Saturday, September 3, 2016

Quote of the Day — Erin Palette (August 31, 2016)

On the Facebook page for "Operation Blazing Sword", referring to the kerfuffle regarding (licensed) concealed carry on Texas university campuses — specifically, how the "special snowflakes" no longer "feel safe":
This sort of thinking always astounds me. It essentially boils down to "I felt safe when only people willing to break the law were carrying concealed, but now that anyone who is willing to be photographed, fingerprinted, and background checked can legally carry, I suddenly feel like I'm in danger."

If they felt safe then, they ought to feel safe now. If they don't feel safe now, then maybe they ought to realize that their previous feelings of safety were just a comfortable illusion.
Yeah, I don't understand the mindset, either. This kind of cognitive dissonance can only happen when people let their feelings override their rational thought.

Stay safe.

Friday, August 26, 2016

On Refusing to Argue the Merits of Ideologies

Sebastian points to this post at Ace of Spades, about political (dis)honesty. It's worth a read in its entirety, but I want to zero in on a particular point:
[I]f your arguments in favor of amnesty are as potent as you think they are (and you must think they're potent, because, like Obama, you seem to think the only possible objection is racism and hatred), why not actually share them with the group?

You can't convince people of your position if you refuse to state what it is and the reasons for it.
[emphasis in original]
[blink blink]

That's some pure, distilled truth right there, with far-reaching ramifications on any topic, be it immigration/amnesty, free speech, or gun rights. Someone who won't state their position, let alone argue it:
  • Doesn't trust you enough to share where they really stand.
  • Doesn't trust that you won't overreact and/or get violent if you happen to disagree.
  • Doesn't believe you are worth discussing important issues with, as fellow adults.
  • Doesn't feel they need to earn your support (but still feels entitled to it).
  • At the end of the day, doesn't respect you at all.

Basically, it comes down to politicians telling their constituents, "I believe what I believe, for the reasons I believe it … which I'm choosing not to share right now … or ever. Because I say so*!"

Y'know, as if we're small children.

That's not how mature adults interact with each other. Suffice it to say, that's absolutely not how elected officials should be treating their voters.

Something to consider this election season. Vote accordingly.

* - "… and if you don't agree, you must be a [insert personal insult, probably an '-ist' word]!"

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

"Compromise": I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means

Over at Bearing Arms, Jenn Jacques has a post up about "compromise" with Democrats on "gun control".

It's mostly a decent article, but … she closes with this:
So if Democrats want a compromise, here it is: follow every single gun law currently on the book. Punish criminals to the fullest extent of the law. Ensure convicted felons serve their entire sentence. Only give second chances when the guilty have served their debt to society.

Do that, then we’ll talk.
[emphasis in original]
While I appreciate the point she's trying to make, my answer to this would be, "No."

I agree that there are already plenty of "gun control" laws on the books, and the government should be enforcing each and every one (otherwise, what's the point of having the law?).

However, the "enforce existing laws" stance is not "compromise". That's just how it should be.

"Compromise" is giving up something to get something in return. If Democrats want to compromise on "gun control" laws, our response should be, "OK, what 'gun control' laws are you offering to repeal in order to get the new laws you want?"

If the answer is "None," then it's not a compromise. If the answer is "None, but maybe we won't go as far as we want," that's not a compromise, either. In neither case are the Democrats required to give up anything.

Give something, get something. That's compromise, and that's where the debate should start.

Sorry, Jenn. You're a bit off the mark on this one.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Orlando Massacre: Radical Islam is at War With Us -- And So Is Our Administration

      It's been two months, and it's happened again: a Muslim with links to the Middle East, radical Islam and terror organizations has killed on American soil. Forty-nine innocents have died, with a like number injured. The Administration, Progressive politicians and the media immediately lept to the attack - not against this new, emerging threat, but at their old, bitter blood enemy: the Nation's gun owners. 

