Trying not to start the public floggings
Sayonara to Kamala Harris, you evil incompetent bitch.
Only a dozen or so more, then, who have to commit suicide errr fall over a cliff ummm slip on a bar of soap ehhh fall up a flight of stairs whoops drink a gallon of antifreeze I mean quit — until you-know-who decides to insert her foul presence back into the polity.
What I like most about the gun control movement is how ignorant (not to say dishonest) its proponents are. Cue Joe The Moron:
While attending a private campaign event in Seattle, the former vice president reportedly called for a ban on 9mm pistols.
…
While speaking to attendees of the latter event, Biden claimed that he supports the Second Amendment. The 77-year-old then went on to ask “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?”
…
In targeting 9mm pistols, Biden has called for a ban on one of the most popular firearms in America.
…
In its annual report on the U.S. firearms industry, Shooting Industry reported that 9mm caliber pistols are the most commonly produced pistol and have been for many years. In 2017 alone, there were more than 1.7 million 9mm pistols produced in the U.S. Cumulatively there are tens of millions of 9mm pistols in the hands of law-abiding Americans.
…
The 9mm pistol is the choice of the nation’s leading civilian law enforcement agency, the FBI. Moreover, 9mm pistols are used by countless other federal, state, and local civilian law enforcement agencies. Biden alluded to the 9mm handgun’s military applications, but these agencies are not tasked with waging war on the public, but rather defending the public. This defensive application is the same reason that millions of Americans have chosen a 9mm pistol as their self-defense firearm.
So now Clueless Joe wants to ban 9mm pistols, because they are “weapons of war and have no application in civilian life”.
As Longtime Readers know, I have long held the opinion that the 9mm Europellet is a marginal self-defense cartridge, certainly in its full metal jacket variant, less so with a proper expanding bullet — although even that’s a stretch.
But if Gummint (in Biden form) wants to ban the guns which shoot them, allow me to offer this advice (with my favorite pictured):
…or of course my perennial favorite (once again with my recommendation):
Let’s not forget the only 9mm pistol I own (I mean used to own, before that terrible Canoeing Accident On The Brazos):
(sadly, most are out of stock at the link — I wonder why?)
…and there’s always this option, for my ex-military friends (with all the rest):
And of course, because this is Joe Biden, he never thought (or didn’t know) that a jillion cops (along with a few misguided individuals) use this Austro-POS 9mm pistol too:
(no link because Glock, ugh)
Now I know the question on the lips of all my Readers will be: “Kim, why did you feature the Kahr 9mm pistols first?”
Simple answer: I like Kahr pistols. I think their action is superior to Glock’s, and their guns sit better in my hand too. Your opinion may vary, as may your choice in 9mm pistols, and that’s perfectly okay.
But as I said earlier:
I think y’all know what to do. And if you already own one (or two, or three, or four…) then you know what to do next:
…or even better:
Have at it. Make Baby Vulcan smile.
From Gates Of Vienna comes a “tl;mr” (too long / must read”) post by a teacher at the sharp end — probably literally so — of the effort to get newly-arrived immigrant children to integrate into the host society. As you can well imagine, it’s going to fail dismally:
I know I will be called a “damned whore”, “damned pussy”, and I know I will hear, “You don’t decide for me.” There will be mess and noise in the classroom, the hallways, the schoolyard and the dining room. Changing rooms where classes change for physical education classes will, as usual, be places where girls don’t dare change since boys will show up and sneakily photograph the girls.
Showering is not on the world map for girls and even for some boys in school. It is enough that one or two pupils refuse to follow the instruction and scream “shut up” at me every time I am going to say something; thus is the lesson destroyed for 28 other pupils who want to learn something.When I call parents in for a conversation, I hear that I don’t have the right to tell their children off, that I should be careful so that I won’t be reported to the principal or school inspectors. They know where my family and I live, what car I drive, and I know that the risk is great that my car will get scratched or destroyed in some other way. I know that certain pupils threaten other pupils, but I don’t dare get in the middle because I risk being beaten.
Read it, and don’t weep; get angry. Because this (and the mindset which enables it) either has come, or will soon be coming to a school near you.
Found via Insty (thankee, Stephen) these words of wisdom come from Bill Maher:
“Lately we’ve been hearing more and more about a second civil war which sounds impossible in this modern, affluent country. It is not. We talk about Trump as an existential threat, but his side sees Democratic control of government the exact same way. When both sides believe the other guy taking over means the end of the world, yes, you can have a civil war.”
…
“We are going to have to learn to live with each other or else there will be blood.”
