Via ripper.
This was certainly true in Europe a few decades ago:
Is it true at on this continent at this time? Maybe not. But if we decide it isn’t true, act accordingly, we are making that choice for not only ourselves but all of our descendants and probably for all time. If that is the wrong choice we won’t get to change our response.
The risk far too great to take the chance. Do not give up another inch of our right to keep and bear arms.
There are two types who want gun control: those who understand the failures inherent to it but use it to further an ulterior motive.
Then there is you: not able to put the pieces together to see you are nothing more than what Lenin would have called a useful idiot.
Hellhound Phoenix #AKF @PhoenixTruths
Tweeted on June 27, 2019
[Excellent observation!—Joe]
People can predict with modest accuracy whether a man (but not a woman) has cheated before based solely on the appearance of his face, according to a recent study published in Royal Society Open Science. In other words, we seem to have a limited ability to pick out men who have committed infidelity just by looking at them.
I’m having trouble coming up with plausible reasons for this to be true. Perhaps a particular physical appearance gives them more opportunities/temptation.
In 1986, Congress enacted the Firearm Owners Protection Act (“FOPA”), which includes a ban on the transfer or possession of a machinegun not lawfully possessed and registered by May 19, 1986. 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). But before § 992(o) came 26 U.S.C § 5861(d), which makes it unlawful “to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered” (emphasis added). After FOPA, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”) no longer accepted the registration of and payment of taxes on new machineguns. In stripping § 5861(d) of all revenue-raising potential, § 922(o) mooted § 5861(d)’s constitutional warrant under Congress’s Taxing Power.
In addition, § 922(o) renders § 5861(d)’s application a violation of appellant’s right to due process. Because ATF will not accept the registration of new machineguns, compliance with § 5861(d) is impossible. Section 5861(d) is thus in irreconcilable conflict with § 922(o), and since Congress enacted the latter after the former, it controls.
Amici also caution against what we perceive to be a concerning departure from fundamental rights jurisprudence. By refusing to present an analysis of why the regulation of machineguns is beyond the scope of the Second Amendment, the courts are glazing over an important constitutional question. If a class of arms can be regulated nearly to the point of a categorical ban—which machineguns may well be—the American people deserve to at least know the constitutional justification.
Ilya Shapiro and Matthew Larosiere
June 20, 2019
BRIEF OF THE CATO INSTITUTE AND FIREARMS POLICY COALITION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
[My translation is as follows:
The original constitutional justification for the regulation of machine guns was that it was a transfer tax ($200) each time the gun changed ownership. Since congress had the constitutional power to tax they could require the registration of machine guns to enable them to collect the taxes.
In 1986 congress declared the ATF shall no longer accept registration and taxation of new machine guns. This removed the possibility of collecting taxes on new machine guns. This means that the original constitutional justification for the regulation of machine guns no longer exists.
Hence, we, the people, are entitled to either the ability to purchase new machine guns or a constitutional justification as to why not.
I did not expect a challenge to machine gun law for at least several more years. I hope it’s not too soon. I would have preferred it wait until Trump has appointed another SCOTUS justice or two and we had a ruling that said semiautomatic rifles were protected.
We live in interesting times.—Joe]
Los Angeles and San Francisco usually control most of what we get in the state of California. We don’t appreciate them dictating to us like they’ve been doing.
Jeff Williams
Mayor of Needles California
June 24, 2019
Needles declared itself a “2nd Amendment Sanctuary” city; wants exemption to some state gun laws
[You have to wonder what all the geniuses who thought of up the “sanctuary city/county/state” stuff for criminals think of sanctuary for people exercising their specific enumerated rights. I suspect we are soon going to find out.—Joe]
It’s long been observed that the political left frequently eats its own when it gets enough power. Just look at what happened in the USSR. Tens of millions murdered by their own government or put in the gulags. Read The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume One) for a taste of what went on there. Large numbers of those people believed they were loyal supporters of the communist government.
The problem that once you have purity tests and people to maintain political purity the requirements get more and more strict. Just think of the “micro aggression”, “dog whistle”, and “code word” criteria being enforced in many instances in this country. It becomes a positive feedback loop with escalating standards of purity.
I review this as background for what is happening at Google (via an email from Chet who describes it as “Google’s civil war”):
San Francisco Pride organizers say they won’t ban Google from the annual Pride Parade on Sunday, despite receiving a letter signed by almost 100 Google employees concerned about how their company handles hate speech.
The employees asked for Google to be banned from the pride parade on June 30th. The company came under fire this month for refusing to remove homophobic videos targeting a journalist. Instead, YouTube banned hate speech and demonetized the channel. However, the company still offered a platform for the pundit, Steven Crowder, to direct his viewers to a site to purchase merchandise.
Google management will have some “interesting” choices to make if the DOJ and/or congress tells them they need to cut the crap on attempting to swing elections at the same time 10s of thousands of employees are demanding they adhere to more higher and higher levels of leftist politically purity.
