assertion and his model for divorce rates versus premarital partners…
In 2017, Steve Stewart-Williams and I asked 188 participants from the U.K. to tell us how willing they would be to have a long-term relationship with someone based on their previous number of sexual partners. We started low: What if the person was a virgin? What about if they had just one previous partner? What about 19-22? What about more than 60? The participants rated 16 different histories in total, each time indicating their willingness on a nine-point scale from very willing to very unwilling.
Virgins, for both men and women, are not highly desired. And high counts were viewed harshly by people with low counts and low counts were viewed harshly by high counts:
The aim of this study was to explore how people’s sexual history affects their attractiveness. Using an Internet survey, 188 participants rated their willingness to engage in a relationship with a hypothetical individual with a specified number of past sexual partners, ranging from 0 to 60+. The effect of past partner number was very large. Average willingness ratings initially rose as past partner number rose, but then fell dramatically. For short-term relationships, men were more willing than women to get involved (although the difference was not large). For long-term relationships, in contrast, there was virtually no sex difference. Thus, contrary to the idea that male promiscuity is tolerated but female promiscuity is not, both sexes expressed equal reluctance to get involved with someone with an overly extensive sexual history. Finally, participants with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation (high SO participants) were more tolerant than low SO participants of prospective mates with higher numbers of past sexual partners but were also less tolerant of prospective mates with low numbers of past sexual partners.
Only 188 self-selected participants is a significant warning about limitations. But, my guess is the results point in the correct direction.
Pending review of new data, I do not believe Rolf’s model, or his conclusion are valid. Unless he is claiming this is only recent phenomena, the numbers prior to 2000 conclusively shoot down his model.
Concerned over reports of secret surveillance of American gun owners by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), U.S. Sen. Rand Paul is asking for answers.
On April 10, Sen. Paul, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, wrote a letter to ATF Director Daniel Driscoll requesting information on a secretive program that appears to allow the federal government to monitor law-abiding Americans attempting to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
According to Sen. Paul, based on limited public information, the NICS Audit Log Review (Monitoring) system appears to allow ATF agents to request monitoring of a target for time frames ranging from 30 to 180 days after providing identifying information and applicable or potential violations of statute. Upon approval, the ATF would receive an alert(s) from the FBI using the information in its National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
In climate and energy policy, certain well-intentioned ideas gain outsized popularity despite persistent evidence against them. One such appealing but deeply problematic approach is the “fabric first” philosophy — the notion that building decarbonization must begin by aggressively insulating and sealing structures, only later electrifying their heating systems. On the surface, it’s intuitive: if buildings leak less heat, they need less energy. Yet decades of research across multiple countries continue to reveal that “fabric first” consistently delivers far less than promised, saddling property owners and governments with excessive costs while barely reducing fossil fuel dependency.
…
In short, after decades of experience and analysis, the lesson is clear and overdue: if the goal is truly to decarbonize buildings rapidly, affordably, and permanently, electrification must lead the way. Insulation and sealing should support that goal—not substitute for it. Anything else is merely burning money and carbon while chasing a comforting illusion.
The reason why this is true is obvious in hindsight:
The culprit, as ever, was the infamous rebound effect: homeowners, now able to heat their spaces affordably, naturally sought higher comfort — warmer rooms, longer heating periods — and even added heated extensions to their properties.
This reminds me of the effect of “childproof” medicine bottles. It turns out that when people had small children and hazardous medicines, their behavior changed versus without “childproof” medicine bottles. They were less careful with the availability of their medicines when they had “childproof” medicine bottles. The end result was essentially the same accidental poisoning of small children.
It appears the psychology is that, in essence, people have a “set point” of risk level they are willing to accept. They used the increased safety of the containers to increase their convenience and maintained the same level of child safety.
And so it is with the heating bills. The people have a “set point” on what they will spend on heating cost and seek more comfort as the cost goes down.
The majority doesn’t seem to know that a flintlock musket would not fire without a flint, meaning that it is an essential part of an arm protected by the Second Amendment. And speaking of flintlocks, given the majority’s imperative that the more inferior the arm, the better, modern repeating arms that fire smokeless cartridges aren’t protected because single-shot flintlock firearms are available. But Heller explicitly rejected that argument.
While claiming that a magazine that holds over ten rounds is not an arm, the majority asserts that a magazine that holds ten or less is an arm because it “is necessary to the ordinary operation” of the firearm “as intended.” Ordinary operation as intended by whom? This made up distinction could be used to justify a ban on magazines that hold more than two rounds, as that would still allow the semiautomatic function.
