I did not know this:
…when it comes to cancer, there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.
There are other sources that appear to agree with this conclusion.
There have been times in the past when I would have a few ounces of red wine before going to bed on a regular basis. Recently I only occasionally have a sip of wine from the glass of Barb L. Hence my lifetime alcohol consumption is very low and now I can be even more self-righteous about it.
If the Obama regime wants to “buy” our guns, it had better be prepared to pay in blood.
Kurt Hofmann
February 14, 2013
NIJ memo shows new gun laws can only ‘work’ with registration, confiscation
[H/T to David Hardy.
The memo referred to, and marked up by, presumably, the NRA is extremely revealing. It is mandatory reading for insight into the Obama administration. They know the laws they propose are and will be ineffective. They aren’t stupid. They aren’t ignorant. They are evil.
Update: This NRA video should have been part of the original post:
—Joe]
Fade in
EXT – night – dimly lit space-station, black of space in background
Several ships are attached to a large transfer-point space station in orbit 4 or 5 AUs from the star, well out to the edge of its gravity well. One liner is approaching, a freighter is leaving. Serene and quite looking, as everything goes according to computer-regulated plan. On one of the docked liners, there is a small (compared to the liner) flash of an explosion, and debris sprays away from it into space. Continue reading
One shouldn’t be surprised, shocked, or indignant that leftists claim “We are all Chris Dorner.”
Taken out of context his claims of injustice sound credible and if the claims were correct I can understand his rage and could even let pass a statement of “We are all Chris Dorner”. But he murdered innocent people who had nothing to do with his complaints against the Los Angeles police department. He, an individual, did this. He did this to innocent individuals.
People on the left have a mindset bordering on and many times crossing well into a personality disorder such that they cannot readily distinguish between themselves and others who share some or most of their beliefs. “Individual” is a term that, in their mind, translates into “not one of mine”. This is why they are confused by and ignore the concepts put forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
This is why they speak of a “right to health care”, a “right to a job”, and even “freedom from want“. Individuals, for all intents and purposes, do not or should not exist outside of the collective. Leftists cannot easily distinguish between their “one true collective” and themselves. And the collective should care for itself just as we believe an individual should care for itself and their immediate family. Those outside the collective or belonging to a different collective are to be shunned if they are no consequence. If they impede its objectives they should be reeducated, put in mental institutions, or disposed of.
Dorner did not view “the collective” that supposedly wronged him as individuals. The families of supposedly racist police officers and of his lawyer were just as deserving of punishment as the primary actors who perpetrated the injustices upon him. In his mind all members of a collectives, either his or of another, are equivalent.
The leftist collective identifies Dorner as one of theirs and hence “We are all Chris Dorner” makes perfect sense in their mentally disturbed universe. There are tens of millions of examples in the 20th century where leftists used violence to dispose of “not one of mine.” That leftists identify with him and cheered him on should only be a surprise to those that do not understand the mind of the leftist and/or are ignorant of history.
When I first glanced at this tweet on my phone I read it wrong:
ATF St. Paul: Federal Jury Convicts Coon Rapids Man of Shipping Firearms to Liberia go.usa.gov/4e2H
— ATF HQ (@ATFHQ) February 15, 2013
I read “Liberia” as “Liberals”.
It was either the old eyes or wistful thinking.
Via email from Mike B. (AlphaMike in Idaho, not the other one) I received a link to this episode of Freakonomics: How to think about guns.
It starts out with a different question about mass murders than the media and most politicians, “Why are there so few?” With 300+ million people in the U.S. and a similar number of guns (not to mention many other ways of being able to commit mayhem and murder) why is it so “far out on the tail” that these incidents occur? Think about that. Typically it is about two mass murders (4+ people killed) a year with guns. Out of 300 million people? Only one out of 150 million people per year go nuts enough to kill a bunch of people? That’s pretty amazing if you think about it.
Notable quotes:
The recommended book is available via Amazon:
It is next in my queue after I finish The Android’s Dream (son James thinks it is awesome and I’m liking it a lot).
Via email from Carl H. on the gun email list at work:
You can listen to the full version of the song here or buy it from Amazon.
There’s no way to be committed to non-violence in one of the most violent societies that history has ever created. I’m not committed to non-violence in any way.
Bernardine Dohrn
In the 2002 documentary film The Weather Underground. Get the movie from Amazon here.
[From the Wikipedia entry:
Dohrn with ten other SDS members associated with the RYM issued, on June 18, 1969, a sixteen-thousand-word manifesto entitled, “You Don’t Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows” in New Left Notes.
…
The manifesto stated that “the goal [of revolution] is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism.”
Leftists know their agenda can only be implemented with violence. Government is violence and the threat of violence. They wish to use government to create their utopia. To advocate non-violence and have a leftist philosophy is a contradiction. To allow people not of the government to have the means to resist government is to allow their idyllic future to be denied.
