Re fhe previous, Lawdog decided to play

and included this as his summation(read the whole thing, but this part needs to be spread around):
Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

Just in case you haven't heard, SiH answered 20 questions

from a Brady board member. Joe Huffman jumped in and asked a question, and never got a real answer(further thoughts from him here). Lots of other people jumped in, and Reasoned Discourse^tm broke out at some point. One of the answers made Tam's QoTD:
4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?

Yes.

5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?

The question is incoherent. "Banning" requires no physical action at all, and is quite simple to do. Even Clinton managed it. If you mean confiscation, well, there you've got a problem. Were you really coming to me for suggestions?
Tam's suggestion being 'Get bent'.

Added: I just looked at the site, and the first post that comes up is labeled 'Guns and religion', and is summed up by
...There is a web site called "God, Not Guns" that focuses on how the faith community can talk about gun violence as a peace and justice issue. Since peace and justice issues are natural topics for discussion for faith communities, the issue of gun violence fits with the message that most religious leaders espouse.
from the first paragraph. What jumps out at me is she's so specifically against 'gun violence', not violence in general; is there something about being stabbed or strangled that's just not as objectionable as being shot, or what? And my hackles tend to go up at things like 'peace and justice issue'; I've heard too many people use that as a "And if you don't agree you don't want Peace and Justice!" stick. And it goes from there. Including, of course, the Nasty Hatemongering Against Muslims:
...The topic for that day was the intolerance and hate that had fomented during the weeks leading up to September 11th and the "Ground Zero Mosque" including the possible burning of Korans by Florida Pastor Terry Jones. It was good to remind us of what St. Francis was telling his followers and what he can teach us still.
I'm not bored enough to dig through the place, but I wonder if she and her church have ever castigated muslims for the intolerance and hate they've shown for Jews, Christians, pagans, the US in general and the right of free speech in particular? Or the burning of Bibles? Or that Jews aren't even bloody ALLOWED in Saudi? I know, dumb question.

Down at the end she gets to a "Some of my best friends are evil bastardgun owners!" moment:
There are hunters and gun owners there. They have signed a resolution in favor of the gun show background check bill. They don't have a problem with the bill and know it will not restrict any of their rights. (They may not think it does; they're wrong) I also know that they don't believe that God gave them the right to keep and bear arms but rather that owning guns is a personal decision having nothing to do with their faith.(They're free to believe whatever they want; my objection is you and they wanting to force your beliefs on me and restrict MY rights) I value their opinions and their willingness to join me in seeking a better world where people are not shot to death in large numbers daily. Oh, for Deity's sake! "If you don't agree with us, you don't mind lots of people being shot! Or maybe you LIKE the idea!" Bleep.

I'm thinking Huffman is on to something.

MADD not only jumped the shark, they're fish poop; and what some cops do

instead of actually dealing with, y'know, crime and such.

Hey, Insty, sometimes we DO notice

women's shoes. Just depends on the legs they're attached to...

And, by the way, if George Soros is really a good guy,

why do these groups lie about getting money from him?

Making matters worse, Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard notes that J Street may have been lying about their funding:

The Myth vs. Fact section of the J Street website makes clear that “George Soros very publicly stated his decision not to be engaged in J Street when it was launched — precisely out of fear that his involvement would be used against the organization.”

An just six months ago, Ben-Ami told Moment Magazine, “We got tagged as having his support, without the benefit of actually getting funded!”

But wait! There’s more. Aside from Soros, Lake’s story notes that the largest funder of J Street, which again claims to represent “mainstream American Jews,” lives in Hong Kong:

The [Soros] contributions represent a third of the group’s revenue from U.S. sources during the period. Nearly half of J Street’s revenue during the timeframe — a total of $811,697 — however, came from a single donor in Happy Valley, Hong Kong, named Consolacion Esdicul.

Note that this is the second major religious group on the Left that appears to have been dishonest about recieving Soros funding.

Once again John Effin' Kerry opens mouth and very elegantly (updated)

inserts foot.