It is not that the 9th Circuit Court “doesn’t seem to know.” They know what they are doing. They are just playing stupid.
They have delayed the correct ruling on the question of whether 10+ round magazines are protected arms since 2017. I will not be surprised if it they manage to delay it for a full decade. They should be prosecuted for this.
Why should Jews be armed and trained? Because it is our right and our choice to do so, and because no one can take that from us unless we allow them to. Because our heritage is survival. Because if we proclaim Never Again while demanding or expecting or hoping someone else will give it meaning, then we are fools.
The more media depictions veer away from reality, the greater the shock when people experience reality. Firearms instructors all have stories about the “aha!” moments of students who personally experience firearms after only media depictions.
When your belief structure is based on false assumptions, reality tends to bite. This is happening in the old Media. They are operating in a bubble where their false assumptions about reality and their groupthink are starting to intersect with reality. Their audiences don’t want what they are selling. Profits are plummeting. Their preferred solution: Have the government bail them out with subsidies.
One of the most important and misunderstood features of a market based economy is the right to fail. When ventures fail, more competent hands obtain the resources and make adjustments better tuned to reality. Progressive control of the media is failing. Their preferred solution is tyranny. The next election will determine if they succeed.
Progressives lost the national elections. Mainstream media is failing.
One can make the case that progressives have lost. But I think that is premature. There is still life left in them.
Keep pushing reality. As difficult as reality is, it is Kryptonite of the political left. Reality is the diagnosis, and potential cure, of their mental diseases.
Yesterday, Barb, her daughter Maddy, and I were our way to the Jolly Farmer Cliddesden for dinner after visiting some interesting sights. I looked to the side of the road and saw what looked like Stonehenge with some people and sheep. I gave my phone to Barb, and she took some pictures for me:
Yup. It was Stonehenge alright. We didn’t realize you could see it from a nearby road. The last time we visited, we took a about a two-hour bus ride from London to the entrance. This is from the opposite side.
It turns out that A303 goes right by it:
The visitor center is much further away as seen in the upper left-hand corner in the picture below:
After getting home today, I went out to do some errands. It was such a pleasure to drive on the correct side of the road. And so many of the roads there were very narrow and without shoulders.
I find it interesting this “real man” doesn’t know that you don’t need to touch your toes to prevent your guns from being taken before the ammo. You only need to touch the trigger.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
The tax stamp requirement for firearms and suppressors listed as controlled items under the National Firearms Act was intended to suppress Americans’ desire to fully-exercise their Second Amendment rights. It was – and is – a ‘sin tax. However, there is no sin in exercising a Constitutionally-protected right. We appreciate the leadership of Representative Hinson and Senator Cotton to eliminate this tax that only serves as a barrier to law-abiding citizens keeping and bearing arms.
In this study, we formally examine the association between penis size dissatisfaction and gun ownership in America. The primary hypothesis, derived from the psychosexual theory of gun ownership, asserts that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises will be more likely to personally own guns. To test this hypothesis, we used data collected from the 2023 Masculinity, Sexual Health, and Politics (MSHAP) survey, a national probability sample of 1,840 men, and regression analyses to model personal gun ownership as a function of penis size dissatisfaction, experiences with penis enlargement, social desirability, masculinity, body mass, mental health, and a range of sociodemographic characteristics. We find that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises are less likely to personally own guns across outcomes, including any gun ownership, military-style rifle ownership, and total number of guns owned. The inverse association between penis size dissatisfaction and gun ownership is linear; however, the association is weakest among men ages 60 and older. With these findings in mind, we failed to observe any differences in personal gun ownership between men who have and have not attempted penis enlargement. To our knowledge, this is the first study to formally examine the association between penis size and personal gun ownership in America. Our findings fail to support the psychosexual theory of gun ownership. Alternative theories are posited for the apparent inverse association between penis size dissatisfaction and personal gun ownership, including higher levels of testosterone and constructionist explanations.
There is something new in here. There is an inverse relationship that is useful for us to use. It IS projection:
men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises are less likely to personally own guns across outcomes, including any gun ownership, military-style rifle ownership, and total number of guns owned.
Save it, you can jerk off into it tonight while you dream about shooting people
OL @TheWizKid68 Posted on X, May 12, 2024
This was in my set of pending Markley’s Law examples. While it is a sexually related insult to gun owners it is a little too weak for a Markley’s Law Monday posting.
This mindset has the potential to have its own name. The belief that gun owners get sexually aroused by the thought of shooting, or have a desire to shoot, people is surprisingly common.
I think it demonstrates they have a poor theory of mind. There are therapies and drugs that sometimes help these people.
