Saturday, December 22, 2018
"You don't need a gun, the police wil- oops..."
...What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand is
that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any
weapon for self-defense (former Penal Law, § 1897). Thus, by a rather
bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the
City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."
That's from Riss v. New York, 1968; Where the state said "Trust the cops to protect you. Except they don't have to."
But you wanting a gun for self-defense is a horrible idea.
That's from Riss v. New York, 1968; Where the state said "Trust the cops to protect you. Except they don't have to."
But you wanting a gun for self-defense is a horrible idea.
Friday, December 21, 2018
Fits with what's been observed over time
There is a significant gap between the number of defensive gun uses
researchers find in surveys, and defensive gun uses recorded by police
or in various media.
...
Over the years, I have had many people tell me of their personal defensive gun uses. The vast majority of them occurred with no shots being fired. The vast majority were credible. Only one of them (with no shots fired) reported the incident to the police. It was never reported in the local media.
Throw in places like New Effing York where a dgu- no matter what- can get you thrown in jail, and if someone can just walk away, they will. Especially if it's a 'no shot fired' use. Things like that push the official numbers WAY down.
...
Over the years, I have had many people tell me of their personal defensive gun uses. The vast majority of them occurred with no shots being fired. The vast majority were credible. Only one of them (with no shots fired) reported the incident to the police. It was never reported in the local media.
Throw in places like New Effing York where a dgu- no matter what- can get you thrown in jail, and if someone can just walk away, they will. Especially if it's a 'no shot fired' use. Things like that push the official numbers WAY down.
Taking a lesson(several, actually) from Trudeau's idiocies
Lesson 1: A failure to recognize past failures dictates calls for more restrictive legislation.
...
Lesson 2: Politicians prefer grand gestures over measured policies.
...
Lesson 3: Long term and secondary consequences are rarely considered.
Lesson 2 fits with Uncle's definition that " 'Gun control' is what politicians do instead of something." And I'm going to borrow this from that part of the article:
Canadian lawmakers have failed to address the primary driver of gun violence: gangs. Demands for gun control routinely displace calls for measured policies that target this problem.
...
Ignoring the dangers of gang violence, the demand for a national gun ban is matched only by the push for lowering judicial sanctions for violent crimes. Still, the gun ban’s popularity remains high as political half-measures are designed to placate voters rather than protect them.
Bingo.
...
Lesson 2: Politicians prefer grand gestures over measured policies.
...
Lesson 3: Long term and secondary consequences are rarely considered.
Lesson 2 fits with Uncle's definition that " 'Gun control' is what politicians do instead of something." And I'm going to borrow this from that part of the article:
Canadian lawmakers have failed to address the primary driver of gun violence: gangs. Demands for gun control routinely displace calls for measured policies that target this problem.
...
Ignoring the dangers of gang violence, the demand for a national gun ban is matched only by the push for lowering judicial sanctions for violent crimes. Still, the gun ban’s popularity remains high as political half-measures are designed to placate voters rather than protect them.
Bingo.
Thursday, December 20, 2018
I swear, reading comprehension is becoming a lost skill
What brought this up was a thread on Bookface, in which someone stated that organic lubes aren't an optimal choice for firearms. Generally, I agree. And I linked to a piece Grant Cunningham wrote on lubrication. If you've never read it, he states that some food-grade lubes(NOT food additives or such, but stuff rated safe to use on food-handling equipment) work very well and lays out why he likes them.
Which led to being told "I work at a food plant, those lubes suck, they don't work, they're too expensive," etc., which would be fine for arguing except for the add-on: "If it's so great, why aren't you running it in your car?"
Pointed out that
It's not organic,
It's not real expensive(referring to the Lubriplate SFL-0),
And maybe I'm not running it in the car because it's not motor oil?
Response was a picture of someone staring like "Look at how stupid you are!"
I mean really, how can you argue with logic like that?
