The Democrats don’t want black Americans to improve in the same way that drug dealers do not want their addicts to get clean.
Victimhood has been administered into the veins of black Americans by Left-wing politicians, hellbent on creating government junkies.
Candace Owens @RealCandaceO
Tweeted on June 29, 2019
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
We are at war now, a slow-motion, sneaky Civil War. If you deal with socialists. no matter what they call themselves, as anything but your mortal enemies, who want to kill you, and cook you, and eat you (to quote Bruce Willis)—if you fall for the blandishments of their foul, demented, idiot accomplices in the Republican Party—you are inviting extermination of everything you value and hold dear.
L. Neil Smith
December 2018
Why They Hate Donald Trump
[H/T to Tam.
It’s called a 4th generation war:
One of the key components is winning the culture component. Come out of the closet as a gun owner. Take a new shooter to the range. It’s a gateway “drug” to freedom.—Joe]
If Trump were to have a socialized medicine plan, it would cover treatment for whatever disease it is that causes liberals to consider socialism a good idea.
Harvey
June 26, 2019
Trump Truths: TrumpCare
[I find it humorous but the last I checked there wasn’t a cure for stupid.
Well, I suppose that isn’t entirely fair. A fair number of smart people believe socialism is a good idea because they believe they would be one of the special ones in power.—Joe]
Liberals Unable To Pass Background Checks Necessary To Buy The Guns They’ll Need To Take Guns Away From Law-Abiding Gun Owners is satire, but most of the points are completely valid. For example:
“And I know it’s gonna work,” Harris said, “because we’ll be taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. Obeying the law is what they do. It’s not like we’re trying to take guns out of the hands of criminals.”
Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone think that is unacceptable [sic]. We’re gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted. You cannot intimidate members of Congress, threaten members of Congress. It is against the law and it’s a shame in this United States of America.
Frederica Wilson
U.S. Representative to Congress (D)
July 2, 2019
[Via a tweet from Ali Alexander.
She goes on to blame President Trump for the general disrespect of Congress and the media.
I would like to suggest that if Rep Wilson didn’t have such crap for brains as to not realize people have the right, guaranteed by the First Amendment, to make fun of members of congress then she might enjoy a little more respect. But since you can’t fix stupid it looks like she is going to have to suffer being mocked and disrespected as long as she continues to open her mouth in public.—Joe]
Update: Others have expressed similar opinions but Michael Z. Williamson wins the Internet so far. This is just part of one of the first paragraphs of Challenge Accepted, Congresswhore
Per the First Amendment, Common Law, and in fact, Common Sense, I have the right to mock you however I wish. If I think you have the manners of a Denebian Slime Devil, then that’s what I’ll say. If I think you’re a textbook Demorrhoid–ignorant, retarded, bigoted, stupid and humorless–I’ll say so.
That’s the warm up.
Fast and Furious was a Justice Department program that allowed assault weapons — including .50-caliber rifles powerful enough to take down a helicopter — to be sold to Mexican drug cartels allegedly as a way to track them. But internal documents later revealed the real goal was to gin up a crisis requiring a crackdown on guns in America. Fast and Furious was merely a pretext for imposing stricter gun laws.
…
Team Obama conspired to derail investigations into who was responsible by first withholding documents under subpoena — for which Holder earned a contempt-of-Congress citation — and later claiming executive privilege to keep evidence sealed.
But thanks to the court order, Justice has to cough up the “sensitive” documents. So far it’s produced 20,500 lightly redacted pages, though congressional investigators say they hardly cover all the internal department communications under subpoena. They maintain the administration continues to “withhold thousands of documents.”
Paul Sperry
May 21, 2016
The scandal in Washington no one is talking about
[Via Say Uncle, Miguel.GFZ, and Andrew Branca.
Will the criminals finally be brought to justice?
Check out the date on the quote. That was over three years ago. So the answer is, almost for certain, no.—Joe]
It’s very slow going but the courts are giving us wins:
Today, New Jersey Second Amendment Society received Judge Hurd’s order denying NJ’s motion for summary judgement, granting NJ2AS’ motion for summary judgement, and subsequently ordering the State of NJ to provide New Jersey Second Amendment Society with unredacted copies of Attachments A, B and C to the 2005 New Jersey State Police Firearms Applicant Investigation Guide within 30 days.
It has been 8 years since we first filed our lawsuit to gain access to the guide.
I remember listening to Alan Gura talk a year or so after the Heller decision. He said 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.” That it took the New Jersey Second Amendment Society 8 years to get access to a few pieces of paper is very telling. The anti-gun forces really, really don’t want the public to know what they really think about, and how they treat, the Second Amendment.
