When you vote for an incumbent you are perpetuating our government as it is now. Nothing will change.
These three, short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current government and cultural environment:
1.) We are advised NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
Funny how that works. And here’s another one worth considering.
2.) Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money.
How come we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money? What’s interesting is the first group “worked for” their money, but the second didn’t.
Think about it….. Last but not least:
3.) Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping payments to illegal aliens such as monthly payments for each child, money for housing, food stamps, free education including college and also the right to vote?
Am I the only one missing something?
All of the “facts” that open his riff and that set the foundation off of which this Australian “comic,” Jim Jefferies, works are lies. The last time I saw these same lies was in a New York Times piece by Elisabeth Rosenthal after Sandy Hook. It took only a few minutes to debunk them:
In addition to committing logical fallacies, Dr. Rosenthal relies upon faulty statistical data about gun control in Australia. Without linking to any study, Rosenthal blithely quotes a Ms. Peters, who contends that Australia’s extremely strict gun control led to a 50% drop in homicide and suicide rates.
Actual studies show a different story, one that makes Ms. Peters look like a liar by omission. It is true that there was a drop in homicide and suicide rates, The available evidence, however, indicates that gun control had nothing to do with those drops.
Beginning in 1969, gun homicides in Australia started a consistent decline. After the gun ban, barring a single uptick in gun homicides the year after Australia enacted the ban, gun homicides continued to decline at almost the same rate as before (meaning that the gun ban made no difference to the decline). What changed in Australia wasn’t the guns, it was the culture.
The claimed drop in suicides is equally fallacious. What Dr. Rosenthal fails to note is that all forms of suicide dropped in Australia. Not only were people no longer shooting themselves, they also stopped swallowing poison and jumping from high places. In this context, it’s worth noting that Japan, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the world (not to mention the most law-abiding population), has the highest suicide rate in the First World.
Rosenthal is equally careless with statistics when she baldly asserts that “[b]efore (the gun ban), Australia had averaged one mass shooting a year. (Since then,) there have been no mass killings.” What she doesn’t point out (or maybe doesn’t know) is that mass murders are extremely rare, so rare that one cannot discern annual or even decennial trends.
Tonight, the residents and guests in my house told me not to challenge these lies “because it’s just comedy.” I know I’m a spoilsport, but I have no sense of humor about comedy as a vehicle for propaganda — precisely because people, especially young people, will not accept challenges aimed at “comedy.” Sometimes it’s very lonely living, not just in a Leftist enclave, but in a hard Leftist household.
Somehow, in the context of teenagers and old liberals laughing at lies because they think they’re true, this Pat Condell about the death of free speech on British campuses (something that hasn’t quite happened in America only because we have a First Amendment theoretically supported by a Second Amendment):
For those who haven’t read it yet, let me recommend again my post addressing anti-gun arguments (from which I quoted above), which is a post I wrote in response to anti-gun handouts an English teacher at my kids’ high school felt he could pass out to children without any pushback. I politely wrote him to explain that the articles were riddled with errors, but he did not see fit to give the prisoners in his class information about an opposing world view. I call that indoctrination from the school teacher’s bully pulpit.
For more insight into my sour lack of humor, I think my 5-Point Gun Manifesto goes a long way to explaining why these pernicious lies — spread through comedy (“You can’t challenge it! It’s just Jon Stewart or John Oliver or Jim Jeffries making a joke”) or through classrooms taught by teachers with grade control over a young, malleable, captive audience — infuriate me more every time I come across them. They are a profound attack on individual liberty, based on lies, damn lies, statistics, ad hominem attacks, and all sorts of other garbage, all sterilized by being “just a joke.”
Bottom line: Videos such as this one, which are spread widely and are made especially to appeal to young people, are not jokes. They are pure indoctrination dressed up as humor.
I tell myself that it’s a sign of my native smarts that I had the intellectual flexibility to abandon the Leftist ideologies that controlled the first 2/3 of my life to date and to embrace entirely new ideas. In other words, I’m not a weak-minded weather vane; I’m a THINKER.
The reason I mention this is that nowhere has my thinking changed more profoundly than when it comes to guns. After all, despite my Democrat party affiliation I was always patriotic, always supported the Constitution, always supported Israel, thought badly of Communism etc.
The one area in which I’ve made a complete 180 is guns. Before my becoming a born again Second Amendment supporter, I never thought about (1) the values the Founders were advancing, (2) the nature of individual liberty, or (3) the fact that the biggest killer of individuals, always — in any time, at any place, under any circumstances — is government. Instead, I simplistically, naively argued that guns are bad because they kill people. To my regret, I put my money where my mouth is, donating to the Brady organization and other anti-gun groups.
It used to be a joke amongst the anti-gun crowd — if the Second Amendment means we can’t take away guns, let’s just take away bullets. The fact that rendering Second Amendment guns ineffectual by stopping bullet production is just as unconstitutional as taking away the guns themselves doesn’t seem to faze the Obama administration.
