Oct 2, 2016
Glenn Reynolds is not staying where he isn’t wanted. For all the same reasons that Sebastian pulled the plug here.
Twitter seemed to be much more about filling the niche of an RSS feed than a peer to peer content network. And Facebook is just as good for keeping up with commercial content (and somewhat better because it doesn’t have the message size restrictions, it has publishable calendars and native media storage).
Aug 17, 2016
OK folks, it’s time to take a rare turn for me and turn on rant mode. Some foul language will proceed.
Ordinary media bias pisses me off, but the bias found at these bullshit “Fact Checker” sites piss me off more than you can imagine. Some of the poorly educated millennials that must run these sites can’t even seem to discern the difference between fact and opinion. That’s something I think mot of us learned in elementary school. If I can’t rely on these phony baloney fact check sites to understand the difference between opinions and facts, why should I trust them on anything else? When you present your opinion as fact checking, you’re not a fact checker, you’re a propagandist. Not that there’s anything wrong with being a propagandist, but a writer should have integrity enough to admit it when they’re doing it.
The Washington Post fact check site wants us to believe it’s four Pinocchios that Hillary Clinton doesn’t believe Americans can keep guns at home. Are you fucking kidding me? The same Hillary Clinton that said at a fundraiser:
“The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
Do you want to argue that she never said that? Is this is all a fabrication of the looney toons right wing media conspiracy and Faux News? Computer generated voiceover from Alex Jones’ secret sound lab? Talented impersonator? Because otherwise, the fact is that she said that. What the Supreme Court said, and what Hillary says they got wrong, was that the right to bear arms was a fundamental, individual right, unconnected from service in the militia, and in doing so they threw out Washington DC’s ban on having handguns in the home. Later in McDonald decision, they said the right applies to state and local government, and threw out Chicago’s complete and total handgun ban in the home. Hillary Clinton believes that was wrongly decided, and when behind closed doors not realizing she was being recorded, told donors as much.
So, sorry WaPo bullshit fact checkers, but Hillary said herself she doesn’t think you should be able to own handguns in the home. Residents of Washington DC and Chicago are Americans, and their laws said no handguns in the home. The Supreme Court threw that out and she says they were wrong. This is what we call an indisputable fact, in case they didn’t teach you that in whatever shitty journalism school you all went to.
Politifact, a project of the Tampa Bay Times, is little better, claiming that Hillary doesn’t want to abolish the Second Amendment. They also just recently claimed that Clinton’s views don’t go against the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has ruled the Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to bear arms. Clinton supports gun control policies that gun-rights advocates call contrary to its interpretation.
Clinton said in her speech to the Democratic National Convention that she was “not here to repeal the Second Amendment.” In an interview on ABC’s ‘This Week,’ Clinton said, “I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment.”
PolitiFact earlier this year rated as False Trump’s claim that Clinton “wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.”
I just established the assertion that Hillary has said she wanted to effectively abolish the Second Amendment is unarguably true. They act as if Clinton doesn’t personally break into the National Archives, rip the Second Amendment out of the original Constitution, stuff it down Sandy Berger’s pants and then set him on fire, well, you’re just a bunch of delusional right-wing jackals for believing what Hillary says to donors behind closed doors. PolitiFact.com are no better on the First Amendment:
Hillary Clinton does not agree with the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.
The Supreme Court held in the case that restrictions could not be placed on how corporations spend money to influence an election. In the opinion of the court, since corporations have the same rights as individuals, they are also guaranteed free speech under the First Amendment.
That does not mean Clinton does not believe in the First Amendment. It means she, like many others, does not agree with the court’s interpretation of the First Amendment in this case.
Let’s get something straight here assholes: if I tell you that the Court got it correct when they ruled in favor of Citizen’s United, that’s an opinion you jackass, not a fact. If I argue that Clinton’s position on Citizen’s United means she doesn’t believe in the First Amendment, that’s my opinion. There no facts to dispute here. I doubt the recent college graduate from journalism school who probably compiled this article has ever read Citizen’s United v FEC. Often times, if I make a horrible mistake and end up arguing in a thread on social media, sometimes I have to say, usually a good bit more politely, “Go read the whole decision, and at least then we can have a discussion based on the actual case, and not whatever caricatures of it you’ve picked up from social media memes and propaganda rags.” I don’t mean to just target lefties here. Read any internet argument about an area where you have a decent level domain knowledge, and you’ll quickly realize 95% of people in the thread have almost no idea what they are talking about.