YEP. I’M COMING FOR YOUR AR15
You heard me. No apologies. The same reason you don’t need a lion to protect your home, is why you don’t need a rifle that shoots at 3X the speed of sound and splits concrete like ice. It’s an unreasonable risk.
Nate McMurray @Nate_McMurray
Tweeted on June 24, 2019
[McMurray is not some random troll bot. He is running for U.S. Congress.
It looks to me like he is confessing to the violation of 18 USC 241 and is trying for 18 USC 242 as well.—Joe]
I had relatively modest goals for my Area One performance:
I met my goals. In Limited I came in 81st out of 118 shooters. If you just look at Limited B class shooters then I came in 32nd out of 38. Or if you just look at Limited Seniors then I came in 9th out of 15. And finally, my favorite view, in Limited, Senior, B class shooters I came in 2nd out of four shooters.
I had a good time at the match. My squad was very pleasant to be with. The last time I went to Area One, over 20 years ago, it was sometimes very uncomfortable. Some shooters were very aggressive in asserting their bullets had touch scoring rings that the R.O. called as out. I didn’t like that atmosphere. These were nice people to be with.
One of the most unusual event I have heard of at a USPSA match is that one guy got DQ’d at the chronograph stage:
I have a lot more to say about the event. But that is going to wait until I have time to edit the video.
For years I’ve wanted to be able to legally conceal carry in Oregon. It seems that there are several times a year when Barb and I go through there. Last weekend I shot in the USPSA Area One Championship (results here, I came in 81st out of 118 in Limited) outside of Bend Oregon. About a year ago we visited Crater Lake (where Barb proposed to me) and several other interesting parks with interesting geological attractions. We have gone to Portland to Powell’s City of Books and Voodoo Donuts. And while Lava Beds National Monument is actually in California, I would like to take her to visit that someday. It is just over the border from Oregon and we would probably drive from Washington. The problem is that Oregon doesn’t recognize concealed carry license from any other state.
Since I was going to be in central Oregon for several day for the match I looked up the requirements for getting an Oregon Concealed Handgun license.
Most of the counties will not accept non Oregon residents even though the law allows for it. The counties add further restrictions such Columbia County:
You must have a current Washington State Concealed Handgun License to qualify for your Oregon permit. This permit can be used as one piece of identification when applying for your Oregon CHL. You must write a letter to Sheriff Dickerson stating why you want an Oregon Concealed Handgun License.
Your reasons must be compelling in nature. There will be a $10.00 administrative fee. The fee is applied to the cost of regular monitoring of criminal histories of Washington residents holding any type of Columbia County licenses or permits through the Sheriff’s Office.
Or Gillian County:
OUT OF STATE APPLICANTS: All out of state new applicants and renewals must include a statement of compelling business interest or other legitimate demonstrated need which exhibits a correlation to Gilliam County.
Oregon has 36 counties. I looked up the CHL requirement for 17 of them, working my way outward from my travel paths for the match, before finding one. The Grant County Sheriff’s office was very friendly to me. I made an appointment for 9:00 AM, showed up about 8:20 because I was concerned about finding the place. I offered to come back at the appointment time but the nice deputy, Anne Marie (I think), told me to come on in and she would take care of it.
About a half hour later I walked out with my Oregon CHL. It’s a nice addition to the family:
Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.
Jen Gennai
Head of Responsible Innovation, Google
May 2019
Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam
[Via a comment by Chet.
Watch the video. Genai explicitly says they are implementing “fairness” and that their definition of fairness is completely different from the definition of fairness used by the people who voted for Donald Trump. She says everyone got screwed over with the election of Trump and they can’t let that happen again in 2020.
Read her response to the video here.
Click to enlarge the images of the internal documents and read them. They are incredibly damning.
One of my first thoughts was, “It’s a good thing I’m not allowed to own a few tactical nukes at an affordable price. Otherwise Google would own radioactive craters instead office buildings and data centers.” I have since decided there are other, legal and moral, remedies available.—Joe]
We have SCOTUS decisions. They have insulting cartoons.
I think we are ultimately headed for some kind of violent showdown between the left and everyone else. They no longer know when to back off, and they lack the moral filters necessary to coexistence. We’re going to end up in an existential fight for our most fundamental rights, and literal self-preservation.
The Annoyed Man
June 22, 2019
Comment to MN: Self defense shooting trial built on gun control bumper sticker
[Certainly a case can be made for that. But it seems to me that they back off when they get some serious push back. I think at least some of them are more in touch with reality than we sometimes give them credit for. They may be crazy but they may not be stupid. They can “sober up” for short periods of time if they really need to.
Think about it. For a while there were marches with vandalism and sometimes riots nearly every week all over the country. And now how often do you see that?—Joe]
This is what they think of you:
Who, when they really think about it, can possibly believe that?