If you are concerned about the way in which states such as California, as well as the federal government, are incrementally walking back ammunition availability, here’s useful information about the ATF’s current proposed ammo ban:
A couple of weeks ago, I asked if anyone knew anything about a shooting range in Las Vegas called Battlefield Las Vegas. Eric-Odessit had been there and gave it a positive review in the comments to my post. I’m now in a position to second that review. We had a fabulous time there and I highly recommend it for two different types of people: Those who know their way around guns and have a yen to try out guns from just about every major war in the 20th century, not to mention some cool guns from the 21st century too; and first timers who want to have a superior introduction to shooting.
From the moment you arrive, you know that you’re at a different kind of gun range. Rather than seeing the usual store front, the first thing you see is a large fenced area containing all sorts of military tanks, jeeps, trucks, Hummers, and other large equipment. While my daughter and I went straight into the store itself to check out prices, the guys spent a happy few minutes enjoying heavy military equipment.
James Simon, the doctor who shot a man who followed him home, tried to pull into the doctor’s garage, and started storming the house, has pled “not guilty” to felony charges of assault with a deadly weapon and negligently discharging a firearm. The judge also refunded him his $160,000 bail, finding that the 71-year-old doctor is not a flight risk. Something interesting is going on here: This is now the second Marin County Superior Court judge — let me repeat again “Marin County” — who seems to be taking a stand in favor of gun rights against the local prosecutor.
As those who have been following this story know, one Marin County judge also refused to indict Simon, believing that there was no case against him (i.e., the judge thus accepted Simon’s claim that he acted properly to defend himself and his wife). Dissatisfied with the judge’s ruling, the prosecutor, Edward Berberian, immediately convened a grand jury, and pushed through a new indictment:
It’s a bad thing when our president is happy
My Mom, in commenting on the state of the world today, said “Everybody’s unhappy.” I disagreed. “Obama is happy,” I said. “So is Iran.”
Why are these two happy? Because Obama is working on a grand plan that will hand the Middle East over to nuclear Imams from Iran, that’s why. Victor Davis Hanson carefully breaks the Obama strategy down. You should definitely read VDH’s post, but be prepared to be depressed for hours or even days afterwards.
As for those Sunni outposts that Iran cannot reach or does not want to control, there’s always Obama’s good friend The Muslim Brotherhood.
And that’s why Obama’s happy.
The Jordanian pilot’s immolation is even making Progressives scared . . . except for Obama
I have been engaged engaged in a running battle . . . er, discussion with a Progressive acquaintance about the Castle Doctrine. This is the doctrine derived from the ancient Anglo-Saxon principle that “a man’s home is his castle” and he has a right to be safe within its wells. In practice, the Castle Doctrine means that, if someone breaks into a home, that person is presumed to have lethal intent, giving the homeowner the right to use lethal force in his defense.
As I detailed in an earlier post, my Progressive acquaintance simply can’t wrap his mind around the whole notion of “presumption.” To him, it means “permission” and, flowing from that gross mis-translation, he interprets this permission to mean that, in Castle Doctrine states, a homeowner can, with impunity, shoot anyone on his property.
Yesterday, I sent the Progressive the news story about a 14-year-old boy who was staying with his grandmother when, late at night, a man smashed a window. When the teen challenged the man, the man ignored him and continued to try to break into the house. The teen shot the man — 18-year-old Isai Robert Delcid — three times, killing him.
One of my favorite rhetorical firebombs when people start talking about the wonders of socialized medicine, and the fact that it’s soooo much better than America’s pre-Obamacare sort-of free market insurance central medicine, is to tell them the dirty little secret behind infant mortality statistics. Socialized medicine fans like to point out that, when it comes to dead babies, America is so bad that it ranks behind Cuba, Greece, and Slovenia, among other places. They are left slack-jawed when I tell them that, before you can analyze the numbers, you have to know who’s doing the counting and how they’re doing it.
America, you see, is one of the few countries that counts all babies born alive as viable, no matter how likely it is that their desperately bad condition at birth will result in their swift death. Other countries, however, disregard those poor, fragile babies, and count only healthy babies when it comes to calculating infant mortality. A different common denominator makes for very different outcomes.
Keep that in mind as you follow Bill Whittle’s explanation about America’s murder-by-gun statistics:
Paris is under jihadist siege. The head of British intelligence promises that the West (mostly England, apparently) can expect another mass jihadist attack. My question is why are Muslims attacking Europe at all?
Well, of course, part of the answer is that, like the scorpion, jihadists attack and kill because it’s their nature. But the targets bewilder me.
It’s hard to find more Palestinian and Muslim friendly nations than in Europe. European nations loath Israel and they’ve shown themselves increasingly willing to give up their self-identities to appease the growing Muslim masses within their borders.
That last phrase “Muslim masses” is certainly part of the answer. Wherever there are growing Muslim masses, violence follows. But while America may not yet have the same percentage of Muslims as Europe, it certainly has enough Muslims to cause trouble, as we saw with the Boston Marathon bombing.