Citizen’s United is a non-profit corporation, and like many political non-profits, it has a conservative bent. It is not a charity, but a 501(c)(4), just like the National Rifle Association, the ACLU, NARAL, etc. Citizen’s United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton before an election. Get that? They wanted to air a film critical of a politician prior to an election. That is the very heart of the First Amendment. If the First Amendment can’t protect Americans from pooling their resources to more effectively engage in political speech, you might as well rip the First Amendment from the Bill of Rights and stuff it down Sandy Berger’s pants for all the good it will do protecting our liberties. Personally, if you think Citizen’s United was wrongly decided, I feel pretty safe saying you don’t believe in the First Amendment. In fact, to be frank, if you think Citizen’s United was wrongly decided, you scare the hell out of me.
I don’t like that Bloomberg can outspend us all year long, and single handedly reverse the work of millions of individual gun owners, but he has just as much of a right to speak out on political issues as you and I do. Granted, he has the coin to have a voice far louder than me, and far louder than 5 million of us pooling our meager resources. I don’t like it, but it’s a cost we have to pay to be free. A world where we all speak individually is a world where individuals have no voice, and where Bloomberg and people like him will be the only voice. If you believe Citizen’s United was wrongly decided, you actually believe our First Amendment freedoms should be effectively without meaning, and that only the rich and the established deserve to speak freely.
I once thought the Internet was going to change politics for the good, enlighten us as a people, make us better informed, and make politicians and bureaucrats more accountable. Then social media came along, and boy did I turn out to be wrong! Trump and Clinton are really just manifestations of the social media zeitgeist and the cultural wasteland it has created.
Rant mode off.
Jul 11, 2016
CBS News reports, or rather misreports, because they don’t know what they are talking about:
The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives calls the SKS rifle Micah Johnson used to kill five Dallas police officers on July 7 a “Curio or Relic.”
Due to this status, which the SKS shares with many other models of Berettas, Colts, Remingtons, Rugers and other firearms that are at least 50 years old, gun dealers said that in some states and jurisdictions the Soviet-era rifle can be purchased online and delivered to your door without securing a permit.
Um, you can only have one of these “delivered to your door” if you apply for a Federal Firearms License. So you do indeed need to secure a “permit,” whatever the fuck they think that means.
Yes, old technology can still be pretty effective in the hands of a well-trained shooter. Yes, having a ten round fixed magazine is not really much of an impediment to a well-trained shooter either. This is why we keep saying that assault weapons bans are stupid. The SKS is legal even in California, with it’s very severe Assault Weapons Ban. Even the new ban allows the SKS.
I also love how in these articles, they always talk about how quickly you can apply for a license. How long should it take? There’s only so much information they need to know to run a background check. You half expect if they aren’t asking you the name of your pet hamster when you were a kid, then it cannot, of course, be very thorough.
It sure would be nice if they actually took the time to understand how all this stuff works before writing about it.
Jun 27, 2016
This is real Baghdad Bob shit right here. Basically, to sum up, the NRA is increasingly dependent on the firearms industry for money, because $14 million has been donated by gun makers over the years. The author even mentions NRA’s revenue is $310 million from membership dues. Do you even math!?!?
But even with that, white men are headed to political extinction, gun ownership is in decline, especially among women, because the General Social Survey says so. NRA is facing stiff competition from Larry Pratt and Dudley Brown, most of its members secretly hate the NRA and disagree with it. Members will probably revolt just like Republicans did against the establishment because they secretly support gun control. 3D printing will be the end of the NRA because it will dry up that 14 million a year because it will put all the manufacturers out of business.
Seriously, Sarah Ellison ought to stick to writing about topics she knows about, and should also stay away from math. Last I checked $14 million dollars was 4.5% of NRA’s revenue from individual members. We call that “not really a lot.” Ms. Ellison could also use a lesson in discerning propaganda from gun control groups from actual research.
Jun 22, 2016
Apparently Sig Sauer is a shady company because Nazis. That is, if you’re a know-nothing writer for Slate. Some of the crap the left believes about NRA, the gun industry, and gun industry profits would fit squarely into tin-foil hat territory if it were coming from the right:
My colleague Rachael Larimore recently noted that the media’s reportage on firearms is often shallow and sloppy. I agree.