In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.
In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”
During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.
Stephen P. Halbrook
December 2, 2013
How the Nazis Used Gun Control
[See also the Belgian Corporal.
Avoid gun registration as best you can. And never register your guns in such a way that you can’t plausibly deny still owning them a month or two later. “Tragic boating accident” is the classic out. But there are lots of other ways.
Trading guns with close relatives in another state is sometime a legal and viable option. Or a chain of legal trades/purchases across families linked by marriage might work too.
If you don’t need for the trail to go cold in the short term quietly buy a gun from an elderly relative. In a dozen years or so the trail dies with the relative.
Move to another state, even if for a month, and purchase or trade there.
Never put yourself in a position to have your guns confiscated.—Joe]
It’s not just Chicago! One could make the case this is the conclusion reached in almost all political jurisdictions controlled by Democrats.
I’m certain that in many cases it’s not what they really believe. It just the rationalization they use to sell their victim disarmament agenda.
In the United States a far more frightening pathology – again, that gun control zealots fail to acknowledge or choose to ignore – is the fact that the majority of the most heinously vicious murderers in the history of our great Nation, including Gary Ridgway – who savagely murdered more people by himself than were lost at Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, and San Bernardino combined – never use a firearm during the commission of their brutality! John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Edward Gein, Donald Harvey, Anthony Sowell, Lawrence Bittaker, Roy Norris and on and on. The list of murder-intent monsters – who never used a firearm – is a horrifically long one, and this list silently grows each and every day.
PBinLostAngeles
June 4, 2019
Comment to Why Gun Ownership Rates Tell Us Little About Homicide Trends in America
[If someone wants to reduce murder rates then enabling people to defend themselves and quickly and reliably punishing murders is going to be far more effective than placing restrictions upon the access to the most effective defensive tools ever created.
The truth of this can be readily seen by looking at the data for successful defensive uses of firearms compared to the offensive uses of firearms. Defensive uses are far more common than offensive uses. Unless there is someway to accurately predict which people are going to use a particular type of tool to commit a violent crime then any restriction on that tool is going to affect the defensive use rate far more than the offensive use rate. If you can accurately predict which people are going to commit a violent crime then why is that person not locked up where they are far less likely to harm someone?
Obviously, it is impossible to accurately predict which people are going to commit violent crime. Hence, we are left with the conclusion that weapon control is counter productive if the goal is to reduce violent crime. But since the political left is insistent on weapon control, even when it is repeatedly shown to be, at best, of no benefit, we must conclude their goal is not the reduction of violent crime.—Joe]
Via email from Boomershooter, and Venezuela refugee, Luis:
I’ll have as speakers Senator Phil Fortunato, representatives Matt Shea and representative Robert Sutherland.
They are strong legislators that have stand and defend the 2nd Amendment.
They will be speaking in my district about what happen in Olympia in the last legislative session.
I sometimes see Fortunato at pistol matches at Renton Fish & Game. I like to hang out near him and hear stories about legislative stupidity. It confirms my belief that government power should be limited as much as is practical.
Luis spoke for a few minutes this year at Boomershoot. He is very concerned about the path Washington State is going down. It reminds him of what happened in Venezuela and he is working hard to prevent that from happening here.
As Dana Loesch frequently says:
Still waiting here for you to contact the authorities and have us all rounded up.
The NRA is a civil rights organization. That our political enemies regard the exercise and defense of a fundamental human right as terrorism tells you a lot about them. One thing is of particular note. If they think we are terrorists of greater significance than al-Qaida and ISIS then they want us imprisoned and/or dead.
If I get elected president of the United States of America with your help, if that happens, guns, we have the capacity now in a James Bond-style to make sure no one can pull a trigger unless their DNA and fingerprint is on it. We have that capacity to do it now. You know it.
Joe Biden
June 2019
Joe Biden: Build ‘James Bond-Style’ Guns That Don’t Fire Without DNA Match
[I suppose this technically true. It’s just that the DNA sample would have to taken to a lab, processed for a day or ten, then the results returned to the gun to give the gun the bang/no-bang decision. Unless, of course, Biden is mostly living in an alternate universe that has a different technology base than the universe the rest of are living in.
Even if the gun had technology for DNA matching built into the gun, at a reasonable price, and could process the result in a fraction of a second, the gun still wouldn’t protect against most of the scenarios the anti-gun people claim to want to protect against. We shed DNA all over the place. If some kid wants to shoot their parent’s gun a DNA sample is as available the parent’s hair brush. Some bad gun has grabbed a cop’s gun? If he whacks the cop along side the head with the butt of the gun and he has the grip dripping in cop DNA.
I’ve changed my mind. Biden doesn’t live in a alternate reality. He is just amazingly stupid. He has crap for brains and should be retired to an old folks home and encouraged to watch CSI reruns.—Joe]