Well, we conservatives have taken over (sorta), and the world hasn’t ended. Much to my disgust, cops haven’t started shooting down Pantifa rioters in the streets, the editorial board members of the New York Times haven’t been sent to the guillotine and we haven’t planted millions of landmines along our southern border — to name but three areas of disappointment.
Something else Maher said:
“And never forget, the single shining truth about democracy: it means sharing a country with assholes you can’t stand.”
Which would be absolutely true, except that we have Democrats trying their level best to subvert democracy with massive voter fraud and a sham impeachment of an elected President — and we’re not even going to mention the disgusting attempts to make America a land of popular majority government instead of the representative republic that it always has been, as laid down in the Constitution.
And speaking of subverting the Constitution, we also have Democrats attempting to end our First Amendment right of free speech with nonsense like hate speech codes, and we all know that Democrats everywhere want to overturn the Second Amendment by disarming Americans — to name yet another two areas of conflict where the Left and conservatives are irreparably separated.
Simple truth for the Left? I don’t want to live with Leftists, Communists, Progressives or whatever you call yourselves today. The essence of the matter is that the two sides have radically different perspectives as to how this country should look, and the two are mutually contradictory. Your side leads to Venezuela and Cuba, even though you say it leads to Sweden. Our side just wants us all to live as the Constitution promises.
So why should we live together? For fear of revolution?
Don’t make me laugh. We already had one Revolution in 1776, and the Constitution won. The Russians also had one in 1917, and the Bolsheviks won — but only readers of the New York Times could possibly think that Russia ended up better than we did.
Don’t even think you can emulate Lenin in the U.S. because you can’t, and you won’t.
We don’t have to learn to live with you; you have to learn to live with us. Or else you can go and live in Sweden, Russia or Cuba because this is our country, you Commie bastards. This is the country of the U.S. Constitution, not Das Kapital.
Joel Kotkin, one of my favorite writers (among so many) at the estimable City Journal, has described the “watermelon” (Green outside, Red inside) mindset perfectly:
Climate Stalinism
The Left’s fixation on climate change is cloaked in scientism, deploying computer models to create the illusion of certainty. Ever more convinced of their role as planetary saviors, radical greens are increasingly intolerant of dissent or any questioning of their policy agenda. They embrace a sort of “soft Stalinism,” driven by a determination to remake society, whether people want it or not—and their draconian views are penetrating the mainstream. “Democracy,” a writer for Foreign Policy suggests, constitutes “the planet’s biggest enemy.”
And right there, in that last quote, is the whole game given away. As Kotkin observes, most people outside the wealthy and academia are hugely skeptical of the whole “global warming / -cooling / climate change” movement because they have correctly deduced that regardless of all those laudable intentions to “save the planet”, the final costs of doing so would be catastrophic for their own livelihoods and prosperity, e.g.:
Imagine what will happen if a President Elizabeth Warren bans fracking in places like Texas, North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania; in Texas alone, by some estimates, 1 million jobs would be lost. Overall, according to a Chamber of Commerce report, a full ban would cost 14 million jobs—far more than the 8 million lost in the Great Recession.
Confronted with the abject failure of Communism everywhere it’s been put into practice, all that’s left for these would-be Stalinists is to try to bypass democracy and enforce their control over the population by diktat — the very definition of Stalinism — using climate change as the fig-leaf.
I’ve written about this topic so often I’m starting to bore myself; in Maskirovka (2017) and Proper Analysis (2019), to list but two of the more comprehensive posts, I outlined the eco-freaks’ mindset and the (failed) accounting behind the move to curb “greenhouse gases” respectively. And of course, on any number of occasions I’ve debunked the junk statistics (which Kotkin derisively calls “scientism”) that these Marxists are using to try to give their loony theories some form of respectability.
Make no mistake: these control freaks and their lickspittle fellow-travelers in the mainstream media are not going to quit. We’ve already seen how has-been President Urkel’s EPA passed regulations which furthered the goals of the watermelons, stopping or delaying fracking, construction of new pipelines and so on. Expect the same, or worse, from future Administrations run by Communists of the Warren / Sanders / [insert socialist candidate here] ilk — which is why these bastards need to be implacably opposed at every turn, whether in local / state government, Congress or the White House.
Now, more than ever, is the time when we need to deny them ever getting their hands on the levers of power because once they do, it won’t just be your guns they come after: it’ll be your cars, your jobs and your money.
And after they get into power via the much-maligned democratic system, don’t expect them allow themselves to be voted out of office too easily, either.
