What is the most interesting about this opinion is that it comes less than a year after the passage of a universal background check law. As you will see, it is never enough to pass a law that "fixes" a problem. They want more and more. And when all firearms are banned, then these people will come for your very life. By Seattle Times editorial board
[The Seattle Times] But our sun-kissed neighbors to the south are showing bold leadership in fighting gun violence, a terrible epidemic that has our nation living under a growing cloud of fear and anxiety. I see what you did there. Conflate ownership of an object with disease, then with fear and anxiety. If that is the case, then you should buy a gun.
Building on California’s longstanding ban on assault weapons, the state’s lieutenant governor is preparing a 2016 ballot measure calling for even tighter restrictions, including background checks on ammunition sales. As California's governmental fist slowly closes on and chokes California patriots, the black market is starting to look better and better. A good investment for a youngster and an even better one for that aging individual seeking additional monies for retirement. And "tightened gun laws" won't stop jihadis. California's draconian gun laws did little to stop individuals from plotting and carrying out mayhem. These newly proposed laws will fall into that category.
Until a majority in Congress stands up to the bullying of the gun lobby, states must take action to reduce the proliferation of weaponry that maximizes one’s ability to kill fellow humans. Wrong. As the Constitution clearly states, rights not enumerated by the Constitution are reserved to the people and to the states. Since gun ownership, as well as use is enshrined and confirmed in the Constitution, any restriction against ownership and use are null and void as laws, no matter how long they have been in effect.
Washington state should follow suit by banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. This would increase the safety of its residents and signal a stance firmly against gun violence. The state, at any level, is not empowered, nor should it have ever been empowered to "increase the safety of its residents". That is up to the several residents, not their government. My guess is that that last phrase was subject to rancorous debate in its wording.
What’s less clear is whether Washington has leaders as decisive and concerned about gun violence as those in California. Or must we wait for a horrific catalyst like Newtown or San Bernardino? You must wait, because we all know y'all won't let a few dead bodies stand in the way of disarming the innocent.
An assault-weapon ban was floated in Olympia in 2013, after the Newtown, Conn., shooting, but it was fumbled by proponents who since left the Legislature. Translation: They were run off. Another finessed wording by wordsmiths who happen to be propagandists.
Washington took a step forward in 2014 when voters overwhelmingly approved Initiative 594, common-sense gun regulation that mandated stricter background checks on gun buyers. A law which has been universally condemned in both private and public circles, and which was openly violated, repeatedly violated since it was passed.
Smaller but important efforts continue, such as Seattle’s attempt to fund Harborview’s injury-prevention work with taxes on guns and ammunition and King County’s promotion of safe gun storage in the home. More governmental initiatives to resolve problems that do not exist.
Advocates for better gun rules are pursuing policy nips and tucks regionally in hopes of eventually tightening controls nationwide and reducing gun deaths.
Washington should renew its effort to ban “tactical” assault-style weapons and possession of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds.”(sic) Ban is just another word for theft... And gun confiscation is just another program for setting armed state paid thugs to use individuals for target practice.
While that noble work continues, Washington should renew its effort to ban “tactical” assault-style weapons and possession of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
There is new support for this approach. On Dec. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a ban on semi-automatic guns and large-capacity magazines in the city of Highland Park, Ill., signaling that such laws don’t run afoul of the Second Amendment. SCOTUS is wrong and those laws do "run afoul" of the Constitution.
That’s a relief since too much time has been spent mired in overheated, simplistic arguments about Second Amendment freedoms. Yeah. Ignoring plain language, and attacking and threatening innocents with real bullets fired from actual assault rifles because they own an object that is at one point unpopular, is hard work.
Yes, Americans are free to own guns. No, this freedom is not unlimited. This is obvious and clear in a series of federal-court rulings. Federal courts are wrong. And I would argue, given that past behavior and laws passed at all levels of government, the right to keep and bear arms is now unlimited and that the court rulings dating back as far as 1800 are null and void.
Whether there should be gun control is no longer a question. Translation: The debate is over, so shut up you AK toting, toothless, unedumacated, fat f*cking redneck! Give up your guns you murdering bastard, or we will murder you.
America has all sorts of gun-control rules but they’re often weak and inconsistent. This patchwork places limits on who can buy guns and restricts access to especially dangerous models. Included in that "patch work" are states such as Kansas which passed Constitutional Carry laws. Can't ruin a perfectly fascist opinion piece with that little bit of eye opening news.
