From John F. on Facebook:
Grandma Hillary has a new opportunity for a campaign slogan: “Incompetence bordering on criminal.“
Well, she might, using different words claim something like that. It actually was significantly over the border. She was well into illegal alien territory. I just wish we could “deport” her to Leavenworth.
I always find it ironic when people say we should limit the ammunition capacity of the guns we use against criminals and tyrants to the same capacity as those we use for hunting. We limit the capacity of hunting guns in order to ensure that we have game to hunt in the future. Are they trying to ensure we will always have criminals and tyrants?
Bill Twist
July 5, 2016
Comment to Quote of the day—Paul Joslin
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Doing something blatantly illegal and getting away with it is a badge of honor among thieves. I am reminded of “Guilty as hell, free as a bird”.
If you thought she was going to be prosecuted for this, you haven’t been paying attention.
The FBI is not recommending charges be brought against Hillary. But it’s still pretty damning:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
…
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
Can someone who is that careless with the security of our country be trusted in any position of government? Well, I might give consideration to her taking a position of a toilet scrubber in a public park.
Members of the NRA, other gun owners, including myself, and other non-gun-owning citizens all agree that a human should not use an assault rifle or other automatic weapons to hunt down and kill a deer or other game. We also all agree that a human should not use such weapons to hunt down and kill another human.
Since there is nothing else to kill, can’t we all now agree that we can do without such weapons without contravening the Second Amendment?
Paul Joslin
July 1, 2016
We can do without assault weapons
[Since Mr. Joslin is under the delusion that he has read the minds of all citizens in this country and simultaneously doesn’t not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment I’ll let Federal Judge Kozinski spell it out for those who aren’t quite as delusional.
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.
Hence, under a doomsday situation we could, should, and would use assault rifles and fully automatic weapons to hunt down and kill those humans who would enslave us. And therefore such weapons are not only protected by the Second Amendment, the use of those weapons under those circumstances are the primarily purpose of the Second Amendment.—Joe]
From Stephanie:
Remember Terilyn Reber from about 10 days ago? My blog post about the Facebook discussion I had with her was shared on Facebook 131 times and was viewed by thousands of people making it one of my most popular blog posts ever.
Today I received an email indicating I had been tagged on Facebook by Terilyn’s older sister, Bev Reber:
So it’s just sad that social media breeds trolls and even sadder when said troll escalates to a cyber bully. Feed ’em fish heads!! Their world is small. Joe Huffman this is for you.
Bev Reber
July 4 at 11:32am
I clicked on the link in the email to see the post and had planned to respond with:
I understand if you are just supporting your sister who’s feelings may have been hurt. If you want to just drop this with the understanding that you need to be loyal to her I’m fine with that I and won’t say anything further. But if you really believe what you said about me then you aren’t aware of facts and I’ll be happy to explain them to you. Your choice.
But the link came up with the following message:
Sorry, this content isn’t available right now
The link you followed may have expired, or the page may only be visible to an audience you’re not in.
I did a search for her on Facebook and she doesn’t even show up. After logging in with a different account I easily found her.
Ahhh yes…. Both sisters are strong advocates of reasoned discourse.
Just be honest. You like it because it makes your pee-pee big, and when you fire it, it gives you a tingle in your no-no place.
David Smalley
June 25, 2016
Why Gun Nuts Lie – I Know From Experience
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Smalley quotes Mother Jones as his definitive source of information. This magazine article claims have been refuted countless times. Here and here and here are a few examples.—Joe]
From Stephanie:
I don’t think I have never been this close to an elk in the wild before:
Sadly, as in the case of this robot, and the broader struggle for freedom, there will always be those who will feel an uncontrollable urge to destroy anyone and anything which seeks to plot its own course.
It would be funny if one day, in the battle for freedom, it was libertarians and artificial intelligences working together to destroy a government of leftist rabbits.