Which led to being told "I work at a food plant, those lubes suck, they don't work, they're too expensive," etc., which would be fine for arguing except for the add-on: "If it's so great, why aren't you running it in your car?"
Pointed out that
It's not organic,
It's not real expensive(referring to the Lubriplate SFL-0),
And maybe I'm not running it in the car because it's not motor oil?
Response was a picture of someone staring like "Look at how stupid you are!"
I mean really, how can you argue with logic like that?
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
"Scream at the NRA and those hick gun owners, that'll distract from our fuckups
and we might not have to deal with them!"
Read it. Breakables and 'desire to purchase rope' warnings in effect. This is a small part of it:
From rapes to arsons to guns, Florida’s school districts are hiding countless crimes that take place on campus, defying state laws and leaving parents with the false impression that children are safer than they are.
Many serious offenses — and even minor ones — are never reported to the state as required, an investigation by the South Florida Sun Sentinel found. A staggering number of schools report no incidents at all — no bullying, no trespassing, nothing.
The state largely takes the districts at their word, and state law provides no penalties for administrators who allow the lies to continue. Several districts pledged to change their ways only when confronted by journalists.
No one told the state after a registered sex offender trespassed at the Deane Bozeman School in Panama City in 2016. Or that police charged a woman in 2014 with trying to choke and kidnap a student at Eccleston Elementary in Orlando. Or that a drunk Tampa Bay man brought a Glock pistol to a Seminole High football game in 2015 and threatened to shoot a teacher.
Even murder has been ignored. A student at Coral Gables Senior High got a 40-year prison sentence for a fatal stabbing in 2009, a case that attracted national attention, but the Miami-Dade County school district never reported it to the state.
Read it. Breakables and 'desire to purchase rope' warnings in effect. This is a small part of it:
From rapes to arsons to guns, Florida’s school districts are hiding countless crimes that take place on campus, defying state laws and leaving parents with the false impression that children are safer than they are.
Many serious offenses — and even minor ones — are never reported to the state as required, an investigation by the South Florida Sun Sentinel found. A staggering number of schools report no incidents at all — no bullying, no trespassing, nothing.
The state largely takes the districts at their word, and state law provides no penalties for administrators who allow the lies to continue. Several districts pledged to change their ways only when confronted by journalists.
No one told the state after a registered sex offender trespassed at the Deane Bozeman School in Panama City in 2016. Or that police charged a woman in 2014 with trying to choke and kidnap a student at Eccleston Elementary in Orlando. Or that a drunk Tampa Bay man brought a Glock pistol to a Seminole High football game in 2015 and threatened to shoot a teacher.
Even murder has been ignored. A student at Coral Gables Senior High got a 40-year prison sentence for a fatal stabbing in 2009, a case that attracted national attention, but the Miami-Dade County school district never reported it to the state.
Monday, December 17, 2018
Wonder how the New Jersey cops will like being treated like the commoners?* (updated)
Bergen County Prosecutor Dennis Calo issued a memorandum to local police officials on Dec. 13 reminding everyone that the prohibition of the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines also applied to off-duty law enforcement officers.
“The statute now provides that law enforcement officers are not permitted to possess large capacity ammunition magazines, i.e. magazines capable of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously into semi-automatic firearms, unless while on duty or traveling to or from an authorized place of duty,” the memo read.
“This statute applies to all law enforcement officers, including those subject to on-call status. Violation of this statute constitutes a fourth degree crime,” the memo continued.
A: This is a fine demonstration of just how stupid both most gun laws and the people pushing them are.
B: Fear not, the Only Ones are trying to take care of their own. Of course.
“There is legislation pending to amend the statute to permit law enforcement officers possession of large capacity magazines. We will keep you informed if and when the statute is amended.”
Oh yeah, can't have the uniforms you want to enforce your edicts being treated like everyone else.
And the New Jersey Stasi are right on the case:
The NJ State Police refused to rule out house-to-house checks. Rather, they responded: “We do not discuss enforcement strategies.”
