As they cut to the CNN rep talking to the audience, she’s setting them up with lines.
As they cut to the CNN rep talking to the audience, she’s setting them up with lines.
May as well start with the dumbest first. HuffPo is calling for complete disarmament of the US citizenry.
One may say that the Supreme Court, after 250 years in which the Second Amendment was read as allowing only a well-regulated militia to have guns, recently reinterpreted it to mean that there is an individualized right to own guns. This suggests that we may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.
Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written.
Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.
That’s a whole new level of smugness right there. Also, the Second Amendment as written would guarantee access to arms by American citizens, especially weapons used in a military capacity. It’s very clear what it says, as are the numerous state Constitutions that mirror it.
And the next stupidest, via HotAir, from Democrat Senator Chris Murphy:
Today’s gun vote wouldn’t stop recent mass shootings, admits leading proponent
Asked by guest host Jonathan Karl whether the so-called “gun show loophole” would have done anything to stop Orlando, Murphy stammered and finally responded as though he was Miss Teen Connecticut answering a pretty tough question about what his favorite color is.
MURPHY: So, it may have in the sense that if you partner together with the bill that stops terrorists from getting guns…
KARL: But wait a minute. He didn’t buy those guns at a gun show. And he would have passed the background—he did pass a background check.
MURPHY: He did pass a background check, but if the Feinstein bill was in effect, the FBI could have put him on the list of those who are prohibited from getting guns. And what if he went into the gun store and was denied? He could have just gone online or to a gun show and bought another one. *
KARL: OK. But what I’m trying to get at is that every time there’s one of these terrible tragedies, there’s these proposals. Your proposal would have done nothing in the case of Orlando. It would have done nothing to stop the killing in San Bernardino, and in fact, was unrelated to the killing in Newtown. So why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres that we are responding?
MURPHY: First of all, we can’t get into that trap. I disagree. I think if this proposal had been into effect, it may have stopped this shooting. But we can’t get into the trap in which we are forced to defend the proposals simply because it didn’t stop the last tragedy. We should be making our gun laws less full of Swiss cheese holes so that future killings don’t happen.**
Couple important takeaways here.
1st, let your lefty, gun-grabbing brother-in-law see this so he can stop telling you that you are an accomplice in the murder of innocent people just because you exercise the right to self protection. And repeat it on your social media as many times as it takes: These laws will not stop bad people from doing bad things with guns. Full stop.
Yeah, that’s pretty much it.
We already know that the Orlando terrorist beat his ex-wife. He could’ve been denied based on that, but apparently his ex-wife never bothered to call the police. He wouldn’t have had a security job, nor been able to buy a gun legally. Wouldn’t have happened.
Speaking of wife-beaters not allowed to own guns, from ThisAin’tHell. Short version is a reporter went into a gun store to try to buy an evil toddler-killing black rifle and was denied. He claimed it was because he was a reporter. Really, it was because he slapped around his wife.
The folks at Maxon Shooter Supplies and Indoor Range, who claim to be TAH fans, send us a link to the story about them in the Chicago Sun Times, wherein the Times sent Neil Steinberg, one of their reporters, to write about his experience buying and firing an evil black, scary gun (known in journalistic circles as an assault rifle). Steinberg does the handwringing thing about guns and journalistic integrity thing during his drive to Des Plaines, Illinois to the Maxon “lemonade stand” as the owner described it to me.
Driving to Maxon Shooter’s Supplies in Des Plaines on Wednesday to purchase my first assault rifle, I admit, I was nervous. I’d never owned a gun before. And with the horror of Sunday’s Orlando massacre still echoing, even the pleasant summer day — the lush green trees, fluffy white clouds, blue sky — took on a grim aspect, the sweetness of fragile life flashing by as I headed into the Valley of Death.
Earlier, in my editor’s office, I had ticked off the reasons for me not to buy a gun: this was a journalistic stunt; done repeatedly; supporting an industry I despise. But as I tell people, I just work here, I don’t own the place. And my qualms melted as I dug into the issue.
