Weekly Gun News – Edition 49


Been missing the gun news the past couple weeks because of Hawaii, then your usual get back from vacation madness. But here’s a tab dump! Some of these might be a bit aged, so sorry for that.

Dave Hardy examines Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the Waco fiasco.

Looks like Soldier of Fortune is cribbing content these days too. How the mighty have fallen. At least they didn’t attribute it to “Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)” Looks like they had permission.

Gun control group admits background checks are a failure. NGVAC is run by an eccentric, but he’s often more willing to tell the truth than other gun control groups. At best, background checks have a marginal effect in gun availability to criminals.

VA Actively Depriving Veterans of Second Amendment Rights. And still our complaints about due process fall on deaf ears, because some rights are more equal than others.

The New York Times takes a serious look at a gun issue and concludes that it’s actually kind of complicated, and there are no good solutions. You don’t say?

We know Ginsburg wants to reverse Heller, now it appears and Breyer does too. Well, if Hillary wins, they’ll probably get their chance to do so.

If you’re getting your history from Carl Bogus, you’re getting it from the wrong place, but at least Time magazine is acknowledging that gun control in America has its roots in racism, and even today gun control laws tend to more successfully disenfranchise poor minorities than they do criminals.

You can’t really get away from the conclusion that there’s a certain school of thought out there among some people that carrying a weapon for self-defense is a form of pre-meditation. I’d suggest if any of the reporters involved in this have fire extinguishers, certainly they are arsonists.

Folks in Charlotte were denied their Second Amendment rights during the riots because of North Carolina’s antiquated Jim Crow era pistol permit system.

Bloomberg is dumping nearly half a million bucks into Minnesota races. Oh, and he’s also trying to buy a New Hampshire Senate seat.

If you want to understand why the gun control groups are so big on getting CDC to research gun control, this will help you understand why.

Apparently some Democrats question whether gun control is really a winning issue. More on that here, showing Clinton’s people wanting to distance her from the SAFE Act.

Actually, I think progress on this front has been one of the great achievements of the movement in the past decade: “Time for Conservative Intellectuals to Get Comfortable With the Right to Bear Arms.

Could valuing less aggressive qualities in cops actually lead to more police shootings? This makes you think: “A Crazy Woman with a Baseball Bat.

Notice when forums are put together to discuss things like guns as a public health issue, experts from our side are never invited?

Hey, Bloomberg paid good money for that school of public health. What did you expect?

Off Topic:

New evidence emerges that Truman was right to fire MacArthur.

I can’t agree with this more: “You’re ruining Facebook (and friendships) with political rants.” I think social media like Facebook needs to be regarded as if it were an ongoing dinner party. It’s good to catch up and stay familiar with friends and family, but no one like the boor who rants constantly about politics at a dinner party. In my social media circles, who are mostly friends and family, the Baby Boomer generation are the worst about this.

I can’t say that it would: “I’ll say it again: if Donald Trump had been hired by the Clinton Foundation as a Trojan Horse to torpedo the GOP and leave the party a sinking wreck, what would look different?

13 thoughts on “Weekly Gun News – Edition 49”

  1. I think social media like Facebook needs to be regarded as if it were an ongoing dinner party. It’s good to catch up and stay familiar with friends and family, but no one like the boor who rants constantly about politics at a dinner party.

    Yep. If people want to be stupid, rude, and boorish, well … that’s what Twitter is for.

    If Facebook is the dinner party conversation, then Twitter is the T-shirt slogans they wear and the bumper stickers on the cars they drive. The venue itself is not conducive to intelligent discourse so much as drive-by sniping.

  2. Though I’m probably a baby boomer you are talking about (though I really consider myself “Generation Jones”) I agree that facebook is for connecting not preaching.

    But that said … you can’t have a conversation during the silly season without politics coming up, so it’s only natural it would pop up on FB as well. I think social media is actually better this year — I get hammered with one “this is a game changer” or “such and such was just destroyed with this one video” posts, but individuals rarely share them anymore (with a few exceptions).

    The biggest problem with FB is that few of us use filters. I’m careful not to post anything outright hateful, but I do respond to people and I do post an occasional thing I think is pertinent.

    That said … I have unfriended/unfollowed many people in the last couple of months because I got tired of seeing their idiotic rants (vs. non-idiotic rants even if I don’t agree with them). An “unfriend” in FB world is not the same as an unfriend in the real world, as I always tell people.