The murdering, anti-gun, pro-leftist, ex-cop, from Los Angeles who was killed this week is just one in a long line of his type.—Joe]
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of association. This is an obstacle in enabling “common sense gang laws”. If New York treated the First Amendment like they do the Second Amendment then anti-gang legislation would include the following:
No new social organizations having more than seven members would be legal. Existing organizations of eight to ten members would be still be legal but no more than seven members could be in the same room at any one time. Existing organizations of greater than ten member would have the option of moving out of state or turning themselves into the police for Soylent Green feedstock.
Once you get this mental “health” bit into NICS, you will see an exponential increase in the number of people being adjudicated mentally deficient in some way. This is a very, very important move for the Progressives, and all the more dangerous for sounding “reasonable”.
It shocks me that so many people on the “pro second amendment” side seem to think this is OK.
All I can say is; once the S really HTF, we will have deserved it.
Cut back to a view of the table
The people at Lag’s table look between themselves, and at the departing Plataeans, then at Lag.
Senator: (eyebrows raised in surprise) What did you say to them?
Continue reading
I’m looking at ordering a bunch of patches for Boomershoot. They will be 4 inches across. I’ve not finalized the order in terms of numbers and text. Here are the current working ideas, and I’m certainly open to suggestion on preferred mods. Let me know how many you might be interested in buying, so that I can get a specific price – the more people want, the less they will be per item. I am not certain the surrounding text is exactly what I want, though I like the bottom text on all of them (with the possible exception of “medieval,” but I couldn’t think of anything better that sounds good with “minion,” which I really like.) If I make the top more generic, they anyone can get any of them; if I make the top text more “rank” oriented (explosive handlers “henchmen”, helpers “crony”, shooters “minion”, supporters “unindicted”) then there are fewer people might want to buy, but it might encourage “working up through the ranks” to earn them.
By the way, they make great presents and commemoratives, and you can buy more than one, even if it’s not a “rank” you have earned yet
Who do I have to hate to be considered tolerant?
Michael Williamson
February 13, 2013
Comment to The Closet of Self-Censorship
[Liberals consider themselves tolerant but many hate people on the right and gun owners in particular with a burning passion that includes a desire for our deaths.—Joe]
As Lyle has pointed out many times before the left has their “shall not be infringed” issue with abortion. Michael Z. Williamson has an elaborated version of that which I cannot find fault with.
Read the whole thing but the “punch line” is this:
First they came for the blacks, and I spoke up because it was wrong, even though I’m not black.
Then they came for the gays, and I spoke up, even though I’m not gay.
Then they came for the Muslims, and I spoke up, because it was wrong, even though I’m an atheist.
When they came for illegal aliens, I spoke up, even though I’m a legal immigrant.
Then they came for the pornographers, rebels and dissenters and their speech and flag burning, and I spoke up, because rights are not only for the establishment.
Then they came for the gun owners, and you liberal shitbags threw me under the bus, even though I’d done nothing wrong. So when they come to put you on the train, you can fucking choke and die.
~~~
Or you can commit seppuku with a chainsaw. I really don’t care anymore. This is the end of my support for any liberal cause, because liberals have become anything but.
As I was riding the bus into downtown Seattle to go to work this morning we stopped at Yale and Stewart for a traffic light. Initially I thought there were gunshots close by. Then as I did a “playback” in my mind and observed the subsequent sights and sounds more carefully I realized the flashes were white. Muzzle flashes are red/orange. Multiple explosions? But the flashes from explosives I am familiar with are reddish too. I was on the far side of the bus from the source but I ultimately located the origin.
A NW bound truck on Yale had tangled with a power line, and broken a power pole holding three transformers. The sounds were the breaking power pole, arcing of the power lines, and the exploding transformers. The truck stopped for a bit then left. Our bus remained stopped at the intersection and most of the passengers exited out the rear door and walked around the intersection. Some stupid and/or ignorant people walked OVER the downed power lines. At least one person turned around and took a different route after I yelled not to walk over the wires.
The bus in the picture above is the one I was on.
I was late for a meeting at work.
Update: Ry sent me an email with this link to the news story.
Lag returns to his table and sits. Looking around at them, he nods and smiles cheerily.
Lag: I think they will be quieting down soon. They did well, and deserve a good celebration, but I think they understand things now.
Continue reading
Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York – henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.
Brian Schuetz
President
Olympic Arms, Inc.
February 12, 2013
This was in response to oppressive and clearly unconstitutional legislation by the state of New York.
[This is the same as the boycotting of countries that fail to recognize basic human rights. The right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right and governments that infringe upon the right need to be sent a strong message. This is one part of that message.—Joe]
I can’t make it to the Wednesday meeting in Oly. If anyone wants to use this for themselves, feel free to.
I don’t mind background checks for gun purchases. But, I’m against 1558 for the following reasons:
If it keeps records, then it is de-facto registration. If it doesn’t keep records, it’s virtually unenforceable.
It’s awkward and expensive, and will result in victimless paper-work crimes that will hurt otherwise law-abiding folks. Example: A teacher (who needs a background check to work) with a CPL (which requires a background check) could not sell to another teacher with a CPL without paying for ANOTHER background check, and if they make an honest mistake and don’t, even though neither are prohibited persons, one will become a felon and lose their job. This law will ONLY catch the otherwise law-abiding.