      Politicians and activists sprang before the cameras demanding their usual nonsensical "common sense" nostrums with well practiced ease. They scrupulously avoiding more than a passing reference to the fanaticism at the attack's core. Our feckless leader whined about being criticized for never using the words Radical Islam - while still never actually using the words Radical Islam. However, he's very definitive about the unconstitutional secret gun ban list and reviving the ineffectual Clinton assault rifle law. Hillary danced through the blood to slam her opponent for supposedly "engaging in inflammatory, anti-Muslim rhetoric that made the country less safe." <unqoute> She also waved the bloody shirt at gun owners and the NRA. 

      The media has gleefully hyped the tragedy, incessantly scoring the Orlando attack as the largest gun massacre. They're refusing to provide the context of the Paris, London and Russian attacks. They're also completely ignoring the largest night club massacre, where an immigrant used just a single gallon of gasoline to immolate 87 victims; it just doesn't fit the narrative. And Orlando wasn't even near the toll of the largest American mass killing. 

    The Left's long running hoplophobia is in full flame: They're trying to make sweeping changes based on this one tragic incident that is thankfully extremely rare.  Nonsensical "common sense" solutions, are flying around at the speed of opinions. The left is intent on destroying the Enumerated Rights of hundreds of millions of Americans in the demonstrated ridiculous hope of keeping arms from jihadists who are supported by terrorist organizations able to span the globe. After all, the terrorist in Paris had no trouble getting fully automatic AK-47s for their attacks. 

     It's going to get worse - much worse. The Administration, Progressive and media attacks will escalate. As will the terrorist attacks. We will very likely need our weapons exactly when they are being threatened by the left. Fight the threat that the administration is importing, assisting and enabling. Fight the threat that political correctness will not challenge. Fight the madness that the Progressives will allow destroy us. Ensure that our political leaders still retain enough backbone to first for the Constitution and the citizens. Join the NRA. Fight for our future. Fight. 

    By the way: the largest American mass murder we mention before? That was at Wounded Knee, south Dakota, where 150 men, women and children of the Lakota Indian Nation were murdered by the US Government. The attack came shortly after the Lakota's were disarmed.  Something to think about.  

Quote of the Day — Dom Raso (June 15, 2016)

In a new video on NRA News, in response to the shooting at the "Pulse" nightclub in Orlando, Florida, and the newly re-proposed* "gun control" laws:
Let's run through some of the latest attacks and see how banning so-called "assault weapons" would have turned out. California already bans "assault weapons". That didn't stop San Bernardino. No ban on ARs, or any guns, would have stopped the Boston Marathon bombing. ISIS's well-coordinated attack in France wasn't deterred by the country's strict "gun control" laws. Brussels' gun ban did nothing to stop terrorists from killing.

But every single one of those tragedies ended with police officers carrying AR-15s rushing to the scene as fast as possible.

Hillary's solution to stopping terror attacks is to ban the very gun that >stops terror attacks, and she calls that "common sense".
I only have one nit-pick: The gun does not stop terror attacks, any more than it causes terror attacks. What stops terror attacks is prepared people — police or private citizens — showing up with the skills and/or tools required to make the bad guy(s) stop, using deadly force if necessary (which with terrorists, it often is).

Watch the whole thing:

[Hat tip: John Richardson.]
* - Everything proposed is merely a reiteration of the same ages-old, tired themes. The proponents of "gun control" have no new ideas.
** - As this is a transcript, I'm taking some liberties with "scare quotes". However, the emphasis on certain words or phrases (shown in bold) is detectable in the original.

Friday, April 29, 2016

Obama Continues To Press Pro-Criminal Initiatives

           During these endless months of Obama’s Long Goodbye, our boyish President seems unconcerned with the faltering economy, imploding Obamacare, Islamic terrorism, or an incoherent Foreign Policy, but is focused on fundamentally transforming the criminal’s place in American society.
Obama has long ranted about the number of minorities in prison, blaming the racist society instead of the perpetrators. He blamed the police for the imbalance, and through the DOJ’s regulations created the Ferguson Effect and Fetal Policing. Now, Loretta Lynch’s DOJ is requiring judges to throw away the law when dealing with minority criminals.

