Quote of the day—Rachel Alexander

Posted on by

Researchers found that by merely analyzing that type of brain activity, they could predict whether someone is Republican or Democrat 82.9% of the time.

…

John Hibbing, a University of Nebraska political scientist, researched twins and found that identical twins share more political beliefs than fraternal twins. Since identical twins share more genes, he concluded, “Forty, perhaps 50 percent of our political beliefs seem to have a basis in genetics.”

Rachel Alexander
September 26, 2022
Our Brains Are Wired Differently Than Democrats, So Don’t Get Too Mad at Them
[Interesting… They (for certain values of “they”) are broken and can’t be fixed. At least you could say that from a first glance at the data. A deeper dive would reveal more subtle conclusions.

She didn’t mention it in the article but a book I just started reading points out that different personal viewpoints have advantages and disadvantages depending upon the current situation.

For example, experimenting and risk taking to improve your life is probably a good thing when your situation is changing in a potentially life changing manner. If life is good then not changing things is probably the proper path.

I say that because there will be some people who will claim that some sets of people, including their children, are irredeemable and a threat to humanity. I don’t agree with that except for some extremely small sets (violent psychopaths for example).

The large sets wouldn’t be large if they were unfit from a evolutionary standpoint. We may not see their benefit to society. If fact we may be able to make a good case they are a detriment in our current situations. But there must have been some benefit at some time in the past. This means there may be a time in the future when they will be a benefit again and you are the detriment in that new situation.—Joe]

Winning via one lawsuit at time

Posted on by

New York’s most recent infringement upon gun owner rights just got kneecapped:

A federal judge in New York temporarily blocked parts of the state’s revised concealed-carry gun law on Thursday, finding that it is too strict and should not have barred weapons from being carried in areas such as public playgrounds and health care facilities.

…

A group of gun owners filed suit in federal court in Syracuse, charging the new law violated their Second Amendment rights. In his ruling Thursday, Suddaby agreed some of its restrictions are unconstitutional.

“Simply stated, instead of moving toward becoming a shall-issue jurisdiction, New York State has further entrenched itself as a shall-not-issue jurisdiction. And, by doing so, it has further reduced a first-class constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense … into a mere request,” Suddaby wrote.

I look forward to the day judges get fed up with the defiance and start levying fines of $100K/day to be paid to the plaintiffs for contempt of court while the politicians are being prosecuted.

Quote of the day—Holly Sullivan

Posted on by

We all deserve to live in safe communities, but denying ownership of the most commonly owned firearms in the country is not the way to achieve it.

Holly Sullivan
President of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League
September 30, 2022
Gun owners, rights groups challenge Connecticut firearms ban
[This is just one of several challenges to the bans of “assault weapons”.

I wish them well.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Texas GOP @TexasGOP

Posted on by

Come and take it.

Texas GOP @TexasGOP
Tweeted on September 24, 2022
[This was in response to this:

Considering Texas history this is particularly appropriate.

We’ll probably never get to find out if Texas will stand by those words because I don’t think President Biden has the political power to ban any guns that common.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Robb @johnrobb

Posted on by

If Putin uses a nuke, the network swarm with corporate and government support, will conduct a global witch hunt for Putin apologists.

John Robb @johnrobb
Tweeted on October 2, 2022
[Good point I hadn’t thought of that. That’s why he gets the big bucks.

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

Who is delusional?

Posted on by

I find this attitude “interesting”:

Gun reformers feel history is on their side despite bleak outlook in Congress

In the face of such tragedy, anti–gun violence activists have doubled down on their commitment to push for more reform, regardless of who controls Congress after November.

Murphy echoed that commitment, even as he conceded that Congress was unlikely to pass another gun control bill this year. Praising the anti–gun violence community as “one of the great social change movements in the history of this nation,” Murphy said he and his allies were just getting started.

“All of those great social change movements that you read about in the history books, they failed a whole bunch of times before they ever changed the world,” Murphy said. “My hope is based upon the history books, which tell you – when your cause is right and you choose not to give up, in this country, in a democracy – you eventually prevail.”

There is zero mention of the Second Amendment and recent SCOTUS decisions in the article. Is this something they really believe and are delusional? Or are they just trying to “rally the troops” in a time of great depression? Either reason would explain the omission of the 2nd Amendment.

Of course I could be delusional. This was totally unexpected: Bump stock ban remains as Supreme Court turned away challenge from gun rights advocates. I hope the ATF creation of new law without congressional action will be addressed in an unrelated case, but directly applicable to, the bump stock issue. The end result could be the same overruling of the bump stock ban but much cleaner, broad ranging, and perhaps decreased perception of SCOTUS being owned by gun owners or some such thing.

Putin’s next move?

Posted on by

Via “reliable sources” which I am not at liberty to share* the resistance to the war by the Russian people is getting energetic. At least 13 military recruitment offices have been burned down. Police shooting in the air has been failing to to break up protests, and people are burning Putin’s portrait. And an estimated 260,000 men of military age have left the country.

