Checkpoint

From Loyal Friend & Reader John C. comes this:

See, what gets up my nose about this is that when Gummint puts up signs, there needs to be clarity above all things.

Take that “requirement” addendum, for instance.  Is that a 2-gun minimum per car, or a 2-gun minimum per occupant?  This ambiguity certainly leaves the interpretation up to the supervising official, and I’d hate to run afoul of state law just because of the lack of clear signage.

My advice, therefore, is for people to carry at least two guns per person when they visit Texas.  Or anywhere else, for that matter.

Motive Laid Bare

Ambrose Bierce once said something along the lines of:  “Whenever politicians talk, no matter what the topic, it’s always about money.”

In that spirit therefore, I offer up this little piece of shit masquerading as a pearl:

Democrats have moved to enact legislation that would establish retroactive liability for American energy producers through so-called “climate superfund” laws which penalize companies for lawfully providing energy that Americans rely on every day.

Beyond potential political challenges, the Democrat plan to punish energy producers also faces significant legal hurdles.

The Justice Department and Vermont in late March faced off in the federal courts over the 2024 climate superfund law that would require fossil fuel providers to pay for the alleged costs of climate change. The Trump administration has sued to block the law, claiming it violates the Constitution. The administration believes that climate superfund laws are unlawful attempts to regulate emissions that cross state lines. API and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed their own lawsuit against Vermont.

Jonathan Rose, who represented Vermont at the late March hearing, said, “We don’t need to convince the court that climate change presents serious challenges to the state of Vermont. The act is intended to recover some of the costs it’s going to need to adapt to climate change,” he said. “What it doesn’t do is, it doesn’t try to mitigate climate change, stop climate change, or otherwise impact global emissions or anything like that.”

Yeah, it’s not even attempting to paint itself as having “noble” intentions (i.e. staving off Global Cooling Climate Warming Change©);  it’s a naked grab for money, pure and simple.  The accepted “fact” that Global Cooling Climate Warming Change© is actually a thing simply gives the theft a foundation.  (Corollary:  if Global Cooling Climate Warming Change© is not real — it isn’t — then all this bullshit should go away — it won’t — because they’ll always clamp onto some other imaginary catastrophe as a pretext for their theft.)

A cursory look at a couple of other states trying to do similar:  New York and Hawaii.  Both Bluer than Paul Newman’s eyes, both stuck with massive Democrat government-created spending deficits.

Funding Culture

I don’t always agree with what John Konrad says, but on this topic he’s spot-on:

Civilization is the ability to sustain itself.  By that measure, Europe isn’t a civilization at all.  It’s a dependency with better wine.  That’s not a threat. I t’s a weather report.  Build a Navy.  Or don’t.  But stop lecturing the people who made you “better than us”.   Our “crudeness”, our “stunted liberal education”, our “ugly strip malls” are because we sacrificed our culture to support yours.

Read the whole thing, it’s worth it.  The question is, though:  how many Europeans are going to read it and wake up to its reality?

That Gun Registration Thing

Reader Clarence R. offers a mild correction to my earlier rant about gun confiscation in Canuckistan:

Kim:
In Canada not all guns are registered, only (legally owned) restricted and prohibited firearms are in the RCMP database and cannot be sold without notifying the RCMP. Hunting rifles and shotguns are non-restricted and therefore not registered to the owner and can be sold to other PAL holders without notifying the RCMP.
In 2022 the govt created a list of 2,500 rifle models that were previously unrestricted, declared them prohibited and now wants owners to self report that they possess them so they can be confiscated. Those who report first may receive financial compensation if the money doesn’t run out first.
I have an M1 Carbine which was restricted when I purchased it because one bank robber in Montreal in the ’60s had the habit of concealing a paratrooper M1 under his parka. As of 2022 it is a prohibited weapon, I can’t sell it or take it to a gun range.
I chose to self report because I knew that the RCMP database listed my M1. If the Liberals were to win the next provincial election and wanted to “take guns off the streets” it would be a simple matter of comparing two datasets, the restricted firearm database and the list of self reported firearms. My name would pop up and I would be guilty of a firearms-related crime. At this point the police would have cause to arrest me and confiscate all my guns after which the govt would show all my rifles and pistols (I think I have [lots more]) spread out on some tables and falsely claim the streets were safer. So I made the decision to give up one low powered gun in order to not risk losing all my guns.
When I went to the govt website and punched in my RPAL (Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence) it immediately brought up my M1 complete with serial number and a buy-back value of $650Cdn.

Needless to say I didn’t volunteer any information about any other guns in my possession that may or may not be on the list of “assault style rifles”. The general consensus at the local gun shop counter is that no one is reporting “assault style rifles” that the RCMP doesn’t know about.

Thankee for the clarification [sic].  (Yeah, I took out the actual number of guns he owns because Good Reasons, given the Canucki gummint’s penchant for spying on their  citizens  subjects.

Just the very fact of the RPAL’s existence sets my teeth on edge.

As for my U.S. Readers:  never forget that the above rigmarole is precisely what our local Socialists want to do to us… or worse.

Quote(s) Of The Day

Germany edition:

  • “This historic responsibility of Germany is part of my country’s Staatsräson. That means, for me as German Chancellor, the security of Israel is never negotiable. And if that is the case, then these must not remain empty words in the hour of truth.” —  Germany’s then-Chancellor Angela Merkel, March 18, 2008.
  • “What the Israeli army is doing in the Gaza Strip, I no longer understand the goal…” — German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, May 2025.
  • “Perhaps if German children had been beheaded or burned alive in their beds on October 7, 2023, he would have a clearer understanding of Israel’s ‘goal’ in the Gaza Strip.” — Unknown