Anonymous Conservative
June 25, 2016
What Is Libertarianism? Perhaps A Rebellion Against Obstacles
[While it certainly seems to be true that there will always be those who cannot tolerate freedom I don’t see the humor in the circumstances he describes. And while some governments require destruction before they can be replaced with something which respected human rights I’m not entirely comfortable with “destroying a government” just because it’s leftist. Reforming it and limiting it such that it is compatible with freedom, sure, but probably doesn’t require destruction. Nation states without a functional government are not particularly hospitable to peaceable, productive, human activities.—Joe]
Once again, we have a high profile shooting, and once again, the hysteria is out in force.
Let’s start with some facts: If you don’t shoot, or have only occasionally shot on a range, then your opinion on how useful an armed respondent would be is garbage. If you don’t drive a car, you aren’t qualified to tell professional drivers what they should have done in an accident.
Seriously, shut up, you’re an idiot.
Michael Z. Williamson
June 15, 2016
After An Attack: Understanding the Fear
[He continues with an enumeration and examination of the possible outcomes. It’s a very clear and logical analysis which demonstrates there is significant chance of a big upside and very little, if any, chance of a downside to people having guns to defend themselves in a mass shooting situation.—Joe]
Either you match a dispersed threat with a dispersed capability to respond, or you lose…
Harry Schell
June 16, 2016
Comment to Decentralized response to decentralized threat.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Lifetime totals:
223.log: 2027 rounds.
3006.log: 467 rounds.
300WIN.log: 1351 rounds.
40SW.log: 50447 rounds.
45.log: 0 rounds.
9MM.log: 21695 rounds.
Total: 75987 rounds.
I reloaded 1999 rounds of .40 S&W this month. I mangled another primer which is the reason it isn’t an even 2000 rounds. 800 of those were Blue Bullets for steel matches. The other 1199 rounds were Montana Gold JHPs for practice at indoor ranges.
If our politicians had half a brain, combined, they’d STOP going after guns . . .
. . . and start going after munition. Regulating the amount and tracking of ammunition sold, across the country, would be a neat little step. Heck, perscritions get only so many pills. Why not cap Ammo? And if we force all shell casings to be stamped, even the home brew folks (which even the NRA said accounts for a small percentage) would be accountable. Get ranges and back yard nuts to police their brass and turn in casings to get new ones, voila, environmentally responsible AND a built in tracking.
windowlickers
June 27, 2016
Comment to Gun control a high priority for N.J. lawmakers today
[Simple solutions from simple minds. And total crap for brains or else a troll.
“…force all shell casings to be stamped…”? With what? And then what? And people ignore you? And then what? And what about the billions of “unstamped rounds” already in private possession?
This person has to be a troll, right?—Joe]
Making good people helpless will not make bad people harmless.
TisReality
June 27, 2016
Comment to Gun control a high priority for N.J. lawmakers today
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Via email from nvguyusa which was sent to him by a friend:
They also remind us:
If you don’t have your own pistol, you may have to wait the rest of your life for the police to bring theirs.
Sometimes when people are talking they use ordinary words and they assume the other person knows what they mean. Yeah… How hard can it be to grok “all you really need is a 9mm, a couple of clips, and a box of shells?” Continue reading
Our Congress and the NRA contribute to the dangers of policing through their refusal to restrict assault-type weaponry to those that should have it — the police and our military. There is no legitimate purpose for every Tom, Dick and Harry to possess this type of armament. Most rednecks can kill Bambi with one shot!
Yes, I believe strongly in the Second Amendment, but in my opinion, it is entirely constitutional, and rational to restrict these weapons which are designed to only kill other human beings.
Dudley Gibson
June 26, 2016
READER’S OPINION: Assault weapons, the NRA and ‘cowardly’ Republican Congress caused massacre
[The most popular type of firearm in the U.S. apparently doesn’t qualify as being “in common use”, and therefore protected as per the Heller decision, in this “Constitutional Scholar’s” opinion.
“Designed to only kill other human beings”? That would be news to 100s of thousands of deer, rodents, coyotes, and other varmints. And besides I’ve fired thousands of rounds through many different ARs without killing anything. Does that mean those guns were all defective?
This guy may be a mental midget but he still wants to ban guns and is politically active in pursuing that goal. Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take you guns.—Joe]
