The word media no longer applies. And propogandist doesn’t seem to cover it.
In a just society one could buy a tag to hunt these things as an “invasive species”.
MTHead
August 26, 2020
Comment to Quote of the day—Andrew Pollack
[From the looks of the current path we are one I can easily see us soon living in an unjust society where no tag is needed.—Joe]
After my daughter’s murder, the media didn’t seem interested in the facts, so I found them myself. I learned that gun control laws didn’t fail my daughter, people did.
Andrew Pollack
August 25, 2020
‘Gun Control Laws Didn’t Fail My Daughter, People Did,’ Says Father of Parkland Shooting Victim
[Media interested in the facts? That’s funny! Really, really funny.
Remember how CNN portrayed Nick Sandmann?
That’s just one of the more famous examples. The media will publish things with single sentences having a half dozen factual errors in it without blushing.—Joe]
Yes, I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors. And I know — and myself, too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege.
Lisa Bender
Minneapolis Council President
June 8, 2020
Trump’s base instincts on display amid reckoning over Floyd’s death
[The required background info is that Bender says Minneapolis is going to defund the police. She is then asked, “What if in the middle of the night my home is broken into. Who do I call?” Her response is what you see above.
Without the video it is almost difficult to believe:
CAMEROTA: “What if in the middle of the night my home is broken into. Who do I call?”
BENDER: “Yes, I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors. And I know — and myself, too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege.” pic.twitter.com/WhubQ9yJIf
— Eddie Zipperer (@EddieZipperer) June 8, 2020
The best response I have seen so far is “Who made this Trump political ad?”—Joe]
Their strategy uses a lot of brinksmanship. They always take situations to a breaking point, but never allow them to reaching a state of total chaos or collapse.
Their idea is to induce a political change, not to destroy country. And if you are at the receiving end, It feels like its the end of the world, but really its not. That’s just their psyop campaign driving people crazy.
Think of 4G warfare like a political neutron bomb. The basic goal is to burn, discredit and besmirch the government actors to such a level that they have no choice other than to throw down hard or to resign. Since throwing down means shooting people, mass arrests, and free helicopter rides, most modern democracies choose not to go there, so they resign and the socialists put their own people in.
tads
June 9, 2020
The Great Bolivian Bogaloo of 2019
[Sound familiar?—Joe]
I received an email today from a honeypot I created for people looking for Dana Loesch’s address and phone number (use Google to search for “Dana Loesch’s address and phone number” to find my honeypot):
From: Dirk Digler <beefstew317@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2020 4:26 AM
To: DanaLoesch@joehuffman.org
Subject:Hey joe..
Go FIST FUK YOURSELF! And while you’re at it…fist fuk that filthy cunt too!! You people need to be taken out!
It’s so nice to have the voice of tolerance visit my website and comment every once in a while.
This is what they think of you. They want you dead.
Prepare accordingly.
Update: I sent my new visitor an email thanking him for visiting my web site. He replied in his usual gracious manner:
From: Dirk Digler <beefstew317@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2020 10:11 PM
To: DanaLoesch@joehuffman.org
Subject: Re:FUK OFF YOU CROOKED NRA CUNT !!!
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 6:32 PM <DanaLoesch@joehuffman.org> wrote:
Thank you so much for stopping by to visit: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2020/08/23/the-voice-of-tolerance/
-joe-
Internet headers from the email below the break:
An august group of feminists — including America’s most audacious abortion advocates — joined Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to former President Barack Obama, to form the “We Have Her Back” coalition and lobby the media for “anti-sexist” coverage of the Democratic vice presidential selection. The establishment media received a list of don’ts: Don’t question her attractiveness, her ambition, her experience, her likability, her electability or her qualifications.
Kamala Harris can say thank you. But do Democrats really need to lobby fellow Democrats?
We can engage in a two-minute laugh when we think about John McCain’s unveiling of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee just before the 2008 Republican convention. The feminists of the press betrayed pretty much the whole list.
…
Everyone who watches the left-wing media can see that you can be intensely sexist toward Sarah Palin and no one will ever apologize. To them, conservative Blacks aren’t really Black; conservative Latinos aren’t really Latino; and conservative women aren’t really women.
