Republicans didn’t want Merrick Garland confirmed, so they just didn’t vote. Democrats don’t want Brett Kavanaugh confirmed, so they accuse him of serial gang rape. And that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog
Tweeted on September 28, 2018
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Cancer does tend to spread if untreated. Growing into every nook in our society to impose their world view because their success in politics falls short of their over ambitious and impatient expectations. What’s the treatment for people like that?
Two can’t play their game as doing so would not align with many of our principles
Seeing the state of many states gun laws in the US, our “game” isn’t working either.
Basedgreaser
Comment posted in Northwest Firearms on the topic Gun Control: An Issue for Policymakers or Investors?
September 27, 2018
[I don’t have any good answers beyond voting for the best candidates, contacting your political representatives, and taking new shooters to the range.
My best hope lies with an originalist majority on SCOTUS. And I’m only moderately hopeful of that working.—Joe]
Right. And that actually corroborates Ford’s story.
Jennifer Granholm
September 23, 2018
CNN’s Jennifer Granholm Claims No Corroboration Actually Proves Claims Against Kavanaugh — Tucker Isn’t Buying It
[Context is important:
“Kavanaugh, Judge, Smith and her friend, Leland Keyser, have all said they don’t remember anything like this ever happening. And Leland Keyser, who says she believes Ford, said she doesn’t even remember being at a party where Kavanaugh was present,” CNN’s Jake Tapper said in the video.
“Right, and that actually corroborates Ford’s story which is that she was so horrified by this that she kind of snuck out or slunk out of this apartment in a way that no one would know what happened because she was so utterly mortified,” Granholm followed up.
Tucker Carlson commented, “Are you following this at home? See if you can track the reasoning here. When you are corroborating witnesses can’t corroborate your story, the one you say they can corroborate, your story has still been corroborated — maybe even more so so.”
So… In response to finding out that all of those who are claimed to be witness to an event report no recollection of the event this mental giant, Granholm, insists this supports the claim the event actually happened. The question I would have asked her is, “So, if all four people reported the event did happen would this mean the event did not happen?”
Of course, we know the answer. Logical thought processes are not something they care about. It may even be they are incapable of them. It may be they have a mental disorder. It may be that they are so used to a supportive media they know it doesn’t matter what they say as long as it supports the narrative. It may be that because it was someone from her “tribe” making the, almost certainly, false claim that there was no way she could comfortably side against the false claim.
Monday evening daughter Jaime and I were discussing the Kavanaugh situation and I arrived at the conclusion that the political left has realized their political future is over if Kavanaugh’s appointment to SCOTUS is confirmed. With that a near certainty, the risk of losing support via crazy, and even illegal, behavior is the better option. From the chaos generated they may be able to avoid near certain political extinction.
Tribal loyalties, even when they didn’t always match reality, were evolutionarily advantageous. That doesn’t meant they were useful in determining truth from falsity. Determination of truth, and even reality, is an extremely tough problem. Our brains only have approximations of knowing reality. It has only been since the dark ages that we have succeeded in formalizing processes, with extreme difficulty, and proteolyzing these processes which usually work. Most people do not follow these processes and in many cases actively reject them. It is relatively easy to support the claim that reason is just a thin veneer over the human brain.
I suspect her mind worked back from the conclusion she had reached and this was the best way of rationalizing the conclusion from the available evidence. I have found there is no guarantee smart people will think logically. Smart people are frequently just more creative in their rationalizations.
When in positions of power these people are extremely dangerous. These are the type of people who can and will find a rationalization to commit genocide.—Joe]
Via email from last week (with permission, and a minor typo fixed):
Just wanted to pass on that I received a reference request from a past student (16 years ago). I really could not remember her, so I did a Google search. The first thing that popped up was that she was a Quote of the Day on your blog a few months ago. Her short rant was about gun lovers having small penises and wanting us all dead! She obviously did not remember, from all those years ago, that I am a Life Member of the N.R.A. Not likely to get a reference from me.
This really made my day. I still have a bit of a “glow” from this.
Haha we’re gonna take your guns soon. Lol get ready
BlueWaveResister @libresister
Tweeted on September 24, 2018
[There were some good responses to this. My favorite was:
Only a fool wishes for a war with 150,000,000 armed citizens against people who don’t know what bathroom to use.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Courts have never required plaintiffs to demonstrate that the government directly attempted to suppress their protected expression in order to establish First Amendment retaliation, and they have often upheld First Amendment retaliation claims involving adverse economic action designed to chill speech indirectly.
…
Were it otherwise, the First Amendment would prohibit the government from pressuring a newspaper to remove a speaker’s advertisement, but it would allow the government to bankrupt the speaker by pressuring its business partners to terminate their contracts. That absurd result has no foundation in the law.