Of course, California’s stronger laws didn’t prevent the Dec. 2 massacre in San Bernardino. The carnage was likely increased by the use of assault-style rifles available via gaps in the current ban. The carnage was, because the victims to a person were unable to provide counterfire.
Nor would banning particular types of weapons eliminate gun deaths or mass shootings. I guess one member of their editorial board considered the above phrase a big victory for liberty.
But limiting the availability of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines should reduce the scale and severity of future gun attacks. Ending laws that stop people from buying firearms should be the first order of business, which would actually "reduce the scale and severity of future gun attacks."
The goal is about improving the odds, like we do with seat belt laws. People still die in car accidents, but the frequency of death and serious injury plunges when seat belts are required. In the U.S., that saves more than 10,000 lives yearly. Speaking of odds: Did you know when you have 2 versus zero in a ratio, that is actually infinity? You know, two shooters, no one shooting back...
The value of this approach was noted in the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling for Highland Park’s gun restrictions, which the Supreme Court let stand. It acknowledged nitpicks, such as the fact large-caliber pistols are more dangerous per shot fired, then added:
“But assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster and thus can be more dangerous in aggregate. Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings? A ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines might not prevent shootings … but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs.” I listen to court pronouncements the same way I listen to Justin Bieber songs. Both contain the same amount of critical thinking skills that only a road paved with printed money can buy.
While a tactical rifle with a 40-round clip may appeal to one’s inner G.I. Joe, it is unnecessary for civilians. There are plenty of other options for hunting, sporting and self-defense. It is not your call to determine what is necessary, nor is it government's call to make that determination.
Assault weapons are widely available in Washington and most of America. The status quo implies that we don’t mind citizens using guns derived from battle rifles designed to shoot multiple people as quickly and efficiently as possible.
We do mind and it has to stop. I swear, if any such law banning "assault weapons" gets passed in my home state or nationally, Fred better start looking for my replacement, because the next day I will show up at work with my trusty rusty AK strapped to my back. And the next and the next, and so on: to infinity.
#3
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The object is to disarm and rule. The crown tried to do that once. Can't have those subjects armed like the army.
#5
And when all firearms are banned, then these people will come for your very life.
No. They don't give a rat's ass about your life. They want your money.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
12/21/2015 12:36 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Of course the monkey in the wrench is proving an increased lethality of the AR platform - specifically unarmed captives in close quarters. Would any rational person with basic knowledge of guns conclude that, in those situations, there would be less carnage if the shooters were using Joe Bidens shotgun?
#2
The move, which aimed to replace officials appointed by the previous government, is part of Poland’s new right-wing Law and Justice government’s attempt to consolidate its hold over Poland’s defense and security apparatus.
[NYPOST] Poor Barack Obama Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though.... . Americans don't appreciate his wisdom, and those nasty Republicans are picking on him again. Woe is the leader of the free world.
That was the essence of his private meeting with friendly journalists, where the president gave his water-carriers talking points so he could jet off to Hawaii and still look as if he's engaged in national security.
The session was off the record, so Obama couldn't be quoted or put on the spot with tough, public questions. But his trademark self-pity, partisan pique and warped ideas came through in the subsequent stories and columns.
He blamed cable TV for whipping up fears over Islamic State ...formerly ISIS or ISIL, depending on your preference. Before that al-Qaeda in Iraq, as shaped by Abu Musab Zarqawi. They're very devout, committing every atrocity they can find in the Koran and inventing a few more. They fling Allah around with every other sentence, but to hear the pols talk they're not really Moslems.... , and said, weirdly, that he missed the public mood swing because he doesn't watch much cable news. The session included his standard lecture about not sacrificing "our values," meaning we should keep pretending that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism.
A more horrifying point is that the president confirmed the widespread perception that he is pulling punches in the fight against Islamic State. "Obama doesn't think this is an existential battle that's worth the cost to the United States of an all-out war," columnist David Ignatius said in The Washington Post. A similar conclusion appeared in a New York Times ...which still proudly displays Walter Duranty's Pulitzer prize... article about the meeting.
Both say Obama will not change course even if America suffers what he regards as minor terror attacks, presumably like the one in San Bernardino that killed 14 people and maimed 22. Ignatius described this as Obama's "cost-benefit analysis" and wrote that the only thing that would lead the president to alter his strategy "would be a big, orchestrated terrorist incident that so frightened the public that it began to prevent the normal functioning of America."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/21/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And a second set of keys to the strawberry locker.