  3. I’m technically a few weeks too old to be a Baby Boomer, but maybe that’s why I don’t get “social media” at all.

    What’s it for other than to lay your business in the street, whether people want to hear it or not?

    But if some Baby Boomers seem pretty bad at keeping their opinions to themselves, maybe it has something to do with biting their tongues for a whole bunch of decades of suffering the fools around them. Shit just builds up!

  4. “I’ll say it again: if Donald Trump had been hired by the Clinton Foundation. . .”

    Trump is just the late-stage symptom of the chronic disease the Republican Party has been in denial about for years.

    Now it may be terminal.

    1. Trump certainly hasn’t fixed the Republican’s problems but he is just a result of the Bushes et al wrecking the party over the last 30 years.

  5. The trials in Minnesota are starting up again. The city of Savage, just south of Minneapolis, had a resolution before the city council to rezone anything having to do with guns out of the city. It was defeated (actually was never taken up for a vote) because of active pressure from people and MNGOPAC. The city of Bloomington, between Savage and Minneapolis, is trying to do the same thing. The graboids snuck a resolution into the next council meeting in November. I expect the enemy to try the same in my suburb soon.

  6. SoF had permission to run the Shooting Illustrated article. It would probably be a good idea to delete that note.

    1. You would think that the publishers would bother to keep writers in the loop on that sort of thing. I mean, they ARE in the communication field.

  7. I don’t think SCOTUS can actually reverse Heller and McDonald. At best, they can try to neuter them by coming up with excuses why it doesn’t apply in this case or that, but if they try a full reversal it will call into question *ALL* SC decisions. It would shred stare decisis as a doctrine, and that means all it would take to, say, reverse Roe v. Wade is the right balance on the court. I don’t see them opening that can of worms.

    1. You bring up some very good points. Interesting enough, Pro-Choice advocates were hysterical in the 1980s after a “conservative” supreme court majority took hold- fearing that Roe V Wade was going to be overturned. 30 years later it’s still there. The same can be said for Heller probably. Quick thing to note, Breyer didn’t actually advocate reversing the decision, he seemed to merely point out that he thought it was incorrect. This is nothing “shocking”- ofcourse judges on the the dissenting side will say they believe the majority opinion was wrong. But back to your main point, Stare Decisis. I am no lawyer but from what I have read and been told, in general SCOTUS does not like to overturn itself because of what you essentially stated- it would call into question All the courts decisions and their impartiality. It would essentially overtly make the court seem political (yes, the court is political in a way but does try to maintain impartiality to the best of its ability). It would open a huge can of worms. From what I’ve read regarding the issue of stare decisis, in general, the court will only overturn a previous decision if there is an apparent major permanent shift in public opinion and/or that the current ruling has been found to be “unworkable”. I don’t believe Heller fits any of those categories.

      1. So you figure Dred Scott still stands? The Court can and does reverse itself, though rarely lightly. I would still hate to have to count on it.

  8. North Carolina’s Permit to Purchase Law: The Rumble Seat of Gun Control Laws?

    North Carolina’s permit to purchase law (P2P) law requires permission from the sheriff to purchase a handgun after he has decided the applicant is of “good moral character” and may lawfully possess a pistol. The P2P law is an historical leftover from a different era, adopted for perhaps racist reasons, and to help enforce a restrictive concealed carry statute that is no longer part of North Carolina law.


  9. “Notice when forums are put together to discuss things like guns as a public health issue, experts from our side are never invited?”

    Yeah, I’ve noticed it. But it isn’t just guns. It’s everything.

    With Common Core, for example, they only had a mathematician or two on the committee to create the thing, and they left because they didn’t like the direction the math portion went.

    With ObamaCare specifically, and Health Care in general, whenever they create a committee, they always seem to leave out insurance people. You’d think it would be useful to consult an actuary or two on how useful their proposals are, right? After all, they have to go through *intense* training to do all that insurance stuff.

    It’s as if our Elected and Appointed Officials think they know better than these “experts” — after all, they represent the Will of the People, and aren’t just idiots who just barely managed to out-maneuver the other idiots vying for votes and money — so they don’t need to consult people who actually know what they’re talking about, do they?

Comments are closed.