At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? “I don’t have to tell you,” she said. …
A few hours later, Maxon sent the newspaper a lengthy statement, the key part being: “it was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife.”
Well, didn’t see that coming.
This would be on the 4473:
From the Maxon Facebook page;
Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. “Journalist” is not a protected class, BTW. We contacted his editor and said that, while we don’t normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here’s why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He’s free to believe or disbelieve that’s why he was denied, but that *is* why he was denied. There was no “We’ll see you in court!!!!” type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn’t really our problem, is it? Thanks for your support.
The problem we have—and really, the firewall we have right now, is due process. It’s all due process. So we can all say, ‘yeah, we want the same thing,’ but how do we get there. If a person is on a terrorist watch list like the gentleman—the shooter—in Orlando, he was, twice by the FBI, we were briefed yesterday about what happened. But that man was brought in twice. They did everything they could. The FBI did everything they were supposed to do. But there was no way for them to keep him on the nix list or keep him off the gun buy list. There was no way to do that. So can’t we say that if a person is under suspicion, there should be a five year period of time that we have to see if good behavior, if this person continues the same traits? Maybe we can come to that type of an agreement. But due process is what’s killing us right now.
Haven’t committed a crime but the government wants to restrict your rights because you’re on a secret list somewhere? No problem! Just do away with due process.
How to get rid of the 2nd Amendment? Easy – just get rid of the 5th Amendment first!
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
5 years of rights restriction based on being put on a watch list? A watch list that Ted Kennedy had to fight to get off of?
How about… no.
In the last couple years or so, leftists who felt they needed yet another front in the culture war attacked the Washington Redskins football team for having a name that white elitist liberal leftist progressives thought was offensive to American Indians (or Amerinds, or Native Americans, or First Nations people, etc.).
A poll conducted last week confirmed what a poll years ago said – only about 1 in 10 are offended. The vast 90% majority don’t care.
If you know who Don Burnstick is, you would already know this. White elitist liberal leftist progressives obviously do not.
Don Burnstick is hilarious. Native friends who’ve seen him live (on a res, no less) said he’s a riot in person. He started parodying Jeff Foxworthy’s “you might be a redneck” jokes and took the jokes one step further into their own thing.
Today from Washington Post (via HotAir), there are white elitist liberal leftist progressives who are mad because:
WaPo: Those dumb Indians don’t even know when they’re being insulted
Just days after the Washington Post revealed that 90% of Native Americans don’t find the term “Redskins” to be offensive, the paper’s own editorial board has proclaimed that they know better about racial slurs than the alleged target of said slur.
In a move that illustrates the height of liberal elite arrogance, the Post proclaimed in their Sunday editorial that “A slur, is a slur,” and despite the findings of the poll, they’re still demanding the name of Washington’s NFL team be changed because, in their enlightened understanding of the world, Redskins is racial slur:
Where does that leave us? We’ve always made clear that we think fans who embrace the name do so without racist feeling or intent. But we also are clear that the term originates in an era when Indians were considered less than human and were often treated accordingly. References to scalping, war whoops and tomahawk chops hark back to that era and perpetuate stereotypes that can be hurtful, especially to Native American children.
Did you get that subtle insinuation that those polled were just too uninformed to know that they’re being insulted? “(M)ore than half of respondents had heard little or nothing about this controversy,” the Post says, knowingly. They left out the implied, “those dumb Indians,” but we all get the picture.
In the grand scope of things, there are better things to be pissed off about if you’re an American Indian. You could be pissed off at how tribal governments are run by corrupt cabals, pissed off at how the feds come in and tell you how to run things, pissed off at all the do-gooders who don’t actually help anything but their own sense of smugness, pissed off at the cycles of alcoholism and drug use that plague reservation communities, pissed off at the economic opportunities lost because of layers of government in the way, or just generally pissed off.
Or you could be pissed off about the name of a football team a thousand miles away because some white elitist liberal leftist progressives told you you should be pissed off about it.