#2
But...but... the media made my leg thrill and they TOLD me Obama was the MESSIAH.
...the smartest man in the room who would bring us all together. PLUS he would be our first half-Black President and that had to be a "good thing" which made me feel SO good.
[DAILYCALLER] The history of the looming anti-Muslim backlash that never arrives is instructive. Logically, the original post-9/11 anti-Muslim backlash should have been the largest and most ferocious of the various backlashes, and indeed George W. Bush, members of his administration and members of Congress frequently warned Americans not to blame all Muslims for the acts committed by Al-Qaeda.
Even an anti-Israel leftist like Rachel Corrie ...aka Saint Pancake. A member of the lefty International Solidarity Movement, she attempted to stare down an Israeli bulldozer in 2003... Award recipient Delinda C. Hanley recognizes that there was no post-9/11 backlash. Writing in the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, Hanley gushed: "As a result of the effective campaign undertaken by America's leaders, non-governmental organizations and the media, a backlash that, in many nations, might have turned into a bloodbath was averted and, indeed, transformed into a celebration of diversity."
The group known as Human Rights Watch ... During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, HRW received a pledge from the Foundation to Promote Open Society, of which George Soros is Chairman, for general support totaling $100,000,000. The grant is being paid in installments of $10,000,000 over ten years.Through June 30, 2013, HRW had received $30,000,000 towards the fulfillment of the pledge.... however tells a different tale. It documents in the same era a series of attacks amounting to "a nationwide wave of hate crimes against persons and institutions believed to be Arab or Muslim." The numbers are notable either for the "ferocity and extent" as HRW puts it, or for the remarkable calm they convey compared to the predicted carnage. For instance the 17-fold increase in anti-Muslim incidents sounds more alarming than the fact that there were 28 such events in 2000 compared with 481 in 2001.
It gets more interesting when one reads that these numbers include behavior ranging from "verbal taunts to employment discrimination to airport profiling to hate crimes." Since no actual numbers are listed for specific "crimes" one might suspect that there are far more verbal taunts than hate crimes among the 481.
One rarely-cited statistic that deflates HRW's story is the number two: only two people committed murder attributed to the post-9/11 backlash: Frank Roque and Mark Stroman. Roque is the Arizona man who killed Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh gas station owner, and Stroman is the Texas man who killed Vasudev Patel, a non-Muslim Indian gas station attendant, and Waqar Hasan. In a nation of over 300 million people, only two became murderers after 9/11 as a result of their anti-Muslim rage.
After Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, M.D. went on a shooting spree at Fort Hood, US Army General George Casey told CNN that he was "concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers." Worse yet, on NBC after having acknowledged Hasan's attack as a "tragedy" Casey added "if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."
After the ISIS attacks in Gay Paree on November 13, the media was awash with breathless prognostications about the imminent anti-Muslims backlash: The Atlantic,NPR, The New York Times ...which still proudly displays Walter Duranty's Pulitzer prize... , The Washington Post, Al Jazeera, The Huffington Post, and many more.
Most Muslim advocacy groups (like CAIR ...designated a terrorist group by the UAE... and MPAC) are the prime movers of the backlash myth. In fact, the Attorney General's cautionary speech was given to a group called Muslim Advocates, which describes itself as a "national legal advocacy and educational organization." Her comforting words (to the Muslim audience) and admonition (to everyone else) might have been drawn from the Muslim Advocate's "study" titled "Anti-Muslim Bigotry Rises Alongside Hateful Rhetoric" which, as of this writing, lists 32 events comprising the post-San Bernardino backlash. Many of these purported backlash events are anecdotal. Most of the "assaults" are verbal. Four involve violence against Muslims or people perceived to be Muslims.
So while the left continues with its infantilizing condescension towards the American public, it ignores the FBI's own hate crime statistics which tell a different tale: 60.3 percent of all hate crimes in the U.S. are perpetrated against Jews while 13.7 percent are committed against Muslims. The anti-Muslim backlash is a chimera. If the Department of Justice gets its way, the real backlash will befall anyone questioning the received wisdom of the B.O. regime and its media supporters.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/21/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Muslims, the newest victim group created by the left.
Opinion essay by Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum blog.