Since 9/11, though, what we’ve had instead of mass attacks have been those so-called “lone wolf” attacks, such as the one at Fort Hood or in Boston. They’re horrible, deadly assaults, but still different in nature from the fully planned attacks in Europe. In scope, what’s happening in Paris, with one major attack followed by smaller attacks all over the city is reminiscent of Mumbai, not America.
It occurred to me that one reason might be that more Americans (increasingly more Americans) are armed. Even hardened, blood-thirsty, martyr-status-seeking Muslims prefer soft targets. That thought led me to search through my emails and find the one below. I don’t know if the numbers are accurate, but I like the principle:
Some time ago, I read that the Japanese Govt in 1942 or 43 gave up any idea of trying to invade the USA because they knew that the US had hundreds of thousands of armed civilians who would instantly be part of the Army.
So here is a rough estimate of today’s civilian “army” so long as the people don’t give up their guns or allow a govt take over of all personal arms, and thus a government take over of all the states and their populations:
A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin …. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000!
Over the last several months, Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.
(That’s more men under arms than in Iran .. More than France and Germany combined.)
These men, deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, And NO ONE WAS KILLED.
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, ALL OF WHOM HAVE RETURNED HOME SAFELY.
Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the Hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It’s millions more.
SO, what’s the point…?___ The point is …..
America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower!
Hunting… it’s not just a way to fill the freezer. It’s a matter of national security.
That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.
Food for thought, when next we consider gun control. Overall it’s true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don’t possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain… What army of 2 million would want to face 30 million, 40 million, or 50 million armed citizens??? For the sake of our freedom, don’t ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.
If you agree, as I do, pass it on, I feel good that I have an army of millions who would protect our land and I sure don’t want the government taking control of the possession of firearms….
AMERICA! Designed by geniuses!
Throw in ex-mil (those that Progressive states haven’t disarmed) and other gun-loving Americans, and you’ve got yourself a pretty formidable bulwark.
Imagine this: You’re an elderly man driving along a quiet suburban road with your wife. You change lanes in front of another driver. The other driver immediately begins tailing you closely and, over the course of a ten minute drive, you can’t shake him off, even when you tap your brakes and slow down. As the road narrows from four lanes to two, you keep driving and he keeps tailing you. You don’t call the police, because there’s nothing yet to report.
Eventually, you turn onto your street and, to your unpleasant surprise, that other car keeps following you. You get to your house, open the garage door using your automatic door opening, and drive into the garage as quickly as possible — only to that other driver follow you there too. When you try to close the garage door, it actually bounces off that other car’s hood before closing.
As soon as you’re in the house, you grab your legal gun (one of 50 that you own) because you can see the other car’s driver advancing on your front porch. You tell him to go away, but he doesn’t. You fire a warning shot into a bush, and he keeps coming. Finally, you shoot at him. It takes two shots, one hitting the other fellow in the abdomen, to finally make him stop.
That’s what happened to 72-year-old James Simon, a physician, who ended shooting 70-year-old William Osenton. It was then left to a Marin County Superior Court judge to determine whether to charge Simon with manslaughter for the shooting. Osenton had little to say in the matter, since he claims to remember only the fact that, earlier in the day, he’d been in the hospital for a routine stress test.
This being Marin County, the District Attorney is very gung ho to press charges. Surprisingly, though, after a two-day preliminary hearing, Superior Court Judge Kelly Simmons declines to press charges:
Simmons ruled against the prosecution, ruling that Simon’s actions were not unreasonable under the circumstances.
The case is a really stunning victory for gun rights, because the judge rejected completely the DA’s claim that a homeowner cannot use guns to protect himself and his family until he has exhausted all other options:
During closing arguments Tuesday afternoon, [District Attorney Edward] Berberian said Simon could have locked himself in the home and called police rather than seek a confrontation.
Berberian said Simon’s weapons supply — which included more than 50 guns throughout the house — suggested he was “hypersensitive” and had a victimization complex that led him to take unreasonably deadly action.
“It was a bad judgment call, it was the wrong judgment call, and there has to be a standard,” Berberian said.
But defense attorney Charles Dresow said it was Osenton who made the bad choices. He said Simon had a constitutionally guaranteed right to protect himself, his family and his property.
“This is a clear case of self-defense,” Dresow said.
The charges of attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm carry a potential prison sentence of about 20 years.
Osenton was not charged with any crimes.
Simon made a short statement to the press: “I’m proud to live in America.” Since Berberian is thinking about re-filing charges, let’s hope that Simon has reason to continue being proud.
I’ve been reading on Facebook what my Leftist friends, and their Leftist friends, have to say about Obama’s imperial pronouncement on amnesty. One comment struck me especially strongly, because I have no doubt that Obama already has something prepared on his desk. I’ve changed the wording slightly to protect the Facebook author’s privacy, but the substance is unchanged: