Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Trump Debate Responses on Guns Make Unacceptable Concessions
And there’s the rub, because NRA has promoted “kinder, gentler” Republican versions of watch lists, and endorsed the politicians offering them. While words like “due process” are thrown around as some kind of reassurance, the fact remains that a fundamental right is being denied to citizens who have not even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. And what real terrorist, assuming he went to an FFL in the first place, wouldn’t view a NICS denial as a good indication that he’s been made? [More]The man's advisers aren't doing him any favors.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Couldn't Happen in a Nicer Place
Louisiana's chief legal officer said Tuesday that crime has increased in so-called "sanctuary cities" that pledge not to pursue or prosecute illegal immigrants. [More]What did they think was going to happen?
Keep voting in "progressives," idiots.
Name That Device
Hillary is concealing something. [More]
Who'da thunk?
After careful consideration, here's my best guess.
[Via Florida Guy]
Who'da thunk?
After careful consideration, here's my best guess.
[Via Florida Guy]
Good Question
Shouldn’t the Presidential Debate Ask About Guns We Already Have? [More]Yes, they should. But they won't unless thousands of voices mobilize to demand it. I'd start by sending the link to this guy, but if it's just me and a handful doing it, nothing will happen.
One point I did not understand, or if I did, I don't agree with:
Some pundits trifle with what a packed Supreme Court might concoct, and the nefarious quakes the new boss might initiate in the halls of bureaucracy, now more influential and certainly quicker than Congress. Those gnats hardly matter...While I don't consider myself a "pundit," I don't see that as trifling or a gnat at all. It's the whole reason immigration / amnesty / pathway to citizenship is the single greatest threat we face, not only as gun owners, but as Americans who believe in the Constitution. So what did I misread?
UPDATE:
That took all of five seconds.
Guess He Didn't Get the Memo
Gunman kills Starbucks patron after credit card was rejected [More]Jeez, and Howard asked "respectfully" and everything.
[Via Michael G]
Meanwhile, Over at the BLM Protest...
The Thin $Green$ Line
This is an archive of a conversation, saved here for posterity (in case someone tries to cover his tracks by deleting the thread.) [More]Why would I want to do that? Turns out I was right.
All you, Grant Cunningham, and you, Rob Pincus, did was praise a Hillary supporter who earns his living off gun owners, ignore facts, insult me and then slam the door on "reasoned discourse."
Pretty transparent ad hominem diversion there, Grant, but go ahead, run away. I presume you've also attacked all lobbying groups, including NRA, for using candidate questionnaires? Unlike NRA political position questions, which you must view as McCarthyist in order to remain consistent, mine merely ask if anyone can produce sourced data to conclude the Democrat platform on Jorge's stated main issue (over RKBA), immigration is not a direct threat to gun ownership and carry laws, despite all credible polls and real world experience saying different. You won't answer the questions because you know you can't.
No I'm not. That's the major danger supporting Hillary presents, and I see you're avoiding answering the questions, too. First, Jorge himself admitted "For the record the article is almost entirely accurate," and you responded by praising him and continuing your "sensationalist" devoid-of-fact speculation. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know I did no writing for SSI and I provided venues to publicize Mike's work.
You both fight like "progressives."
---
Backstory:Monday, September 26, 2016
NFL Gutlessness on National Anthem and Guns is Divisive and Dangerous
Sure as individuals, on their own time and dime, they’re free to make the case for just about anything they want ... But they’re not on their own time and dime. They are wearing uniforms with team names and logos. They are representing a team and an organization. The forum they are privileged to participate in is not about them and what they want. [More]When you cede control you lose control. It's as simple as that. Which is why we dare not surrender self control of our rights.
The Debate
Just got done watching. First impressions, which I'll revisit in detail tomorrow:
- Hillary did not appear as ill as some were expecting.
- Trump raised two points of due process concern I've covered before and will elaborate on: Stop and frisk and the "terror watchlist."
I've never claimed Trump is any kind of savior, and have not shied away from including the bad with the good in my commentary on him, as any comprehensive reading of past concerns will bear out. What I state with certainty (barring one or both not being able to continue) is that if Trump is not elected, Hillary will be. Nothing I can do about that, it's just the way it is.
Now I have to get to work on something I need to finish before my day is over.
Taken to the Woodshed
Basing a blatant hit piece on an unverified forum thread started by someone hiding behind a code name is not remotely responsible, let alone respectful. It's a cheap shot. [More]Oh, I don't know. In case you didn't know, that's how Fast and Furious initially got exposed, along with plenty more threads to be pulled. What I will admit to -- and apologize for up front -- is my title should have ended with a question mark. I regret now that I did not think of that at the time I posted.
Still, you know for a fact 'Gunwritr,' with over 10,000 posts to check for consistency, and who is apparently well-known enough, is lying in this one? Especially when he indicates there were witnesses? Does anyone have proof he's making it up? If so, I'd be happy to find out the allegations are false and issue a retraction and apology, because proving one writer is lying about another might actually be a bigger scoop. If it is a lie, I'd think Mr. Amselle's lawyer would be demanding one from 'Gunwritr,' because that his livelihood that's being impacted.
And just to be clear: You're saying if something of interest to gun owner rights advocates comes across the transom, I can't call the link to reader attention with a disclaimer that your post and thread are conveniently ignoring?
With the caveat that I have not personally verified this, if true, I can't think of any reason why gun owners would continue to associate with someone betraying them so completely and profoundly.If it's true, can you?
And it's not like this and this don't strongly suggest corroboration. Let's see -- a gun writer makes claims of interest to gun owners -- which I present under a caveat, and I provide further links that strongly suggest there's something to those claims ... so what exactly did I write that you can prove is false?
If anyone here thinks immigration as practiced by Hillary is not a direct threat to RKBA, feel free to actually directly and unequivocally answer these questions.
UPDATE: Looks like I was right. And the professional trainer class is going full Fudd on me.
UPDATE: The Thin $Green$ Line
UPDATE: Looks like I was right. And the professional trainer class is going full Fudd on me.
UPDATE: The Thin $Green$ Line
Sign of the Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)