News that the Turkish and Israeli governments are about to renew full diplomatic relations after years of tensions causes me to smile cynically â and to worry again about Israeli gullibility. The US has been burned by Turkey. Lots of countries have been burned by Turkey. First time shame on you. Second time shame on me.
The two states enjoyed close relations in the 1990s, when a common world outlook led to a strong military bond, growing trade, and exchanges of people and culture. Writing in 1997, I characterized this bilateral as having "the potential to alter the strategic map of the Middle East, to reshape American alliances there, and to reduce Israel's regional isolation."
It flourished for another five years, until the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve KalkÄąnma Partisi, or AKP) won the Turkish elections of 2002 and proceeded to move Turkey in an Islamist direction. Among many implications, this meant distancing Ankara from Jerusalem and, instead, warming relations with Hamas in Gaza.
Under the leadership of Recep Tayyip ErdoÄan, the Turkish government took one step after another to degrade Israelis and diminish relations between the two states, peaking with its indirect sponsorship of the Mavi Marmara ship to Gaza in 2010. In response, the Israelis did all they could to make things work again, even apologizing and offering to pay compensation for the Turkish casualties aboard the Mavi Marmara. Until now, they were rebuffed.
Then, on Nov. 24, ErdoÄan made the disastrous mistake of shooting down a Russian plane that had veered into Turkish airspace for 17 short seconds. This action came, it bears noting, against the backdrop of some 2,244 violations of Greek airspace by Turkish military aircraft in 2014.
The almost-unprovoked aggression raised the extreme ire of Russia's President Vladimir Putin. What happened next reprised the school yard scene of a lesser bully foolishly annoying the greater bully. ErdoÄan more than met his match in Putin, who showed himself a skilled risk-taker and willing to pay a heavy economic price to win his point.
ErdoÄan quickly realized he had riled the same bear that had beaten the Turks in war time and again over the centuries (1568â70, 1676â81, 1687, 1689, 1695â96, 1710â12, 1735â39, 1768â74, 1787â91, 1806â12, 1828â29, 1853â56, 1877â78, 1914â18). He then did what lesser bullies tend to do, scurrying to former friends â NATO on a larger scale, Israel (and Egypt) on a smaller one â eager to patch up differences with them. Playing both ends against the middle. Like standing in a doorway (fatal funnel) during a gunfight.
A Wall Street Journal report of the Turkish-Israeli negotiations in Switzerland indicates a Turkish readiness to close on the Mavi Marmara dispute, to end Hamas activities on Turkish soil, and (most important) to discuss a pipeline carrying natural gas from Israel to Turkey.
The last makes good sense from Ankara's viewpoint, for Israeli gas would diminish its dependence on Russian gas; but this step hardly serves Israel's interests. Once the Russian threat has passed, Turkish Islamists (will likely be around for a good long while) will resume their old ways, including the bitterly anti-Israel dimension. (Already, since negotiations began, ErdoÄan has met with Khaled Meshaal, a Hamas leader.) Because a gas pipeline renders Israel hostage to Turkey into the long-range future, this looks like an imprudent step. A kind phrase for it.
Despite an Israeli reputation for toughness, Jerusalem tends to be too optimistic (think of the Oslo Accords of 1993 or the Gaza withdrawal of 2005), creating major problems for Washington. Therefore, however tempting an Israel-Turkey gas pipeline may appear, Americans should advise and work against such a step. The other thing I wonder about is the route of this proposed pipeline. It would either have to go on the sea floor, or it would have to go by land through Syria, which is presently occupied in a war within its borders.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
12/21/2015 14:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This will all come down to the negotiations. If the Turks pay for all of it, it's a great deal for Israel. If the Turks had any sense, they'd do so, and use it as one of several lines to become the hub between ME resources and EU customers. Fight the monopoly suppliers with a monopsony customer.
Probably way too much to ask for. Still, worth asking.
#2
Iff IRAN-N-ONLY-IRAN is going to allegedly become "un-livable" widin next 20 years due to GWCC + poor or incompetetnt public policies, WHOSE TO SAY IT WON'T BE SAME FOR THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST = MUSLIM WORLD.
* IIRC TOPIX > CLIMATE CHANGE IS HEATING/WARMING UP THE WORLD'S FRESH WATER SUPPLY.
Naturally cool or cold water, or fresh water, may slowly + steadily be devol into a thing of the past as the Sun heats up the Earth over time.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
