But they just want to have a discussion...
A short discussion, I guess.
|From the Barrel of a Gun|
|Random Nuclear Strikes|
|Only Guns and Money|
|The View From North Central Idaho|
|Armed and Dangerous|
|Hell in a Handbasket|
|View From The Porch|
|Guns, Cars, and Tech|
|Irons in the Fire|
|Snowflakes in Hell|
|Shot in the Dark|
|The Smallest Minority|
|Sharp as a Marble|
|The Silicon Greybeard|
|3 boxes of BS|
|Of Arms and the Law|
|Bacon, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives|
|Monster Hunter Nation|
|Right to be Armed|
|The 1968 Gun Control Act|
|Rocketry Hobbyists versus the BATFE|
|Third Circuit rules New Jersey can continue to confiscate firearms from travelers|
|Government is just a term for things we do together|
|Protestors oppose guns for upcoming ESPN Games|
|Senate GOP willing to meet with Obama's Supreme Court pick|
|2016: Why I'm not voting for Bernie Sanders the Socialist|
|2016: Why I'm not voting for Hillary|
|Obama administration officials who maintained private email accounts|
|2016: The Republican Field|
|The Dark Side of Data Retention Policies|
|Major media is paid by government agencies for specific content|
|Senate ethics complaints filed against 10 Senators|
|300 days of IRS abuse|
|A technical note on content versus metadata|
|Boomershoot 2009: Media Day|
|Building a Boomershooter|
|About The Author...|
A short discussion, I guess.
John Lott debates two gun control advocates on the topic of gun control at Berkeley.
Individuals must apply for a long gun eligibility certificate through the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) to purchase any rifle or shotgun. You are exempt from this requirement if you have a Connecticut permit to carry a pistol or revolver; a pistol or revolver retail sales permit; or a pistol or revolver eligibility certificate.
The application includes fingerprints and a training requirement, and the government has 60 days to issue you the certificate. Obviously, it won't stop criminals. They will ignore the law as they ignore all gun control laws.
|That's the best the Democrats can do on this issue -- they only got 2/3rds of their own party to vote for repeal.|
This is absolutely shameless:
The Internal Revenue Services tea party targeting program is still withholding approval of 19 organizations nonprofit status, nearly a year after the scandal was revealed, the agencys commissioner testified Wednesday to Congress where he faced fierce criticism from lawmakers who said he is stonewalling.
They have an election to win, after all.
|Victor David Hanson explains why government statistics can't be trusted.|
The House Oversight Committee demands all the emails related to the targets of its investigation. The IRS promises to cooperate, but delivers only documents that match certain search terms chosen by the IRS:
Koskinen has previously said the agency would cooperate with the investigation, but until now the agency has limited the documents to those found using certain search terms, like "tea party," related to the investigation.
When pressed for all the emails, and threatened with contempt, the IRS promises again to hand them all over...
Following heated exchanges with House Republicans, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen on Wednesday told a congressional committee that he will hand over all of the emails of Lois Lerner, the former IRS official under investigation for the agency's targeting of conservative groups.
... but says that turning them all over will take years:
But Koskinen also told frustrated Republicans that producing all the documents the committee wants will take "years," indicating that the matter is far from settled.
If it takes "years" that conveniently pushes the deadline for delivery past the next election, something Obama has shown a tendency to do in other areas (Obamacare).
Clue: It will only take years because the IRS insists on carefully examining each email by hand in order to stonewall the investigation. The appropriate response is to provide all of the emails to Congress immediately. Anything else is a cover-up.
It's a shocking list of questions to ask someone so young. I'm going to list the questions so they are searchable; follow the link to view the image from which I just transcribed them.
So here's the problem. These questions are being asked of first graders. Some of them are reasonable, some of them are absurd, and some of them are downright inappropriate for a child of that age. More importantly, though, the answers are none of the school's business unless and until a student chooses to volunteer something. Even if a student does choose to volunteer, it should be privately to a trusted teacher, not recorded on a form that will doubtless be kept in student records forever. Why should a student be expected to reveal such intimate details about their health and home life, including private health information about other family members?
I think there's a causal relationship. They can't be trusted with guns, so they assume everyone else is just as insane.
I would like to invite one of the NRA board members, and Ill be armed, lets just get this over with, OK? Come on down to Georgia and Ill be packing heat and you be packing heat or whether you want to or not, I dont give a damn, its up to you. And you come, meet me someplace, and all of a sudden, see, we have stand your ground here, and all of a sudden Im going to feel real goddamned threatened by you! And I will shoot you! If I feel threatened. The law says I can! Ha ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha!
I'm sure he thought it was joking, but he's the only one laughing.
The Post publishes an inaccurate piece of left-wing propaganda aimed at smearing the Koch brothers and the Keystone XL pipeline. The Powerline blog publishes a piece exposing the inaccuracies. The exposure is so bad that the Post has to defend its piece -- and Powerline responds by using the defense to expose the bias that led to the original piece. It's a tour-de-force of media bias blogging, especially for those who deny such bias exists.
And for those who reflexively boo and hiss when the brothers are mentioned, look at the philanthropy they have engaged in. The left continually attacks them not because the Kochs are evil, or even particularly unusual; they are targeted in order to give them rank and file left someone to hate, and they are used as a threatening example of what will happen to anyone who dares donate to a libertarian or conservative political cause.