His administration is working to force the mainstreaming of felons, allowing them federal jobs, unfettered housing access and pushing toward restored rights, despite the very real risks of these criminals. He’s pardoned hundreds of violent drug dealers and reduce the sentences of hundreds of thousands more. It does appear that criminals are Obama’s latest prized and protected demographic - at the obvious cost to law-abiding Americans.

            In his latest Saturday Weekly Address, Obama continued to champion the felons. Delivered in his usual condescending tone, da Prez lectured the nation on the unfairness of criminal justice system and again pushed the need to radically reform American society. As is his wont, he threw out several unsupported claims, misrepresented statistics, all leavened by a smattering of  bald-faced lies. A prime example is his declaration that  “We know that simply locking people up doesn’t make communities safer.” We certainly do NOT know that. His statement is shown to be a lie by decades of experience with targeted enforcement, mandated sentencing, three-strikes laws, and . It was a tour-de-force of every misguided policy from this administration.

            As in all of Obama policies, the question is “Why?” It’s easy to see the racialist motive: the Democrat minority coalition is showing some deep fractures, and the long solid black and Latino vote is showing signs of straying. More insidious are the efforts to radically remake American society by undermining as many institutions as possible. Regardless, these policies will likely remake America in the image of Chicago, New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia and San Francisco where Progressive policies have already resulted in a crime riddled environment.  And if Obama and Hillary can disarm the nation as they want, our country could be a very dangerous place indeed.  

          Stay armed - stay vigilant - stay capable. Now more than ever.        

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Quote of the Day — J. Kb (April 21, 2016)

Kicking the "I'm a gun owner but..." fallacy straight to the curb over at Gun Free Zone:
Let me make one thing clear. If you are anti gun, but you try to make yourself look like a moderate by talking about daddy’s trap gun or grandpa’s squirrel rifle and that you are not scared of guns because you shot a .22 at pop cans when you were a kid; that is the anti gun equivalent of saying you are not a racist because you have one black friend, and you’re not scared of black people because your black friend is a CPA from the suburbs. Guess what? You’re still anti gun… and a racist.
I can't rightly argue with that.

Stay safe.

Sunday, April 10, 2016

Obama's Pro-Crime Initiatives

Same To You, Barry
    In the past weeks, the Obama administration has released a series of actions that are pro-criminal and racist to their core. Largely avoided by the media because of the third-rail nature of racial politics, these initiatives certainly affect the safety of the Nation’s law-abiding.  

    First, Obama commuted the sentences of another 61 criminals. Most were involved in distribution of large amounts of illegal drugs, but one in five were also sentenced in part for gun crimes. Many others had their gun crimes dismissed as part of the plea deals that put them in prison. Those 61 join another 187 criminals who have benefited from Obama’s hypocritical approach to crime, where he is soft on the actual criminals, while being as hard as he can on the law-abiding gun owners.     

     Then, Obama’s Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a decree saying refusing to rent based on a criminal record is a form of racial discrimination. The Fair Housing Act is silent on criminals, but because Blacks and Latinos are arrested at a significantly higher rate than whites, HUD has stretched the law so landlords can no longer use a criminal record to screen applicants. The fact that a criminal record is often a predictor of other undesirable traits must be ignored according to the Federal bureaucracy. Landlords and mortgage providers who violate the administrative decree could face fines in the millions of dollars, depending on the scope of the alleged violations.

 Most troubling is the Obama’s Department of Justice's nine-page letter to judges around the United States, warning them to limit prosecution of criminals, particularly those of minority status, or risk the loss of federal funding. Municipalities failing to toe the line could see the same type of federal investigations that Ferguson, Missouri endured after the police shooting of black teen Michael Brown. The fact that those shootings were largely found to have been justified, and the municipalities targeted are mostly minority controlled is ignored by the Obama administration.  

Obama’s soft on crime approach directly affects the fabric of American society. It goes against the rule of law andthe best practices of law enforcement. It reverses the Broken Window policing shown to be so effective. Critically, it extends the hands-off “Ferguson Effect” that is responsible for so many inner city deaths in St Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, LA and Chicago. Now, the entire nation is subject to the same enforced chaos. The eventual results are easily predictable.

We have always suggested that our readers should be prepared to defend their lives, for when the government can not -- or deliberately will not - defend them.

           Stay armed, stay vigilant, stay capable. Now, more than ever.

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Quote of the Day — Fred Reed (March 17, 2016)

From his article, Betting on Gray Sludge: What Fun:
If white Southerners genitally mutilated their daughters, practiced honor killing, and didn’t allow their girls to go to school, the Islamophiles would erupt in fury. They overlook these practices in Moslems because they are using Moslems as a means of punishing people they loathe , such as white Southerners.
That's about the state of things currently. The Social Justice Warriors unite under a pretended "cause", but in truth just use the "cause" as an excuse to dispense hate (and sometimes violence) on their neighbors whom they despise for no articulable reason.

There's a lot of truth in the article. I encourage you to RTWT.

Stay safe.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Quote of the Day — George S. Patton (WWII, date unknown)

The nigh-legendary general, speaking words that still have relevance today:
Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the b*stards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo.
I don't know about all of you, but I'm ready for this "silly season" election to be over. I'm ready for the anti-freedom groups (or their benefactors) to realize it's a lost cause, cut their losses, and throw in the towel. I'm ready for our American values and way of life and our God-given rights to be safe from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

However, the quickest way do get it over with is to finish our business*. Then, and only then, we can go home.

Stay safe.

[Hat tip: John Hawkins at Townhall: The 25 Manliest Quotes by Americans. I may pull a few more quotes from this one!]
* - Yes, I know for some of our opponents it will never be finished; some of them will never give up. I can dream, can't I?

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Quote of the Day — Garry Kasparov (March 1, 2016)

Garry Kasparov, 2007
(source: Wikipedia)

As seen on the chess giant's Book of Face:
I'm enjoying the irony of American Sanders supporters lecturing me, a former Soviet citizen, on the glories of Socialism and what it really means! Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty. Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was paid for by the successes of capitalism. Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely. But the idea that the solution is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd.
I have nothing to add to that.

Fortunately, Mr. Kasparov has more, writing a follow-up in The Daily Beast. Here's a (very) small taste:
A society that relies too heavily on redistributing wealth eventually runs out of wealth to redistribute. The historical record is clear. It’s capitalism that brought billions of people out of poverty in the 20th century. It’s socialism that enslaved them and impoverished them. […] Once you give power to the government it is nearly impossible to get it back, and it will be used in ways you cannot expect.
Stay safe.

[Hat tip: Legal Insurrection]

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Gun Podcaster Needs Your Help!

Paul Lathrop, co-host of The Polite Society Podcast, has been accused of assault with a firearm stemming from a dispute at a gas station. I know Paul, and I venture to say anyone who does know him will tell you the same thing: he's a knowledgeable fellow who doesn't go waving a gun around. I'm convinced that the accusation is false and will be shown so in court. In the meantime, though, he needs money to pay for a lawyer to defend against this trumped-up charge!

Please click on the link and donate whatever you can. It's going for a great cause to help one of our own.