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
August 24, 2018
BRIEF OF [PROPOSED] AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION IN SUPPORT OF THE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[A short version of the context is:
A campaign by New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo to crack down on the National Rifle Association and similar groups is facing its first big legal test, with a federal judge expected to decide soon whether to allow a challenge to go forward.
Cuomo’s administration has asked Judge Thomas McAvoy of the U.S. Northern District of New York to throw out a First Amendment lawsuit by the NRA that claims the policy restricting financial activity with pro-gun organizations amounts to viewpoint discrimination.
The judge heard arguments on the motion to dismiss on Sept. 10. The decision, whatever it may be, will have far-reaching ramifications for free-speech and gun rights, the limits of financial regulation and possibly even the 2020 presidential contest.
The case has prompted an unusual alliance. The liberal American Civil Liberties Union, despite its support for gun control, filed a friend of the court brief in defense of the free-speech rights of the NRA.
According to the ACLU what the state of New York is claiming is that since the state didn’t tell the NRA they couldn’t exercise their right to speech the NRA does not have a First Amendment claim to push in court. Nevermind that the state told banks and insurance companies they should “consider the risk to their reputations” if they did business with the NRA. Shortly after that they were slapped with fines costing them millions of dollars.
Governor Cuomo is exceedingly dimwitted if he believes the argument he is making. I’m wondering if his comprehension would improve if the banks and insurance companies were to refuse to do business with any entity which sold food or water which found its way to the governor or his family.—Joe]
Gary Kleck,a criminologist from Florida State University, and Paul Helmke, the former president and CEO of the Brady Center/Brady debate the claim:
While laws that prohibit gun ownership would reduce crimes perpetrated by criminals, that benefit would be more than offset by the foregone opportunities for defensive gun use by victims of crime.
…
It was an Oxford-style debate in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. Kleck, arguing the affirmative, prevailed by convincing about six percent of audience members to change their minds.
Therefore, what we have here is a criminologist debating a criminal. And, as is usually the case in a fair intellectual fight, the truth wins.
I would like to suggest a series of debates with a similar theme leading up to a debate about the criminal penalties those who infringe, or advocate for the infringing of, the right to keep and bear arms. Something like:
Since the infringing upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms by numerous government officials has resulted in reduced ability to defend against violent predators, including the government itself, and this resulted in countless unnecessary deaths, rapes, injuries, and property loss, is the death penalty sufficient? Should the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment be lifted?
I am inclined to hold that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment should remain in place. But I’m willing to listen if someone wishes to convince me otherwise.
Sorry kids, but those lax gun laws help Cletus feel less bad about his tiny penis. Your lives just aren’t as important as that.
Mental Health Hazzard @mental_hazzard
Tweeted on September 18, 2018
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
If this Mental Health Hazzard actually believes that “lax gun laws” are responsible for the death of children or that gun ownership has anything to do with penis size they have mental acuity issues as well as mental health issues. I suspect it is either about compensation for their lack of understanding of criminology, psychology, constitutional law, natural law, and the practicality of restricting a highly valued commodity or they are trolling for the entertainment value.—Joe]
It is my firm belief that Fast and Furious was created to advance the gun-ban agenda of the Obama administration. Those in charge of it created a government-funded program to deliver thousands of guns to murderers with the sole goal of using the resulting crimes as leverage to reduce gun rights. Part of the plan was to guarantee that people were killed, and if that had to be law enforcement officers, “you have to break some eggs.” Individuals and companies would be destroyed as an integral part of the plan.
Remember the story. Share this frightening tale of government agencies being used to advance political agendas. Consider that many of the same people are still in power, operating on their own to effect elections or push agendas.
Imagine what the “It’s impossible to fire a federal employee” activists inside government will do under a Democratic-party controlled Congress or White House. Actually, there’s no need to imagine. We’ve seen the depths of depravity they sink to.
Tom Gresham
September 20, 2018
TRIGGERED!
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Via a tweet from less fat Dave.
And this is why we should still talk about killing Communists. Because human lives are more important than Communist lives.
Michael Z. Williamson
September 20, 2018
Why We Should Still Be Talking About Killing Communists
[Some people might argue this is overstated and oversimplified.
A more persuasive argument for me is there is a place for dramatic effect.—Joe]
These processes are so bureaucratic that if you have no resources at all, it really is impossible to get the help you need.
Joshua Browder
September 20, 2018
Meet the Robot Lawyer Fighting Fines, Fees, and Red Tape
DoNotPay is launching a “denial of service attack on the legal system to make it better.”