And his defense... "You people are too busy to pay attention to what's happening" from one of his ass-kissers. Yeah, all those tea parties and such are because we don't really care enough to pay attention, right?
Kerry made the remarks on voters following questions about U.S. Rep Barney Frank’s re-election campaign and queries about securing federal funding for the Hub hospital.

“I think a lot of the anger today - while it’s appropriate because Washington is broken - is not directed at the right people,” said Kerry. “Barney is prepared, as others are, to explain what we’re doing. I think when people hear the facts and they see what we’re doing, it frankly makes sense.”
That would be Frank trying to shove more of our money into Fannie and Freddie? And I'm still waiting for Frank to recuse himself from anything touching on these agencies since- far as I know- he's STILL sleeping with someone on the Fannie board of directors(unethical as hell, that).

And, Sen. Kerry, we've BEEN listening to your 'explanations'; that's one reason we're so damn mad, you arrogant little boob.

Update: Breda notes Simple slogan? You mean like "Yes, we can"? How about "Hope" and "Change"? That sound familiar?

I had to laugh.

The R Party got named the Stupid Party for good reason:

it earned it.
DeMint said he believed Wednesday's meeting of GOP senators was to choose a replacement for Murkowski, the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. But "one senator after another stood up to argue in favor of protecting her place on the committee," he said - resulting in an outcome he said she'll undoubtedly use in her campaign against Miller.
...
"It was bad enough to watch my colleagues work to support her in the primary after she had built a record of betraying conservative principles," he wrote. "But watching them back her after she left the party and launched a campaign against the Republican nominee was more than I could bear."
Well, guy, it's more than most of us can.

And we're damned sick of it.

That hearing today on the Justice Department failing to fairly enforce

the law on voter intimidation and such? Bad day for Holder & Co.

I'll let you look the piece over, I am going to point out one thing in particular:
Also on Wednesday, Mike Roman had a blockbuster piece that reveals Philadelphia New Black Panther Jerry Jackson, one of the polling place stormtroopers, is a felon in possession of a firearm. The Holder Justice Department is failing to enforce federal felon in possession statutes against Jackson, which make it a crime for him to possess a firearm.
Now isn't THAT interesting? The "We really wish the 2nd Amendment would go away" Holder & Co. are failing to enforce that law?

Any bets as to whether they'd have a problem enforcing it if Jackson had been white?

Oh, and two questions:
Did Colbert know he was there to distract from the above? And
Did this idiot think that being there would let him act like a moron(I know, how would he stop?) and get away with it?

Among the reasons so many people despise, and some actively hate, lawyers

"Tonight the death machine exterminated the beautiful childlike and loving spirit of Teresa Lewis," said the condemned woman's lawyer, James Rocap.
Really?
Lewis' life took a deadly turn after she married Julian, whom she met at a Danville textile factory in 2000. Two years later, his son Charles entered the U.S. Army Reserve. When he was called for active duty he obtained a $250,000 life insurance policy, naming his father the beneficiary and providing temptation for Teresa Lewis.

Both men would have to die for Lewis to receive the insurance payout.

She met at a Walmart with the two men who ultimately killed Julian Lewis and his son. Lewis began an affair with Matthew Shallenberger and later had sex with the other triggerman, Rodney Fuller. She also arranged sex with Fuller and her daughter, who was 16, in a parking lot.

On the night before Halloween in 2002, after she prayed with her husband, Lewis got out of bed, unlocked the door to their mobile home and put the couple's pit bull in a bedroom so the animal wouldn't interfere. Shallenberger and Fuller came in and shot both men several times with the shotguns Lewis had bought for them.
'childlike and loving spirit', yeah.
On a grassy knoll beside the correctional center, those opposed to the execution protested with signs and banners in the twilight Thursday. Critics said they were repulsed by Virginia's killing of a woman.
But they have no problem 'forgiving' her for the murders and betrayals and pimping, oh no.


Found at Althouse.

Saw a bumper sticker earlier that just did not make sense

Wording was, as I recall, "Honk if I'm paying the bills for your whining teabagging ass"

?