From the Facedbook

Friday, February 5, 2016

Gov McAwful Blinks!
         Virginia’s governor was forced to rapidly back away from the firestorm caused by his attorney general’s elimination of CCW reciprocity with 25 other states. The ban barely lasted a month before being swept away by a groundswell of pro-rights anger from the state and the nation. Governor Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton apparatchik, agreed to Virginia Republican’s demands for nearly universal reciprocity, significantly increasing the number of states accorded reciprocity. In return, the governor got some very minor, face-saving gun-control concessions; enabling him to claim some semblance of victory despite the stinging defeat.

         Anti-gun groups were not pleased. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence immediately damned McAuliffe and his concessions. On their Facebook page, the rabidly anti-gun group painted  McAuliffe as caving in to the NRA. Knuckling under, when in the past when he had bragged about his administration’s aggressive new approach to confronting the National Rifle Association.

Don’t you just love it when the Progressives eat their own? 

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Facebook Bans Firearm, Parts and Ammuntion Sale Posts - A Warning

          Facebook, the world’s largest social media website, has moved against America’s legal gun owners.  In a surprise announcement, Facebook and Instagram immediately banned posts about guns offered for sale between private parties. The ban extended to gun parts and ammunition. Offers that were all completely legal. There was no explanation of what prompted the Facebook policy change, but Obama has long railed against the legal private sales of firearms via the Interwebs; objecting to the lack of a FBI background check. White House spokesperson Josh Earnest applauded Facebook’s action, but smugly would not say if Facebook's decision was the result of any specific request from the administration.

         The impact has been immediate, broad and severe. Facebook started pulling down gun sales posts instantly. Many gun or gun-rights oriented groups were banned outright, removed for what Facebook called violations of its terms of service. Facebook has unjustly equated firearms with marijuana, pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs and groups that are hateful, threatening or obscene. Members of the Bradys, Bloomberg’s Demanding Mommies and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, as well as many so-called Social Justice Warriors swarmed Facebook, reporting anything remotely gun related. Facebook’s notorious “Ban first - ask questions later” policy resulted in the wholesale elimination of a large swath of gun groups, many with no connection to gun sales.

         Facebook gun group administrators fought back by tightening their rules, eliminating questionable posts, refusing new members and changing the groups names and keywords to limit notice by the SJWs. Often, those efforts were not enough. Many gun groups are going elsewhere, to private websites, forums and friendlier social media sites like GunDistrict,  Myspace and MeWe. This fragmentation has already caused a negative impact to the effectiveness of the gun culture.

         It should be noted that as a private company, Facebook has every right to regulate its business as it desires. Should they be limiting free speech about a lawful, enumerated right is an entirely different question. However, any government coercion aimed at chilling lawful conduct is at best unethical and certainly an abusive use of executive power. We must be on our guard.

         This was a warning. Gun Culture 2.0 is in many ways a child of Al Gore’s internet. The new ability to find one another, organize and communicate significantly changed the game from when communication was largely controlled by a hostile mass-media. To illustrate: gun rights advocates have repeatedly frustrated the current administration by quickly distributing information and coordinating a response to their excesses. However, the new capabilities rely on an internet largely controlled by the left-leaning elite of Silicon Valley. Facebook CEO and majority stockholder Jeff Zuckerberg, recently anointed as the fourth richest man in the world, could indulge a whim or pressure and ban every mention of firearms, self-defense or rights on his site. Other social media sites could follow suit, effectively eliminating most firearm and rights related communication. The remaining sites and forums would also be at risk where the government controls the internet Off Switch and the UN has been given control of what goes on the world wide web. It could happen tomorrow. It’s in our best interest to begin to develop our own secure, gun and free speech rights friendly websites and communication channels.

     We have been warned. 

Monday, February 1, 2016

Herschel Investigates the Malheur County "Standoff"

… and reveals an "interesting" coalition of players leading up to the shooting death of Robert "LaVoy" Finicum.

Full post at The Captain's Journal: Why Did Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum Have To Die? The Connection Between Malheur, Putin, The Clinton Foundation, And Big Money

Thought-provoking, to say the least.

Stay safe.