Why do you think the Democrats are so concerned with ensuring people and corporations cannot publish their opinions on political issues anonymously? They want to attack the donors behind the message, because they can't successfully attack the message itself.
|He's a Democrat, of course. If the FBI and the local police together are going after a powerful Democrat, there's got to be something particularly awful or blatant about whatever was going on.|
The gun rights community has been saying for a while that if we aren't careful about what the definition of mental illness is, the government will define wanting to own a gun as a mental illness and use it to take guns away, a classic Catch-22. This is no longer a slippery-slope argument but appears to be actually happening: the VA is declaring veterans incompetent at the slightest provocation without notice or due process, at least one case in New York had a man's guns confiscated due to a brief period of time on antidepressants, and a recent case in Illinois had a man confined for a mental health evaluation and his guns and FOID card confiscated following his complaint to a politician:
[Plaintiffs allege that, as] of February 3, 2011, Plaintiffs possessed FOID cards, owned firearms, and kept their firearms in their home. At some point before February 3, 2011, David expressed âunpopular political views â¦ about his support of Second Amendment rightsâ to âa locally elected official.â That official, somebody in that officialâs office, or one of the individual defendants falsely construed Davidâs comments âas evidence that [he] had a mental condition that made him dangerous.â On February 3, 2011, [Illinois State Police] Lieutenant [John] Coffman wrote a letter to David revoking his FOID card under Â§ 8(f) of the Act based on the false and unreasonable assertion that David had a âmental conditionâ within the meaning of that provision. The letter was mailed on February 4, 2011, and David did not receive it until February 7, 2011.
The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own a gun. The Fourth and Fifth guarantee the right to be secure from unwarranted search or seizure, and to due process of law. It seems obvious that the Illinois' government's actions here violate all of them, if they took place as alleged.
|Details here. If firearms can be provided to someone else for safekeeping instead of being confiscated, that's an improvement. But then, that's also the usual procedure under current law, so in that case, why pass a law?|
Glenn Singleton is one of the people in charge of solving the problem of racial disparity. In hundreds of school districts around the country, his company has been hired to show this cohort of young, white, liberal and female teachers how they are racist; how their racism is responsible for the achievement gap; and how they have to admit their own racism in a series of Courageous Conversations if they ever want to be successful educating black students.
This is an indoctrination technique. I'm only surprised they think public school teachers need to be indoctrinated.
I don't know exactly what the problems are in the public schools, but I'm pretty sure "the teachers are secret racists" isn't one of them.
|Emily Miller is there to report on the case, no matter how stupid it is to press felony charges against someone because they kept a single misfired shotgun shell in their home.|
'They've blown off the subpoenas,' the aide said, referring to legal demands the committee issued to the IRS on August 2 and February 14. 'If the DOJ keeps dragging its heels too, and can just get away with it, why do we have an oversight committee in the first place? It's like the White House has never heard of the separation of powers.'
That's pretty strong language, but I think accurate.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said Wednesday that he wont be able to produce all of former employee Lois G. Lerners emails and those of other key employees by the end of this year, pushing it beyond this years congressional elections.
If they can cover the emails up until Obama is safely out of office, that's all they need. And if there wasn't anything that linked to Obama in those emails, they wouldn't mind releasing them after, say, the midterm elections. But years? One of those emails is smoking.
The case is todayâs Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2014). The court concludes that the ban is constitutional, even though it applies even to people who arenât living with children (most such locked storage requirements apply only when children could otherwise access the gun), and even to people who are living alone. The court also upholds the ban on sale of hollow-point bullets, though it repeatedly stresses that the law doesnât ban possession or use of such bullets.
Problem: the Supreme Court in Heller explicitly overturned safe storage requirements, though the requirements in DC were so strict as to prevent any use of a firearm for self-defense.
UPDATE: The decision will be appealed.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has labeled several Washington-based family organizations as hate groups for favoring traditional marriage, has been dumped as a resource on the FBIs Hate Crime webpage, a significant rejection of the influential legal group.
I think it's entirely appropriate to remove the group, seeing as it is run by partisan anti-gun hacks, but that's never bothered this administration before. So why now?
The school claims the teachers came up with the workbook themselves. But it looks a bit more professional than that.
This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison, the handout says.
The actual text of the Amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Nothing about "certain" weapons or "providing that they register them" or "have not been in prison".
The school system responsible for this is in Illinois, which has gun owner registration in state law. I don't doubt their little rephrasing makes it easier to explain state gun laws to curious schoolchildren who might wonder how gun registration and "shall not be infringed" go together.
I own, personally, approximately $30,000 of guns, contrary to what Cease Fire New Jersey Says, that they do not make 10-round magazines for, he explained. I also have in my possession at my range over $20,000 of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Aside from the obvious and strongest point -- "We will not comply" -- he also makes a potent and as yet untested argument: banning guns is a taking of property, which the Constitution forbids without just compensation. The 1994 assault weapons ban and the National Firearms Act got around that by allowing existing weapons to remain in public hands, while banning sales of newly manufactured weapons.
Connecticut's law requires militia rifles to be registered by a date (already past) or destroyed, so anyone possessing an unregistered militia rifle in Connecticut has been subject to an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. I wouldn't be surprised if New Jersey's law takes a similar approach, and I am interested to see if anyone tries the taking argument in court.
|If you have to manufacture incidents of racism in order to keep your ideology alive... then maybe you should find a new ideology.|
|<-- Previous||Next -->|