Considering the people this asshole calls 'teabaggers' are generally the ones working and being taxed to death... maybe some federal government drone pissed at people not wanting to pay more taxes so he can keep getting a golden retirement package?

Speaking of the Mexican Gun Canard,

or "Mexican Government Lies To Cover Their Ass" to be more accurate, Uncle links to this article on how bureaucratic bullshit is interfering with the "Save Mexico From The Evil US Guns" mission which contains this:
One recently released study by the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego found that out of 75,000 firearms confiscated by Mexican authorities in the last three years, 60,000 of them — or 80 percent — had come from the U.S. The most common weapons were semi-automatic assault rifles — a Romanian made version of the AK-47 and versions of the Bushmaster AR-15.
Now, something about that tickled a memory, and I just ran across what I remembered:

In May 2010, for example, the Mexican government, which has received training from ATF to better identify firearms, said that of the 75,000 firearms it seized in the last three years about 80 percent, or 60,000 firearms, came from the United States.¹⁸

But, footnote 18 takes us here, where it actually says (emphasis mine):

Calderón said his government had seized 75,000 guns in Mexico in a three-year period and found that 80 percent of those whose origin could be traced were bought in the United States.

We've heard that before, and what it means is that 60,000 is way, way high. Here is a good explanation of what is really going on. Short answer: 17% of the guns used in Mexican crime are traced back to the US.
Well, that doesn't match up to the "It's all the fault of you Yankees!" crap, does it?
That footnote also links to another article (you can have two references per footnote? Must be a "scholars only" thing) that omits the "whose origin could be traced" part and gives them what they wanted to hear in the first place:

Mr. Calderon told a joint session of Congress that of the 75,000 guns seized by Mexican authorities over the last three years, 80 percent are traced to the U.S.

Shoddy work, Kara Rowland, shoddy, shoddy, shoddy.

They keeping throwing crap on the wall to see if it will stick, we keep washing it off.

When Dad was still a LE officer, it was kids that bothered him most

Kids hurt or killed in accidents mainly(in his line). God knows what having to work something like this would've done to him.
Three-year-old Zakariyah and five-year-old Zuhur were found dead Sunday night inside the family's southwest side apartment at Manchester Village. A distraught relative called 911.

Police say Farah placed her children inside a bedroom closet with two beds propped against the door so they couldn't get out. She then reportedly went to a friend's house and left them locked in the closet for over ten hours.

The closet was two feet wide and six feet long. Zakariyah and Zuhur were trapped in the closet along with three other siblings, ages one through seven.

"There was no physical injuries to the bodies. So they don't know exactly what caused the death but it could appear that it could be a form of suffocation," said Lt. Jeff Duhamell, IMPD.
Ah, but we MUST be sensitive, y'know.
"Ebyan Farah will have no public comment in this matter, except to say she is devastated by her children's tragic deaths. She will avail herself of the criminal justice system.

Ebyan Farah hopes the media will be sensitive to the Somali community's sense of privacy and will not intrude in an effort to provide sensationalism in a manner that will ensure Ebyan Farah cannot receive a fair trial, not only in Marion County, but in the state of Indiana."
I can't really think of appropriate words to describe what I'm thinking; I guess it boils down to a line I remember from some comedian: "Some people would just look better dead."
'Community's sense of privacy' my aching pissed-off ass.


Somali community, hmmm, I wonder if she's a member of the Religion of Submission? I just have to wonder.

'Reality-Based Community' my ass

It’s not surprising that this comment was removed shortly after being posted. What is surprising is that I actually got an email about it!

I accept that the content is pretty much true. I do note on your website that you do state that some radioactive content is there, though small.
I find it hard to believe that reputable people in the area are so worried, if there is nothing to worry about. Perhaps these shipments are the precursor of worse ones?

Anyway, although I know that your comment is sensible – I’m not publishing it. Why?
Well, it’s simply because, like the nuclear lobby – I am not fair. Also the nuke lobby has funding for its campaign. We have none.
I can’t afford to be fair-minded
Best wishes
"Fair-minded would mean I have to present information I don't like, so screw your facts."

Reasoned Discourse^tm; it breaks out in the damndest places.