Tim Graham
August 13, 2020
Left-wing media owes Sarah Palin host of apologies
[While there are a lot of things politicians can get away with hypocrisy is one of the things that will cause the most trouble.
Democrats are far more vulnerable on this than their competitors. If you want democrats to lose votes point this out to their supporters.—Joe]
Democrats don’t want you to see this.
They’re scared that I’m exposing what life is like in Democrat run cities.
That’s why I’m running for Congress
Because All Black Lives Matter
Baltimore Matters
And black people don’t have to vote Democrat
Help us win https://t.co/CSOjc9aQlS pic.twitter.com/XnEDTaDDIG— Kimberly Klacik (@kimKBaltimore) August 17, 2020
[The video has almost 10 million views. I see the possibility of the Democrats having epic losses.—Joe]
Does anyone know why we talk about at a particular time but on a particular day. As in, “Let’s meet at noon on Sunday.” But never “Let’s meet on noon.” Or, “Let’s meet at Sunday.”
The Second Amendment, ultimately. That’s what it’s for.
Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays
Tweeted on August 17, 2020
[This was in response to a question about what is the defense against Coup V2.0 after the November election when President Trump is elected to a second term..
Prepare yourselves.—Joe]
As the Court explained in Turner II, the deferential principle outlined in Turner I applies mainly in “cases . . . involving congressional judgments concerning regulatory schemes of inherent complexity and assessments about the likely interaction of industries undergoing rapid economic and technological change. Though different in degree, the deference to Congress is in one respect akin to deference owed to administrative agencies because of their expertise.” Turner II, 520 U.S. at 196 (emphasis added). Not so here. While the issue of gun violence is important and emotionally charged, it does not involve highly technical or rapidly changing issues requiring such deference. The state cannot infringe on the people’s Second Amendment right, and then ask the courts to defer to its alleged “expertise” once its laws are challenged.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA DUNCAN; RICHARD LEWIS; PATRICK LOVETTE; DAVID MARGUGLIO; CHRISTOPHER WADDELL; CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant
August 14, 2020
[Another loophole closed by this decision!
California has been arguing that the legislature should be given deference when there is a conflict between what the courts say and what the legislature passes. This decision explains why that might sometimes be the case and why this is not the case in regards to the 2nd Amendment issues before the court.—Joe]
Don’t overlook the fact that those that are stealing stuff and making the excuse that it’s justified because of some perceived repression won’t hesitate to make the leap that it is alright to take your life for the very same reasons.
William Taylor @BillT
Tooted on August 17, 2020
[See also yesterday’s QOTD.—Joe]
Via daughter Kim:
Yup. Thomas Sowell is extremely toxic to socialists.
Dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen.
[Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.]
Christian Johann Heinrich Heine
Almansor: A Tragedy (1823)
As translated in True Religion (2003) by Graham Ward, p. 142
[Note that he wrote this nearly 100 years before USSR was created and 110 years before Nazi Germany began burning books and shortly thereafter people.
There is a sound reason why the progression from burning books to burning people occurs. The reason for the book burning is to stop the spread of “dangerous” ideas. When the book burning fail the desired goal then the spread of those ideas “must” be stopped by the “burning” of the people who spread the ideas.
Black Lives Matter and Antifa have taken the first step. Respond appropriately.—Joe]
A “substantial burden” on the Second Amendment is viewed not through a policy prism but through the lens of a fundamental and enumerated constitutional right. We would be looking through the wrong end of a sight-glass if we asked whether the government permits the people to retain some of the core fundamental and enumerated right. Instead, Heller counsels us to look at whether the government regulation restricts the core fundamental right from the outset. In other words, we look to what a restriction takes away rather than what it leaves behind. Here, California’s law takes away a substantial swath of the core constitutional right of self-defense because it bans possession of half of all magazines in America today, even though they are common in guns used for self-defense. In short, a law that takes away a substantial portion of arms commonly used by citizens for self-defense imposes a substantial burden on the Second Amendment.
…
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA DUNCAN; RICHARD LEWIS; PATRICK LOVETTE; DAVID MARGUGLIO; CHRISTOPHER WADDELL; CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant
August 14, 2020
[Excellent! I had not thought of this argument before.