From a little while back, but still a funny takedown of the SJW culture taking over campuses:
Stumbled over this piece on the Daily Beast the other day about how illiberal college students and their enabling leftist professors want to ban history:
Students at Western Washington University have reached a turning point in their campus’s hxstory. (For one thing, they’re now spelling it with an X—more on that later.) Activists are demanding the creation of a new college dedicated to social justice activism, a student committee to police offensive speech, and culturally segregated living arrangements at the school, which is in Bellingham, up in the very northwest corner of the state.
Students have the right to push for robust changes to campus conditions, of course. But if administrators care about free speech at all, they will ignore these calls to create an almost cartoonishly autocratic liberal thought police on campus.
Prefacing the hard-leftist demands with “of course” is an odd thing to include, unless one agrees with almost all of the demands. Otherwise, it would have gone without saying. The cartoonishly autocratic “liberal” thought police are exactly what the left wants.
Even a writer for the leftist Daily Beast that sympathizes with them has started to wonder about how far the left has gone, and see much of the problem:
At the heart of this effort lies a bizarrely totalitarian ideology: Student-activists think they have all the answers—everything is settled, and people who dissent are not merely wrong, but actually guilty of something approaching a crime. If they persist in this wrongness, they are perpetuating violence, activists will claim.
It’s not bizarrely totalitarian. It’s completely understandable. Their ideas are untenable, fail when left to reality, failed in experience in the past, and so in order to continue they must criminalize dissent to protect those failed ideas.
This is not new, nor is it limited to college speech codes. It’s endemic to those on the left who know their ideas fail.
Take threats of criminal charges against those who question
global warming climate change:
Attorney General Loretta Lynch has considered taking legal action against climate change deniers.
The United States’ top lawyer told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the Justice Department has ‘discussed’ the possibility of a civil lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry.
She said any information her office has received has been sent to the FBI in a bid to build a case.
With evidence of data tampering on the side of Manbearpig believers, with predictions about weather that continually fail to materialize, with even believers of anthropogenic global warming not feeling it’s really a threat, it’s come to finding threats to the Manbearpig orthodoxy and going after them as criminals.
Of course, we’ve already seen this with Mark Steyn being sued and targeted for criticizing the Hockey Stick graph.
I started looking for a video on that specifically, but instead found this video of him talking about criminalizing of dissenters to a goverment panel and citing numerous examples:
It’s relatively short, but hits a few extra places dissent is being criminalized, mostly in the realm of climate “science”. Because of course one of the critical parts of the scientific method, right after “observation of experiment” and “conclusions of experiment”, is “organize government to punish potential dissenters”.
First off, via Breitbart:
Immigration activists are pushing for illegal immigrants to be granted the right to vote in New York City and say legislation to that effect could be introduced later this year.
The New York Postreports that a proposal to extend voting rights to illegal immigrants, allowing them to vote in elections for city-wide offices, was highlighted at a Black and Latino Legislative Caucus event.
“We want to expand the right to vote for everybody, not suppress the vote. What a radical idea,” Bertha Lewis, head of the Black Institute, said according to the Post. The Post notes she said they expect such legislation to be introduced in the spring.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has made extensive efforts on behalf of illegal immigrants, including offering a city identification card. According to the Post, Lewis said she sees the extension of voting rights as part of that effort.
It is a pretty radical idea to be expanding the right of sovereign franchise to determine one’s representatives and government to people who are not citizens of the country and not even in the country legally.
Of course it’s part of the plan. Disenfranchise American citizens who’d vote against people who’d take their rights away and bring in more people who will vote how the leftist collectivists desire so they can finally get rid of the real problems in America – because the root cause of all those problems are Americans.
And from National Review:
I attended a hearing on Monday afternoon before District of Columbia federal district court Judge Richard J. Leon that was one of the most “extraordinary” federal court hearings I have ever attended, to use Judge Leon’s description of the case. The hearing was over the temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction (PI) being sought by the League of Women Voters and a host of other leftist groups to stop the recent decision of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to allow Kansas, Georgia, Alabama, and Arizona to enforce their proof-of-citizenship voter-registration requirement.