So, what is Putin to do?

This should not come as a surprise:

Nuclear weapons convoy sparks fears Putin could be preparing test to send ‘signal to the West’:

A train operated by the secretive nuclear division and linked to the 12th main directorate of the Russian ministry of defence was spotted in central Russia over the weekend heading towards the front line in Ukraine.

The pro-Russian Telegram channel Rybar shared the footage showing the large freight convoy hauling upgraded armoured personnel carriers and other equipment.

Konrad Muzyka, a defence analyst specialising in Ukraine, said the 12th directorate operated a dozen central storage facilities for nuclear weapons.

Is he bluffing?

If he isn’t and pops an mushroom cloud, then what does NATO do? If they don’t have a vigorous response then Putin can annex any piece of ground without a NATO stamp on it, and maybe even non-nuclear possessing NATO countries. And with an energetic response from NATO, then what?

My understanding is that all the war games against Russia with scenarios that result in just one nuke being used result in everything being released.

Prepare appropriately. I want an underground bunker in Antarctica.

* There are open sources for all the information in this paragraph, but my source is a meld/analysis of the open sources.

Quote of the day—us (@NMViolin)

Posted on by

Dude…you know that gun is never going to have sex with you, right?

us (@NMViolin)
Tweeted on June 29, 2022
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a tweet from In Chains @InChainsInJail

If this guy thinks this might need explaining then it would appear he had to do the experiments to figure that out on his own. I wonder how long he tried before he gave up.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jonathan Turley

Posted on by

In an age of rage, Washington Post columnist and MSNBC contributor Jennifer Rubin has long been a standout in her attacks on Republicans and conservatives: “We have to collectively, in essence, burn down the Republican Party. We have to level them because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again.” However, her recent column shows that she has made a clean break not only from Republicans but from reason. The writer (long cited by the Post as their “Republican columnist” for balance) has called for the media to abandon balance and impartiality. Rubin is demanding that the media just become overt advocates in refusing to report both sides in the myriad of political issues in this election.

In her column, Rubin rejects the “need for false balance” because the coverage can suggest that Republicans are “rational.”

Jonathan Turley
September 24, 2022
Washington Post Columnist Calls for the End of Impartiality and Balance in Journalism
[This is what they think of you.

Prepare and respond appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jim Kenney

Posted on by

This is a gun country, it’s crazy, we’re the most armed country in world history and we’re one of the least safest. Until Americans decide that they want to give up the guns, and give up the opportunity to get guns, we’re gonna have this problem. I’ll be happy when I’m not… mayor.

Jim Kenney
Philadelphia Mayor
July 5, 2022
Philly Mayor Jim Kenney Says He’s So Sick of Guns He’ll Be ‘Happy’ to Not Be Mayor
[With that attitude toward a specific enumerated right, a lot of other people will be glad when he is not mayor too.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tracey Wilson (@TWilsonOttawa)

Posted on by

It’s been 878 days since the Libs “banned” my AR-15. It’s right where it’s always been, locked away in my safe, in my gun room. Violent criminals continue to shoot up our cities & illicit guns still flow across our borders to gangs.
It’s all theatre #FakeBan #FakePublicSafety

Tracey Wilson (@TWilsonOttawa)
Tweeted on September 26, 2022
[I’m hoping to get a chance to get some face time with a gun owning friend in British Columbia in the next couple of months. I want to know what the “word on the street” is like.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tyler Shandro

Posted on by

Alberta is not legally obligated and will not offer any provincial resources to the Federal Government as it seeks to confiscate lawfully acquired firearms.

Tyler Shandro
Alberta’s Minister of Justice
September 26, 2022
BREAKING: Kenney Commands Alberta RCMP to Ignore Trudeau’s Gun Laws
[Via email from Rolf and a blog post by Clayton.

It’s a much stronger statement than just the above quote. It is made very clear they are not going to take this gun banning crap from the Feds.

As Rolf said in the email:

Nullification? They may be getting close to a national split faster than we are.

And Clayton:

Anytime you want to change teams, Alberta, we would love to have another gun rights state.

Alberta connects with Montana. I could see that working. If their politics were suitable I’d like to see British Columbia joining. That would connect Alaska to the lower 48 (or 49 with Alberta).—Joe]

St. Javelin

Posted on by

Via email from PKoning:

Today’s WSJ had an article about a group that’s ridiculing Putin online, calling itself “NAFO”.  The article came with a photo of a mural on a building depicting “St. Javelin”.  It reminded me of an article a week earlier, describing the “ragtag army” that saved Kyiv from the invading Russians.  One of the soldiers featured in that article is a lady anti-tank missile operator, who in civilian life was a journalist.

As depicted in popular media:

clip_image001

In real life:

clip_image001[4]

How to know if you need a gun

Posted on by

Via CF Active @ActiveCf:

image

You aren’t polluting—you are fertilizing

Posted on by

Well, duh!