Breitbart News also reached out to Gov. Phil Murphy’s (D) press secretary Daniel Bryan about enforcement of the ban. As of the publication of this article Bryan had not ruled out house-to-house enforcement of the ban either.
'House-to-house checks'. Gee I wonder how they'll justify that violation of the Constitution they supposedly swore to uphold?
Update:
NJSP contacted Breitbart News on the night of December 11, offering a second statement which went further than the first. They said: “While we do not discuss our enforcement strategies, there are no plans to go door-to-door to enforce this current ban.”
So, did one of the geniuses figure that that that might be both illegal and dangerous, or did they just realize what Stasi the original statement revealed them to be?
*Assuming any have the balls or integrity to actually enforce this mess against other cops.
“The statute now provides that law enforcement officers are not permitted to possess large capacity ammunition magazines, i.e. magazines capable of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously into semi-automatic firearms, unless while on duty or traveling to or from an authorized place of duty,” the memo read.
“This statute applies to all law enforcement officers, including those subject to on-call status. Violation of this statute constitutes a fourth degree crime,” the memo continued.
A: This is a fine demonstration of just how stupid both most gun laws and the people pushing them are.
B: Fear not, the Only Ones are trying to take care of their own. Of course.
“There is legislation pending to amend the statute to permit law enforcement officers possession of large capacity magazines. We will keep you informed if and when the statute is amended.”
Oh yeah, can't have the uniforms you want to enforce your edicts being treated like everyone else.
And the New Jersey Stasi are right on the case:
The NJ State Police refused to rule out house-to-house checks. Rather, they responded: “We do not discuss enforcement strategies.”
Breitbart News also reached out to Gov. Phil Murphy’s (D) press secretary Daniel Bryan about enforcement of the ban. As of the publication of this article Bryan had not ruled out house-to-house enforcement of the ban either.
'House-to-house checks'. Gee I wonder how they'll justify that violation of the Constitution they supposedly swore to uphold?
Update:
NJSP contacted Breitbart News on the night of December 11, offering a second statement which went further than the first. They said: “While we do not discuss our enforcement strategies, there are no plans to go door-to-door to enforce this current ban.”
So, did one of the geniuses figure that that that might be both illegal and dangerous, or did they just realize what Stasi the original statement revealed them to be?
*Assuming any have the balls or integrity to actually enforce this mess against other cops.
Whyever would the prosecutors NOT want jurors to hear about Fast & Furious?
I mean, what's a pile of dead bodies, and violating national borders, and arming cartels, in the name of pushing for gun control?
This crap- both the gunrunning itself and the coverups and protecting the idiots behind it- is a big reason for a lot of the "Trust you bastards? Why would I do that?" attitude toward the .gov nowadays.
Also behind the "Trust the media? That would be stupid." attitudes.
This crap- both the gunrunning itself and the coverups and protecting the idiots behind it- is a big reason for a lot of the "Trust you bastards? Why would I do that?" attitude toward the .gov nowadays.
Also behind the "Trust the media? That would be stupid." attitudes.
Under "The hell 'nobody wants to take your guns!' ", we have the asshats running Pittsburgh
"Screw state law, we want to ban things!"
They'll be sued, they'll spend a ton of other people's money losing, and they'll proclaim their caring and virtue the whole time.
They'll be sued, they'll spend a ton of other people's money losing, and they'll proclaim their caring and virtue the whole time.
Sunday, December 16, 2018
Once more: trusting the EffingBI is stupid, and Comey belongs behind bars
for his repeated lying under oath.
To my eye, the situation is even more disturbing than the press reporting suggests. It appears that there is no 302 of the Flynn interview. The 302 dated August 22, 2017, which Mueller submitted to the court, documents an interview of Peter Strzok, not of Flynn. It appears that this interview of Strzok took place on July 19, notes of the interview were drafted the next day (July 20), and the 302 was approved and entered into the FBI’s files on August 22. The question obviously arises: Where is the Flynn 302? FBI procedures would have called for a report within a few days of the interview. It is not that there wasn’t one for seven months. For now, it looks like none has been produced at all.