This addresses the claim made by some (I exaggerated a bit to make the point) that as long as we have single shot 22 rifles available the Second Amendment is not infringed.—Joe]
I didn’t have the stomach to look at Biden’s website for his list of proposed infringements so I’m pleased that Ammo.com did the stomach churning work.
Commonality is determined largely by statistics. But a pure statistical inquiry may hide as much as it reveals. In the Second Amendment context, protected arms may not be numerically common by virtue of an unchallenged, unconstitutional regulation. Our colleagues in the Third and Seventh Circuits agree. See ANJRPC, 910 F.3d at 116 n.15 (common use alone “is not dispositive” because of an unconstitutional regulation restricting the quantity of protected arms in circulation); Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 2015) (“[I]t would be absurd to say that the reason why a particular weapon can be banned is that there is a statute banning it, so that it isn’t commonly owned. A law’s existence can’t be the source of its own constitutional validity.”). Thus, “[w]hile common use is an objective and largely statistical inquiry, typical possession requires us to look into both broad patterns of use and the subjective motives of gun owners.” New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 256 (2d Cir. 2015) (“NYSRPA”) (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted). As discussed earlier, nearly half of all magazines in the United States today hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. And the record shows that such magazines are overwhelmingly owned and used for lawful purposes. This is the antithesis of unusual. That LCMs are commonly used today for lawful purposes ends the inquiry into unusualness.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA DUNCAN; RICHARD LEWIS; PATRICK LOVETTE; DAVID MARGUGLIO; CHRISTOPHER WADDELL; CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant
August 14, 2020
[Emphasis added.
YES!
If upheld this eliminates the concern about machine guns being unprotected via Heller because they have been (essentially) banned since 1986 and hence can’t be considered “in common use”.—Joe]
I recently received an offer from Craft Holsters for a free holster if I did a review of the holster. I know someone with a Ruger SR40 and no holster for it so I asked to receive one for that gun. They promptly shipped the holster from Slovakia and I received it a few days later.
Here are some pictures:
It’s a really nice looking holster. It’s very solidly built and comfortable to wear. The gun fights tight and there was no worry of the gun falling out even if were to be turning somersaults or some other vigorous activity.
At the range I drew and fired probably a dozen times. Three of those times the rear snap popped loose. This allowed the holster to rotate forward increasing the cant to the point I couldn’t easily remove the gun from the holster. I wish they had used directional snaps:
Directional snaps, as seen in the two images above, require that you hook one side of the snap over, then push down on the other side to secure it in place. To unsnap it you must pull up on the side you pushed down when fastening it. It will not unfasten, without breaking, from pressure on the other side. In a holster the nondeliberate forces on the snap always come from the bottom side. Properly installed, the directional snap will prevent the problem I had with it coming unsnapped during the draw.
That said, after some use the friction decreased and I no longer had the problem. Still, I would worry about it happening again at the least opportune time.
One other concern I had was that holster covered up the magazine release. Other holsters I have do not cover it up:
With an exposed magazine release I can take an empty gun, put a full magazine in it, rack a round into the chamber, put the gun in the holster, remove the magazine, and top it of with another round, then put the magazine back in the gun while it is still in the holster.
I thought the covered magazine release prevented me from doing this. It turns out it doesn’t. I can press on the holster over the magazine release and actuate the release just fine. Of course this created a new concern. Could normal wearing of the holster put sufficient pressure on the holster to actuate the release? I tried to make this happen but the area of the holster over the release is in a soft spot below my ribs and above my hip bone where I couldn’t get anywhere near sufficient pressure to actuate the magazine release. I was able to make it happen once during a somewhat contorted draw.
Enough of my whining. Here are some things I really like about the holster.
Each of the two fastening straps can be put in three different positions:
This allows you to change the height and/or the cant of the holster.
The extra layer of leather near the mouth of the holster keeps the mouth open after the gun is drawn such that you can always reholster with one hand and not be wiggling the gun around to work it into the holster. You can keep the muzzle at a proper angle such that you aren’t going to explode a kidney if you manage to do something stupid with your trigger finger during the reholstering process.
The holster has a 5-year warranty.
The holster is priced at $65 plus $14 shipping.