This morning, as I predicted would happen in an article on Sunday, the U.S. Justice Department took a dive and filed a pleading in which it not only failed to defend the actions of the EAC, but agreed with the plaintiffs and consented to both a TRO and a PI. Judge Leon called the pleading “unprecedented” and “extraordinary.” He said he had never seen such a document in his entire experience as a lawyer or a judge. He was obviously astonished that the Justice Department was not defending the agency, and it was soon clear he was not going to allow DOJ to just roll over.
The League of Women Voters, which has a wonderfully innocuous name, is pushing to oppose proof-of-citizenship as a voter registration requirement. There’s no conceivable reason why they’d want to do this unless they want noncitizens to illegally vote.
The judge issued orders just before the hearing started granting the motions of both the State of Kansas and the Public Interest Legal Foundation to intervene in the case in order to defend the EAC’s position. So Kris Kobach, the Secretary of State of Kansas, was given time to argue against the TRO motion, as was Christian Adams of PILF. The judge opened the hearing by reading into the record an astonishing letter he had just received from the chair of the EAC, Christie McCormick. It informed the court that DOJ had told the EAC that it would not defend the agency, and that it would not allow the EAC to hire its own counsel. McCormick informed the judge that she believed DOJ was not fulfilling its duty and obligation to defend the EAC and had a potential conflict of interest.
It was clear that Judge Leon was shocked at what DOJ had done. While he gave the plaintiffs 20 minutes to argue their case, he gave the lawyer from the Federal Programs Branch of DOJ only five minutes because he said that DOJ was obviously on the same side as the plaintiffs. He also said almost immediately that he would not grant a PI without a complete briefing and arguments on the case — despite DOJ wanting to consent to the PI. Judge Leon made clear that there was “no chance at all — zero” that he would do what the plaintiffs and the Justice Department wanted him to do on that issue.
Let that sink in. The DOJ, which is charged with enforcing the law, is on the same side of this as people actively trying to circumvent the law.
We’ve known the Obama DOJ has been a political organ dedicated to the ends of the hard left since they covered up Fast & Furious, but this is the DOJ outright defending voter fraud – the same voter fraud the left will try to tell you doesn’t really exist.
Judge Leon talked about all of the cases in which the Federal Programs Branch has been involved in his courtroom, and said he had never seen the type of incomplete brief that DOJ had filed in this case. He said that those briefs “usually cover the waterfront” in terms of raising every legal argument to defend an agency. Leon was very dismissive of the DOJ’s position, its behavior, and its failure to mount a defense consistent with its usual practice. Secretary of State Kobach did a much better job than the plaintiffs in explaining why the plaintiffs had not met the standards for the issuance of a TRO. Kobach pointed out the many errors and mistakes made by the plaintiffs’ lawyer. And he laid out the evidence of noncitizens registering and voting in Kansas — which is why this proof-of-citizenship law is needed.
There is a crystal clear example of why proof of citizenship laws are needed, because noncitizens are illegally voting in elections. And to this, the DOJ responded:
It was clear that this hearing did not go the way the plaintiffs’ lawyers and DOJ had tried to arrange it to go. They thought the fix was in. In fact, it went so badly, particularly with DOJ being called on the carpet by Judge Leon, that at the end when the plaintiffs’ lawyer got up to try to repair all the holes that Kobach had knocked in their case, the lawyer tried to compare the EAC action to Nazi Germany. He waved the EAC opinion at issue in the air and said “this is what Nazis do behind closed doors!” You know a lawyer is desperate when he tries to equate a dispute over an election administration issue to Nazi Germany.
How bad is it exactly when asking that people who are eligible to vote be asked to prove they are eligible to vote since there are people illegally voting?
And how far have we fallen as a country when the Department of Justice is out saying that any state that wants to abide by elections law, when it has evidence of ongoing illegal voting and states demanding justice, will instead call them Nazis?