It’s been 11 years since Heller and with the current rate of progress it looks to me like it could still be another 20 years before we might accomplish something that I might consider approaching an acceptable victory over the forces of evil.
as a poor person thinking logically do I A) want to spend $600 & up on an AR15 Im never going to carry because of a tiny peepee or B) spend $300 om a pistol I can CCW or C) spend $150 on a crappy hi-point I can CCW. Ill take B and C before A. But I do have balls.
Oculusprince2017 @Oculusprince201
Tweeted on May 26, 2019
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
There is so much fail in this line of “reasoning” it’s no surprise they went with Markley’s Law.—Joe]
Liberty Defense is developing Hexwave, a new disruptive technology that was exclusively licensed from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) uses 3D radar imaging and artificial intelligence to detect concealed weapons in urban settings.
…
Hexwave could be the next technology that replaces X-ray machines, such as for scanning bags in airports or other venues, and it also provides 3D scans of a person’s exterior as where X-ray can only provide 2D scans.
“Hexwave provides 3D imaging at a rate that is in real time — it can assess for threats while the person is still walking, which means it is well suited for higher, faster throughput,” Riker told VentureBeat.
The urban security market by 2020 to 2025 in North America is set to increase by 33%. The new 3D detection machine can revolutionize security at indoor high traffic crowded areas, like schools, malls, hotels, and places of worship, and protect outdoor high traffic areas, like airports, sports venues, government buildings, and bus/subway stations.
Will this sneak by the Fourth Amendment? If used in a common access public place, does this constitute an unwarranted search? The courts danced around the Fourth Amendment issues when doing searches at airports by saying, in essence, “You can still drive, ride a bus, and walk without being searched hence you are consenting to these searches.”
Also of great concern is the often used phrase “concealed means concealed” will no longer be true. Statists will use this technology to claim you don’t need to have a gun to protect yourself because they have the ability to prevent bad guys (everyone except agents of the state) from having a gun. While individual and groups of criminals are of obvious concern and a reasonable justification for private ownership and carry of self-defense firearms that isn’t the primary reason we have the Second Amendment. The primary reason is defense against the state. This technology could tip the balance in favor of dependency of the state for personal protection. This leading to inability to justify in the public eye the private carry and eventual ownership of firearms. This, of course, puts people at great risk of wholesale slaughter when our government goes completely rogue:
I work in computer security. You have to know a little computer software lingo to fully appreciate this but, including the hover text, xkcd gets it exactly correct:
Via Boomstickbiker @Boomstickbiker:
I could see this having potential for some home defense situations but in the more general case I’m going to stick with semi-auto small arms.
The only reward for putting up with craziness is more craziness.
Thomas Sowell
March 6, 1999
THOMAS SOWELL: Back again – random thoughts
[Barb and I have decades of experience with this on a personal level. And we all are seeing the clear and irrefutable truth of this in the political arena. We see it in economics, immigration policy, and especially with our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
The only way to deal with crazy is to not tolerate it. In many cases it is quite surprising how quickly they can put on a semi-rational face when you just say “No!” and have the means and will to enforce it..—Joe]
Just a few days after being sworn into office President Trump signed an executive order which required federal agencies to cut two existing regulations for every new regulation they implement. A year later he made a big deal out of repealing 22 regulations for each new rule issued.
Since I don’t spend that much time in Idaho and I live in Washington state, which it is a bigger threat to me, I don’t pay much attention to Idaho politics. But Joel M. was paying attention and sent me an email with nothing but a link to how the Idaho state legislature opted to—in essence—repeal the entire state regulatory code. Wow!
Following a link I learned that even though the Governor is an advocate of reducing regulations he wasn’t a significant force being this regulation reset:
All of those rules expire on July 1 — except the ones Little chooses to keep on a temporary basis until the Legislature can consider them early next year.
“This is an unusual situation,” said Jaclyn Kettler, a Boise State University political scientist. “It does open up a pretty big opportunity for Gov. Little.”
The situation in Idaho contrasts with other states, like Wisconsin, where the GOP-controlled Legislature sought to limit the powers of the Democratic governor.
Little said residents can trust him to be fair.
“I’m not looking at this as an opportunity to do mischief,” Little said during a public appearance Tuesday. “I do not want to exacerbate this thing. This was not our deal. We did not do this.”
Little has made clear his desire to cut regulations in Idaho, issuing an executive order in January requiring state agencies cut two rules for every new one.
A lot of people have said things that amounted to “we can’t vote our way out of big government.” But there is now some evidence that assertion may be in error.
We live in interesting times.
.
The 2nd Amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms. It guarantees it won’t be infringed. This is clear from the wording and from the U.S. Supreme Court:
The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
Chief Justice Morrison Waite
U.S. Supreme Court
U S v Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)
Sign the petition to change the wording on the White House web site to reflect the correct meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Background is here.
Time is important. A total of 100K signatures are needed in 30 days. At this time it needs 99,039 signatures by July 27, 2019 to get a response from the White House.
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]