Liberals and progressives: far too many of them

are just assholes. Bigoted nasty assholes.

"You're not starving, so you're not paying enough taxes!", etc. ad Bullshit.

I have to think the congressman heard something that caused him to believe

that Holder would try to get in the way; otherwise it's hard to believe he'd send a letter like this. This is a flat-out "Don't get in the way, or else" declaration.

And about damned time.

Over at Kevin's place, some thoughts about what actually got us out

of the Depression and allowed us to prosper after WWII. Part of it:
The Keyneseans insist that it was the "public spending" of the war economy that brought us out of the depression and spurred the incredible growth of the post-war economy.

Not so.

They seem to neglect the fact that, after the war, the United States was the only major industrialized nation that hadn't been smashed. We had our own sources of raw materials, unmatched manufacturing capability, and the rest of the world needed rebuilding.

Who else was there to provide the things the world needed to rebuild? America's economy didn't magically rebound because our government had spent a lot of money it didn't have - that was just what had provided the manufacturing base. Without a market to sell to we'd have crashed right back down. But that market was there, and it needed what we could make.

That market isn't there now, and the rest of the world makes everything anybody might need. We buy most of it ourselves, if you haven't noticed.

The world is not the same as it was after WWII, and only a fool or an idiot would fail to recognize that.

I will note that this is a followup to what started at this post, which is now up to 561 comments.

If you live in Cleveland, and you're stupid enough

to actually do this, you deserve what'll happen to you in the long run.
Beginning Monday (Sept. 20), Cleveland residents who want to register their handguns can do so 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Residents can go to any one of the five police districts or make an appointment at the Downtown Services Unit at 2001 Payne Avenue.
...
Applicants will need to bring photo identification, specifically a government issued drivers license, passport, Ohio identification card, or military identification.

All applicants should bring all handguns unloaded and securely wrapped to the police district of their choice.(first thought: "Where you may or may not get to take them home")
...
And, since there has to be money involved,
When the detailed check is complete, the handgun registration office will let the applicant know to make an appointment to pay the fee and have their picture taken and to receive their registration card.
Yeah. It's voluntary, and they'd NEVER(oh no!) use the information against you, now would they?

Pointed to by Rodger

So Obama seems to have come by being a socialist dirtbag honestly:

he inherited it.

Madam, you're an illegal alien and we don't OWE you a damn thing. Except maybe a one-way trip out of the country.

So we're supposed to trust EVERYTHING to judges?

O’Donnell explained that “when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional.” How weird is that, I thought. Isn’t it a court’s job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional? And isn’t that sort of provided for in, well, the Constitution?

Short answer: Senators swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Of course they are obligated to determine whether a bill they are considering is constitutional. Where did Lithwick get the idea that courts, and only courts, should be concerned with the constitutionality of legislation?
...

It came to a surreal head when Sen. Chuck Grassley asked Kagan directly whether “the Second Amendment codif[ied] a pre-existing right or was it a right created by the Constitution?”—a dog whistle, I gather—to the “Christian Reconstructionist” argument that the right to bear arms comes from God. I guess by way of Moses and Joshua.

Huh? It’s pretty obvious to me that Grassley is referring to one of two possibilities: (1) More likely, the question of whether the Second Amendment codified a pre-existing Anglo-American common law right to bear arms; or (2) Less likely, but still possible, the question of whether the right to bear arms is a “natural right”. Even if it’s the latter, you hardly have to be a Christian Reconstructionist to believe in natural rights; the framers did, and none were. Indeed, you don’t even have to believe in God; I have quite a few libertarian acquaintances who believe in natural rights, and none of them are theists.
Standard leftist bullshit, I'm tempted to say: leave EVERYTHING to the judges that the leftists hope to have in place. Wonderful people, aren't they?

University of Georgia: "You used bad language! You SCARED us!!

You must be punished!!!"

This is so lame it's amazing.

When Daughter went to OU, they had the delightful practice of selling more parking permits than there were parking spaces; I wonder if they'd wet their pants and demand punishment for someone who wrote them and accused them of what's essentially fraud?