It’s trivially easy to work around: The same teacher could sell the other a $500 box of ammunition, and GIVE the gun to them as a groundhog day present, and be totally legal.
On the other hand, if gifting DOES get covered in an amendment, then other problems still arise, and mostly otherwise law-abiding teachers will get caught up in a felony paperwork “crime”
It leaves other situations ambiguous. Example: if a friend calls up at midnight, and says she found out that her violent ex-husband just got released, if I drive immediately over and LOAN her a gun until she can scrape together enough money to buy her own (either the one I loan her, or another one), then I’m a criminal. Maybe. Or maybe not. If I don’t I don’t loan it, she may die. And the cops can’t do ANYTHING until the Ex is beating on her door.
I am also against 1612, particularly in light of 1588, because caught in with the dangerous violent criminals (which I agree we ought to know about) will be people who are NOT dangerous, and simply committed paperwork violations out of ignorance. More narrowly written, it might be a good law.
I am against 1676 because while it sounds good, not all “children” are equal, and people could be found guilty even if no-one is hurt, or even if good things happen. Example: a 15 year old is legally a child. They can legally be left at home alone. There have been recent cases in the news where such a person retrieved a gun and used it to defend themselves from a violent home invader. Under this law, as written, the homeowner would have been guilty of reckless endangerment if they allowed their child the ability to defend themselves when the adult was away and unable to do so. It’s a one-size-fits-all solution that will catch good people in its trap, even when no-one gets hurt. Again, more narrowly written, it is a reasonable idea.
I am against 1147. Because there are so many reasons a person might be guilty of “unlawful possession of a firearm,” including paperwork violations where there is no intent to do harm, and not actual harm to anyone occurred, it creates one more “got’cha” for people who made honest mistakes somewhere else, earlier in life. Again, it’s not a bad idea, but should be more narrowly drafted to only get the people who are dangerous and we really want to keep guns away from.
Lastly, a general argument: Seattle just had its first murder of the year last week. Chicago, which has a virtual ban an ALL guns, had 40 just in January. Do we REALLY need to change our laws? Yes, their misuse is tragic, but “doing something!” is not the same as “making things better.”
Thanks for your attention.
Ry explains how he and I have been supplying arms to those that are in desperate need. You can help too.
Why? Because when the NY law goes into effect no ten round magazines will be allowed into the state. As far as I know there are no seven round magazines made for AR-15’s. Therefore people without a ten round magazine, as of the effective date of the ban, will not be able to use their AR-15s.
…written by old, dead, white, misogynist slave owners who aren’t the boss of us.
We are told that the founders wrote the second amendment with muskets in mind, and that they couldn’t possibly have foreseen the deadly effectiveness of our modern weaponry. The Bill of Rights, the enemy says, should be interpreted with that understanding, which means we should be allowed to have all the flintlock long rifles and muskets we want. Banning effective modern weapons is therefore not only permissible but is the necessary, “right thing to do”.
We’re all very familiar with this argument, but like everything else coming from the Progressives it misses the point entirely.
The purpose of the American Revolution, and of the Constitution, was to secure liberty. The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the people at large would keep any army the government could muster “in awe”. Their words.
That concept makes perfect sense for a people who, not only had just defeated the most powerful military in the world, in part using personally owned weapons, but who saw the purpose of government as being “…to secure these rights…”
The new concept of that time (and it is still very new today – so new that even now very few people understand it) was that government functions at the pleasure of the People – that ultimately the people hold the power, and individuals’ rights having been “…endowed by their creator…” cannot be altered or abridged by anyone for any reason.
The second amendment is a natural expression of these concepts. It defines the force relationship between government and the people. WE hold the power. Rights belong to US and cannot be altered by any mere mortal. Rights can be violated by criminals, certainly, but not altered.
Therefore; if we are going to “update” anything with regard to personal weaponry for the purposes of the second amendment, so as to maintain the force relationship required to secure liberty, we must have weaponry that will truly and efficiently keep the most powerful, modern military in the world “in awe”.
In support of that simple point; I don’t want to see any of you making that silly “Semi-autos are OK because they aren’t assault rifles” argument any more, or its twin brother; “Those media types are trying to confuse people over the difference…” That’s the argument of the loser– he’s already ceded the main point, and is now arguing (pleading) over the details of the violations of his rights and those of his neighbors.
The point is, Young Grasshopper, that semi-autos are OK, and assault rifles and machineguns are even MORE OK. And now you need to ask yourself; just what would the private citizenry want to have, so as to keep a modern army “in awe”? And right there, after thinking about that for a few weeks, you begin to see the meaning of the second amendment.
If liberty is worth defending, then surely it is worth defending effectively and efficiently.
Of course the weaponry is only a part of the equation. The understanding of the principles, and the resolve that comes from that understanding, is the prerequisite. Without that, this conversation is pointless.