[I could see this being useful in places like New York City where gun ownership is, technically, legal but is out of the reach of anyone except those who have the money for a lawyer.
Of course I could also see government entities getting their own “robot lawyers” and you end up in a proxy war with the outcome out of human hands.
Interesting times…—Joe]
The bullets, they do the killing, they kill. It’s up to us to figure out a way to wrap laws around the purchasing of ammunition.
Reggie Reg Davis
Wayne County Commissioner (Detroit)
September 16, 2018
Wayne County leader wants to make it harder to buy bullets
[No.
Just as “wrapping laws” around the purchase of alcohol and other recreational drugs didn’t improve society the restriction of a specific enumerated right not only won’t improve society it will be an infringement upon the natural right to defend ourselves.
People can make ammunition from scrap metal a few relatively simple tools. Just as with recreational drugs, it won’t be of the highest quality but it will be good enough to get the job done. And it this case the job will be restoring our rights.
Reggie Reg Davis, Molṑn labé.—Joe]
Companies like Facebook are the largest surveillance organizations on the planet, and they need to be recognized as such.
Bruce Schneier
October 24, 2017
An interview with Bruce Schneier on the Internet of Things, global surveillance, and cybersecurity
[I could tell you a lot more. There is stuff that will make your skin crawl. Ask me in person sometime.—Joe]
What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development.
Bill de Blasio
New York City Mayor
August 2017
[That explains a lot. He has more in common with Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin than John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.
Expect similar differences in outcomes as well.—Joe]
There’s no such thing as a responsible gun owner. A responsible person wouldn’t own a gun unless they were a police officer. These are little boys with tiny little members who just can’t get over the fact that they’ll never measure up.
Douglas Fullpint
2017
Facebook comment
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via email from Steve O.
In order to make this claim Fullpint must have access to the mental evaluations and physical measurements of all gun owners in the world. That’s quite a data collection he must have. Or not.
Keep it up Fullpint. You almost had me convinced until I looked in the mirror.—Joe]
My niece, Amy, helped with several early Boomershoots and I gave her t-shirts as part of her compensation. Recently she decided she didn’t want them and gave them to her parents, brother Doug and SIL Julie. The didn’t want them so I picked them up and brought them home this weekend. The shirts are still in good shape and I took pictures of the image on them before putting them away:
Sign up for Boomershoot 2019 (May 3rd-5th) here.
Via a private post on Facebook (with permission to post here):
RKBA friends: no on 1639 Bellevue Phone Bank.
This Wednesday (9/19) a bunch of us are getting together at Liberty Park for an NRA phone bank at 6pm. If you support the cause please pass this notice to others and -join- -us-!
PM me for address and more details.
I presume what we will be doing is calling gun owners and others likely to be opposed to I-1639 to encourage them to vote and perhaps ask them to distribute yard signs and flyers.
Contact me if you want the exact address and/or details.
The NRA should be blown off the face of the earth. Without that radical group firearms control could be a real possibility.
Pat McKenzie @PatMcKe44660885
Tweeted on September 13, 2018
[This is what they think of the nations’ oldest civil rights organization.
McKenzie’s Twitter profile blows the irony meter off the face of the earth:
Volunteer, artist, aspiring writer, activist and ACLU Guardian of Liberty
Don’t ever forget–these people want millions of civil rights advocates dead.—Joe]
Most of the advantages of social life, especially in it’s more advanced forms which we call “civilization”, rest on the fact that the individual benefits from more knowledge than he is aware of. It might be said that civilization begins when the individual in pursuit of his ends can make use of more knowledge than he himself has acquired and when he can transcend the boundaries of his ignorance by profiting from knowledge he does not himself possess.
F. A. Hayek
The Constitution Of Liberty, Chp. 2, pg 73
[Via email from nvguyusa who goes on to say:
So basically, civilization rests on the sum of the experiences and knowledge of all persons. Some of that knowledge can be articulated (he goes on to make a point of scientific knowledge in particular), but some of it, such as the sum of customs, traditions, beliefs, various faiths, “community standards”, if you will, cannot be known by all – the knowledge is too fragmented and diffused among the population at large, The problem with “central planning”, “big government”, whatever you want to call it is that it relies on the assumption that everything can be know in and accounted for in advance. The stunning failure of usurious tax rates (and the behavioral changes undertaken to avoid same) puts the lie to this. The planners cannot even get basic revenue projections right because they cannot account for altered behavior in the face a of a (relatively) minor change; how the [string of vulgar Anglo-Saxonisms involving one’s maternal lineage] do they expect to plan the perfect society at large?
Only the naïve and willfully ignorance believe they can plan the perfect society at large. The rest are in it for the power and money.—Joe]