It is shipping via DHL from Slovakia and you will received the holster in five to six business days. There was no taxes added so at $79 you get a really great value. A similar holster from Milt Sparks is $135. A similar holster from Kramer is $126.50 plus shipping.
Here is a video made by Craft
You should give this holster serious consideration. You get a good quality holster in the the comfort of leather for a great price. The also have other types of holsters for the Ruger SR40.
The state of California argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment for the Owners. We disagree with the government’s position, and we affirm. California Penal Code section 32310 severely burdens the core of the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. The statute is a poor means to accomplish the state’s interests and cannot survive strict scrutiny. But even if we applied intermediate scrutiny, the law would still fail.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA DUNCAN; RICHARD LEWIS; PATRICK LOVETTE; DAVID MARGUGLIO; CHRISTOPHER WADDELL; CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant
August 14, 2020
[Great news out of the ninth circuit. The case is about the constitutionally of bans on normal capacity magazines. This is the second time this case has been decided in our favor. See also these posts about the first time.
This lawsuit was supported by FPC and SAF who I (and my employer) have been donating thousands of dollars to each year. This is a partial return on my investment.
Almost for certain there will be a motion for en banc rehearing. “And as the Hawaii open carry case demonstrates, CTA is perfectly willing to sit on such requests for, quite literally, years.”—Joe]
To the people who are in disbelief that the woke Seattle City Council would fire a black woman police chief:
It’s never been about diversity; it’s about power.
Race is the means; Marxism is the end.
Christopher F. Rufo @realchrisrufo
Tweeted on August 11, 2020
[This seems to fit all the given data.—Joe]
For years when I would hear someone suggest people who descended from slaves in this country should be given reparations for the wrongs done to their ancestors I would almost immediately dismiss the idea. No one alive today has been legally a slave in this country. And no one alive today has legally been a slave owner in this country. So who and why should anyone alive today be responsible for something they didn’t do and who should receive compensation for a wrong they did not suffer?
I recently saw the error of my ways. I reached a state of enlightenment on my own. I am now in partial agreement with those who are demanding reparations for the terrible injustice inflicted upon so many people by legal slavery so many years ago.
With this blog post perhaps I can convince more people to see the light and spread the word of how we can deliver a small measure of belated justice. Please, hear me out on this. It’s important.
As I said in the opening paragraph the problem I initially saw with reparations is that no one alive today was alive when the wrongs occurred. But I now see that the descendants of those who were forcibly brought here would have had a much different life if their ancestors had not been brought here. Therefore if the descendants of people forcibly brought here choose to live their life in the land where their ancestors were taken from then I can see the justice in providing them a one-way ticket to their ancestral homeland on the condition they not return except for occasional visits.
With that part of the issue settled we still have the question of how to pay for this transportation. I think I have that issue figured out too.
It is my belief that there are some descendants of slaves who consider themselves fortunate that they were born in this country and are free citizens here rather than living in the land of their ancestors. Therefore, I propose these people pay the price of a single one-way ticket to a fund to send those who wish to escape this country back to their homeland.
If there are insufficient funds to send everyone desirous of returning then a GoFundMe account should be easily able to make up the difference. I know that I would pay a fair amount to such a fund just to get people to, once and for all time, stop whining about reparations. And I’m sure a lot of other people would too. I don’t think there would be any problems getting sufficient funding to sent all those people back to their homeland.
If, on the other hand, there ends up being an excess of funds in the account the funds should go to the descendants of the slave owners*. The reasoning for this is that the people grateful to be here rather than in their ancestral land owe a debt, which they have never paid for being here. It’s true that the descendants of the slave owners didn’t pay the price of bringing current wrongful residents here, but it makes as much or more sense than the original version of reparations.
There is one more wrinkle that I can see worth ironing out. Many of the descendants of wrongful residents are also descendants of people who voluntarily migrated here. I propose their contribution to the fund or ticket price for their return, whichever they chose, be prorated according to the percentage of DNA they have which traces back to the ancestral homeland of the slaves.
Please share and help heal the wounds of that terrible institution of legal slavery once and for all.
* To the best of my knowledge none of my ancestors were slave owners so I can’t see that I’m furthering my own self-interest here.