The author then goes on to finish an article that is both shallow and sloppy. Given that the Secret Service use Sig pistols, Kevin won the Internets with this one:
Bob Owens of Bearing Arms has more about this stupidity.
Jun 20, 2016
UPDATE: It would seem Steinberg was denied by the gun store rather than NICS, based on publicized history. In this case, no crime was committed.
Neil Steinberg tries to write one of those gotcha stories on how easy it is to buy a gun in America. The only problem is that the sale was denied because Mr. Steinberg apparently has a history of alcohol problems and domestic abuse. The even better part is that he bitches about it, and accuses the shop of bias against journalists:
I told her I assume they wouldn’t sell me a gun because I’m a reporter. She denied it. But hating the media is right behind hating the government as a pastime for many gun owners. They damn you for being ignorant then hide when you try to find out.
What a tool. I guess this is a situation where you can ask whether he’s stopped beating his wife. It’s worth pointing out that he committed a felony by attempting to buy the firearm in the first place. Again, I can pretty much guarantee you he’ll get the David Gregory treatment.
The Chicago Sun Times isn’t the only felons out there. Just like the Philadelphia Inquirer last week, CBS News would also seem to have committed a straw purchase. In this case, after seeing the report where CBS admitted they bought the gun rather than the journalist, the gun dealer ratted them out to the ATF. Good for them! Again, I fully expect the David Gregory treatment, but its worthwhile pointing out how easy it is to commit an unintentional felony if your familiarity with gun laws is lacking.
Jun 16, 2016
… I have to assume they are lying about this and taking things out of context in order to proffer their preferred narrative. You have to be pretty sick vultures to call up the descendants of a guy who’s been dead for nearly 20 years to get a statement about something they had nothing to do with. If it were me, I would have told them to fuck off and die in a fire. The family is quoted:
“Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. “He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events.”
Our friends at the New York Daily News, who can fuck off and die in a fire, ran this headline: “Inventor of the AR-15 would be ‘sickened’ by mass shootings.” Isn’t everyone horrified and sickened by mass murderers? I think that’s a natural reaction. Without hearing more from the family, I’m not willing to say anything against the family. Pretty clearly the media is perfectly willing to insert things between the lines that twist a statement into whatever advances the preferred narrative.
That Eugene Stoner designed the AR-15 and subsequent M16 for the military is a fact. But no military in the world has ever fielded an AR-15. In fact, the semi-auto AR-15 platform was quickly sold into the civilian market by Colt, and I don’t recall ever reading of Stoner ever having objected to it.
Jun 16, 2016
Double Tap Shooting Range Responds:
Yesterday the man in this video from the NY Daily News called and asked if he could come and interview us about the basic principles of how an AR-15 works. We acknowledged his offer so that we could prove that an AR-15 is indeed a great and safe weapon as stated in the video. After the video was filmed there was another Q&A type conversation on how things work in other countries, what are some of the things others believe would be a step into the right direction of gun control. To our knowledge we did not know that Mr. Kuntzman would completely turn things around and make our establishment look like one of anti-gun advocates. We have received dozens of phone from all over the country in regards to the article. Many of these callers expressed disgust with the article and told us to stay away from the media. I can assure everyone that we do not support mental health screenings like they do in Europe and we don’t think that government officials should take away guns from people as it was portrayed in the article. Currently we are doing everything we can to take this article down because after reading it we are just as disgusted about it as all of you are. Our team here at Double Tap would like to sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding and report that we are doing everything in our power to get this article removed. I implore all of our supporters to share our apology with everyone in-order to help defend ourselves from the media who is doing anything in their power to blemish the face of all gun owners and attempting to add more rule to the fire of the attempt of the liberal gun-grabbing agenda.To those that are writing negative reviews about us, please understand we had no intentions of having this article cause such an issue, nor intentions of us looking like anti gun advocates but, to educate which in turn did the complete opposite due to Mr. Kuntzman. If anyone has anymore questions or concerns please feel free to come in or call us we will gladly discuss this issue with you. And for the record, if you get a bruised shoulder or PTSD from shooting an AR-15 you may be a Katie Couric, liberal with ought testicular fortitude.
Never talk to the media unless they are known friendly. That goes triple for known hostile media like the New York Daily News. In fact, it’s probably a good idea that if the dude is arrives with New York plates it’s going to be a hit piece. Seriously people: don’t talk to the fucking media.