Carbon Dioxide Seems to Be Making Trees Grow Faster, Scientists Say

Amid serious concerns about the climate effects of carbon dioxide, scientists have discovered something intriguing — that trees appear to be growing faster and larger as levels of the compound rise.

In a press release, environmental researchers at Ohio State University claimed that the rate and size at which forests are growing may already be counteracting the worst effects of climate change.

“Forests are taking carbon out of the atmosphere at a rate of about 13 percent of our gross emissions,” Brent Sohngen, co-author of the school’s study published recently in Nature Communications and OSU professor of environmental and resource economics, said. “While we’re putting billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we’re actually taking much of it out just by letting our forests grow.”

I suspect farm and garden crop yields are also improving.

People who want CO2 emissions reduced want people to starve*.

* Yeah, it is an absurd statement. But, if gun owners insisting the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms not be infringed means we want school children murdered then environmentalist should be able to suck it up when they are accused of wanting people to starve.

Quote of the day—Brian Riedl

Posted on by

The progressives demanding new debt-financed programs to take advantage of low interest rates did not acknowledge that Washington is already on course to borrow $114 trillion over 30 years just to finance current programs.

Brian Riedl
September 20, 2022
Expected Interest Rate Hike Will Add $2 Trillion to the Deficit
[Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chip Brownlee

Posted on by

People convicted of violent felonies were not prohibited from purchasing or possessing guns under federal law until 1934. It wasn’t until the 1968 Gun Control Act when that prohibition was extended to all felonies and to people with a history of drug abuse or mental illness. Background checks were not mandated by federal law until 1994, and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System didn’t start until 1998. States didn’t begin criminalizing domestic violence until the 1900s, and federal law didn’t prohibit people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanor offenses from getting a firearm until 1996.

Chip Brownlee
July 19, 2022
The Real Significance of the Supreme Court’s Gun Decision
[This is from The Trace.

It is nice for them to admit this. Because these laws are far newer than when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, the Bruen decision will almost certainly mean these laws are vulnerable to being thrown out as unconstitutional.

It is long road but the signage to a win is easily visible.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lizbeth Adams @Lizbeth69108338

Posted on by

No one wants to take away your ‘right’ to own your small penis compensating firearms.

That’s a stu*id dog whistle for you gun nutters.

Lizbeth Adams @Lizbeth69108338
Tweeted on June 20, 2022
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!

“No one wants to take away your firearms?” Really? Who are you going to believe? Her or your lying eyes?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow

Posted on by

The research also found that gun owners who are receptive to regulations feel alienated by the current national conversation. They have a fundamentally different view than most gun-safety activists and pro-reform politicians who don’t own guns. Whereas someone like me sees guns as dangerous, gun owners typically see them as a way to keep safe. Whereas I associate guns exclusively with harm, gun owners see them as a tool that can be used for good or bad purposes. This helps explain a widespread conviction among gun owners: that policy should focus on “keeping guns out of the wrong hands,” not on bans of certain types of weapons or attempts to reduce the number of guns in the country. Another survey found that most gun owners believe that gun-reform advocates ultimately want to take their guns away. This belief makes them mistrustful and reluctant to speak out for any reforms at all — the “slippery slope” argument.

Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow
September 21, 2022
Will Gun Owners Fight for Stronger Gun Laws? — A new group, which includes two former NRA lobbyists, is betting on it
[Yet another gun control group. How many have failed now? Yet they keep trying to put lipstick on the pig.

While she has a better understanding of her opposition than most anti-gun people she has certain important “facts” wrong. For example she apparently believes:

Siegel has found that the majority of gun owners support four laws shown to be effective: universal background checks, prohibitions for those convicted of violent misdemeanors, permits for concealed carry, and permits for gun purchases and possession. He estimates that if all four were implemented, firearm homicides would decline by 35 percent.

Technically this may be true. But it is extremely deceptive in it’s wording.

“Firearm homicide” includes defensive use of firearms. Even if it did only include murder by firearm it does not mean it would decrease the murder rate because criminals substitute other weapons when firearms become difficult to obtain.

There are other weasel words and phrases in this claim as well as outright lies which I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

And the last point I would like to make is that she totally ignores the Bruen decision.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jolie McCullough

Posted on by

The U.S. attorney’s office said the law to prohibit those under felony indictment from obtaining guns does not interfere with the Second Amendment “because it does not disarm felony indictees who already had guns and does not prohibit possession or public carry.”

Jolie McCullough
September 19, 2022
Texas judge rules that people under felony indictment have the right to buy guns under the Second Amendment
[As I understand it, this Federal Prosecutor is making the argument that the law prohibiting the purchase of a firearm by someone with a felony indictment is constitutional because the person can continue to possess and carry any existing firearms they own. But can’t the defense attorney also claim because their client is allowed to keep and use any firearm they already own the law against purchase is nonsensical, serves no purpose, and the client has harmed no one despite breaking a law? Or is this one of those cases where you just have to say, “It’s just a law. It doesn’t have to make sense?”—Joe]