Gee, the EffingBI- again- not even following its own damned procedures.
1) So this is what @Comey told the House last week about agents who interviewed Flynn: "the conclusion of the investigators was he was obviously lying..."
...
2) And here is what the Strzok 302 just filed to Judge Sullivan says: Both agents "had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying."
So remind me again so many folk treat everything @Comey says as gospel truth?
...
Agents say they didn't think lied. Also, McCabe memo has a redacted line that makes it sound as if Flynn tells McCabe that he knows there are likely transcripts of his talks with ambassador. So why lie?
Because they're corrupt, and that's what corrupt people do.
To my eye, the situation is even more disturbing than the press reporting suggests. It appears that there is no 302 of the Flynn interview. The 302 dated August 22, 2017, which Mueller submitted to the court, documents an interview of Peter Strzok, not of Flynn. It appears that this interview of Strzok took place on July 19, notes of the interview were drafted the next day (July 20), and the 302 was approved and entered into the FBI’s files on August 22. The question obviously arises: Where is the Flynn 302? FBI procedures would have called for a report within a few days of the interview. It is not that there wasn’t one for seven months. For now, it looks like none has been produced at all.
Gee, the EffingBI- again- not even following its own damned procedures.
1) So this is what @Comey told the House last week about agents who interviewed Flynn: "the conclusion of the investigators was he was obviously lying..."
...
2) And here is what the Strzok 302 just filed to Judge Sullivan says: Both agents "had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying."
So remind me again so many folk treat everything @Comey says as gospel truth?
...
Agents say they didn't think lied. Also, McCabe memo has a redacted line that makes it sound as if Flynn tells McCabe that he knows there are likely transcripts of his talks with ambassador. So why lie?
Because they're corrupt, and that's what corrupt people do.
There's an idiot named Henry Rollins
who has a meme that's basically "Guns are for weak people, you're wrong if you think otherwise." Which is stupid on its face for a variety of reasons, but Burkhead has his own response for a lot of people:
Yes, guns are tools for the weak. They are what give the weak a fighting stance against aggressors who are stronger than them. If you really think that worshiping the strong over the weak is a good thing, I have only one thing to say to you:
Crack open a history book.
If, however, you think that justice demands that the weak, faced with a violent encounter, to return safely to their loved ones then you can’t ask for a better option than to allow them to be armed, to be armed with weapons that do not rely on strength or lifelong dedication in developing skill.
My response anymore to idiots who pop up with "You can learn to protect your self unarmed, guns are bad!" is "So people who're weak, or sick, or crippled, aren't allowed to defend themselves? You ableist bastard!"
It pisses them off, which is the idea. I'm sick of them.
Yes, guns are tools for the weak. They are what give the weak a fighting stance against aggressors who are stronger than them. If you really think that worshiping the strong over the weak is a good thing, I have only one thing to say to you:
Crack open a history book.
If, however, you think that justice demands that the weak, faced with a violent encounter, to return safely to their loved ones then you can’t ask for a better option than to allow them to be armed, to be armed with weapons that do not rely on strength or lifelong dedication in developing skill.
My response anymore to idiots who pop up with "You can learn to protect your self unarmed, guns are bad!" is "So people who're weak, or sick, or crippled, aren't allowed to defend themselves? You ableist bastard!"
It pisses them off, which is the idea. I'm sick of them.
Parents drag kid through desert, with no food or water for days;
kid gets sick. Border Patrol sees to medical help, but kid dies. The left:
"TRUMP POLICY AND THE BORDER PATROL MURDERED THIS CHILD!"
Ah, the left, predictable as always.
"TRUMP POLICY AND THE BORDER PATROL MURDERED THIS CHILD!"
Ah, the left, predictable as always.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)