Under the Communists, the First Amendment will increasingly come under attack (“hate speech”), ballot boxes will get stuffed (by illegal immigrants), and regulations will be promulgated which bypass the legal system. And if that little shit Beta O’Rourke did nothing else, he announced with absolute clarity these would-be Stalinists’ intentions towards the fourth box.
I can’t put it any clearer than that.
In the past, I’ve treated Nov 19 (National Ammo Day) and April 15 (Buy A Gun Day) as two separate entities. That time, I think, has passed.
Not that my Readers would need any reminders or encouragement, of course…
Found here:
A new national poll has found that upwards of 70 percent of Americans, if you can believe it, are now fully convinced that the formerly United States of America is on the brink of a second civil war.
While I probably agree with the conclusion, I have to ask the following questions of it, because the conditions under which revolution may occur in this country are quite different, depending on the political philosophy of the would-be revolutionaries.
1) Which proportion of that 70% are conservatives, which are Marxists, and which are sorta-undecided?
2) What are the different scenarios, for each respondent group, for a revolution to take place?
Taking the second question first, there are a couple of situations in which a group would say “Fuck that shit” and go for the guns.
a) Trump is reelected as POTUS in 2020. The Left, having failed to remove him through bullshit Russian-collusion and even-more bullshit impeachment processes, goes to volume 11 on the hair-on-fire lunacy scale, and takes to the streets in the cities (mostly Marxist enclaves like Portland), rioting, looting and causing general mayhem as seen in Ferguson MO a few years back. Call this the “Antifa” scenario. While these anarcho-Marxists scream loudly, I don’t see that this would be a credible threat, at least not for long because there aren’t that many of them — maybe a few thousand — and frankly, if martial law were declared (National Guard response), these fools would be squashed like bugs. Now, even if (say) 50% of that 70% would react badly to Orange Man Reelected OMG!!!, while there would be massive outcries by the mainstream media, academia and other assorted Commies, only a tiny percentage of those would actually start a revolution. And forget Blacks and Hispanics taking to the streets en masse ; the Trump economy has given them jobs and income, and the loony-Leftist policies (like rampant abortion, wokeness and high taxes) put forward by the passengers in the Clown Car have disenchanted those two groups, or at least the more-conservative members thereof. Don’t expect some Black or Hispanic guy who’s been working at a series of new construction sites for a couple years (thanks to Trumponomics) to down tools and join the Pantifa Parade, either in person or in sympathy — and especially not if he actually voted for Trump in 2020.
b) Trump is defeated in 2020 by one of the assorted Commies in the clown car. And let’s just say for the sake of argument that there is credible evidence of massive voter fraud by the Commies in places like Texas, California, Illinois, Florida and so on — I can’t see there being a conservative revolution even if we think that voting skullduggery is deserving of it. (History is on my side here; the typical conservative response to an unfavorable electoral outcome is to vote in greater numbers the next time.)
Where I think there would be a conservative revolution is if the new Comrade President immediately embarks on the usual tired Marxist agenda of raising taxes, installing Medicare For All, oppressive ecological policies like bans on fracking, defunding the military — you know, all those stupid initiatives that would kill the U.S. economy (pace Venezuela). That would not necessarily ignite a conservative revolution by itself, but it would certainly make a foundation for one.
So what could trigger a conservative revolution?
Property confiscation — say, when Comrade President and his/her Politburo lackeys appropriate savings accounts, IRAs, “excessive” wealth and so on — would cause a firestorm of not only anger, but resistance. If you look at all instances in our history where people started shooting government agents, it was in response to property infringement.
And then we come to the Big One, the one that would guarantee a conservative populace to start shooting from the rooftops…
Gun confiscation. I am pretty sure that the Beto Plan would not only fail, but fail spectacularly, and with massive bloodshed. Even an incrementalist move towards confiscation of, say “assault weapons” (through “buybacks”) as the thin end of the confiscation wedge would be met with massive non-compliance. And if the Commies then were to move to coerce compliance, that would be when the SHTF, in no uncertain terms.
I also think that if the Marxists do take over, and their little Youth Brigades continue to riot — no bets, of course they will — such riots would increasingly be met by armed conservative resistance. And attempts by law enforcement to stop the conservatives shooting would end in more bloodshed than I think the authorities could handle — always assuming that the police would obey their orders, that is. (And that is a HUGE, and so far unknown “if” — ditto for door-to-door confiscation, a.k.a. the Feinstein/O’Rourke wet dream.)
My guess, in the end, is that the “70% of the population” number is correct. The composition of that 70%, however, is going to depend on the circumstances.
And now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to the range.