Antigun
Social Justice
Self described “social justice warrior” Monique Worrell beat “law and order” candidate Jose Torroella in 2020 to become the prosecutor for the 9th judicial district of Florida. She ran on the following platform:
Monique Worrell has pledged to:
- Implement policies to hold police officers accountable for misconduct
- End the use of cash bail
- Expand programs to divert children and adults away from jail
- Partner with community programs to address mental health and substance abuse issues
The voters of Orange and Osceola counties overwhelmingly voted for her. In so doing, they sided with the “Defund” movement and elected someone who is soft on crime. The woman she replaced was removed from office by the Governor for the exact same policies.
The shooter in this case was pulled over by OPD with three of his friends less than a year ago. They had drugs and ski masks in the car. They had thrown at least one firearm out of the window before stopping. If the prosecutor had done her job instead of campaigning for “soft on crime” social justice, those people wouldn’t have been shot.
So, I ask the voters there: Where is the social justice in a known gang member with multiple violent felonies on his record being able to walk the streets and kill children and news reporters? Yeah. Dead women. Dead reporters. Dead kids. That’s the justice you voted for. You are getting what you wanted.
Enjoy.
But instead, as I predicted, you are blaming law abiding firearms owners. Screw you. Keep voting for this shit. Keep watching animals murder your women, your children, and each other. I don’t care. This is what you wanted, and you have it.
Enjoy.
Antigun
This Makes Me Happy
A Federal Judge in Illinois ruled that outlawing particularly dangerous weapons, high capacity magazines, and dangerous weapons accords with US history and tradition, meaning that the state of Illinois lawfully exercised their authority to control their possession, transfer, sale and manufacture by enacting a ban on commercial sales, which comports with the Second Amendment.
I love this decision because it doesn’t set court precedent, but is almost guaranteed to be overturned on appeal, which WILL have precedential meaning.
Anti American left
That’s a Bold Plan, Cotton. Let’s see how it works out for them.
The leftists in the Blue cities want to starve the red states out economically until we submit to their socialism and gun control. The Civil War that follows is going to be epic. Larry Correia cuts to the quick in his usual outspoken style.
Olbermann is one stupid son of a bitch.
Anti American left
Shouldn’t Have Been There
One of the big arguments you hear from the left about the Rittenhouse case is: Kyle is a murderer because he had no business being in Kenosha. If he had only stayed at his mom’s house, he wouldn’t have needed to defend himself.
OK, let’s play that game. I will counter that claim with one single name: Manuel Terán.
Manuel Terán was from Venezuela. He had a student visa to attend Florida State University. Instead, he decided to drop out of school to become a self described “forest defender” who would protest to protect the environment. In other words, he was in violation of the terms of his student visa, and was then an illegal immigrant. He headed up to Georgia and began camping in the woods to prevent the construction of a new police training center near Atlanta. By camping in the woods, protesters hoped to prevent the construction crews from clearing the land.
When Georgia State Police arrived to clear out the protesters, one of the officers was shot. When police returned fire, the dead body was found to be holding a handgun. Ballistic tests matched the bullet taken from the police officer to that handgun. The dead protester was identified as Manuel Terán.
His mother said that Manuel was not the type of person to shoot at police, and also claimed, “They said he had a gun. If he had one, it was for protecting himself against the animals in the forest.” Except it is illegal for him to have a gun, since he was in the country illegally.
Still, Manuel Terán has become a martyr for the cause in Atlanta. If only he had stayed where he belonged. Isn’t it funny how Kyle Rittenhouse was wrong for visiting his father in Kenosha, less than 50 miles from his mother’s home, but an illegal immigrant is celebrated for crossing a national border illegally, travelling thousands of miles, arming himself with a handgun (which the left wants outlawed), then using that handgun to shoot a police officer?
Antigun
ATF Looking for Reasons
Internal documents show that the BATFE is going from dealer to dealer and looking for minor infractions and then using them to revoke FFLs. Maybe its time that someone challenge GCA ’68 on Constitutional grounds. Most of it has gone far beyond regulating interstate commerce.
Antigun
Kavanaugh Is Wrong, IMO
This past week saw a huge win for gun rights, in that SCOTUS the Fifth circuit struck down a part of the GCA that was added during the Clinton administration– making eliminating a provision of the law that prohibited persons out of people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders. AWA over at GunFreeZone did an excellent post on the ruling, and I won’t attempt to recreate that here.
There are those who oppose that ruling and are claiming that there will be domestic abusers lining up to kill their former partners over this. I don’t think that there will be any big changes. Those who want to kill their partners just aren’t deterred by a piece of paper saying that killing someone is illegal, even if signed by a judge. The left always assumes that criminals are simply honest people who gave in to a moment’s impulse, and each of us is equally likely to give into an impulse to kill others. An interesting insight into the leftist mind, eh?
My opinion on these DV orders is that they are bullshit aimed at men in an attempt to give women another arrow in their lawfare quiver. About ten years ago, I was the subject of one of those orders. It was sought and granted without me even being present, with the initial order not even having my correct name on it, by a woman that I hadn’t even seen in months, and in that order she alleged that I did things in stalking her that were impossible because I was not even in the country when they were alleged to have happened.
David Letterman was once subject to a DV order that was obtained by a woman who lived thousands of miles away, after the woman alleged that they were in a secret affair and that Letterman was sending her secret messages using his top 10 lists as a code. Using accusations of domestic violence has become a common tactic for women who wish to win divorce and child custody cases, as well as angry girlfriends who wish to get back at former boyfriends. Men have no legal recourse against women who are proven to be lying.
Here are the disturbing statistics:
- 25% of all divorces include accusations of domestic violence.
- 50% of all domestic violence restraining orders are issued without allegations of violence.
- 70% of domestic violence restraining orders are trivial or false. (PDF warning)
- 85% of restraining orders are against men
The decision that is the subject of this post fixes some of that. That isn’t how the left, or apparently Brett Kavanaugh, sees it. Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in the Bruen case, arguing that sometimes we have to weigh in on whether or not a law is a good idea.
That’s where he is wrong.
The Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “… unless you have a really good reason to do so.” The Supreme Court isn’t there to decide whether or not a law is a good idea. The court is there to decide whether or not a particular law comports with the Constitution. Deciding whether or not a law is a good idea is the job of Congress. All of the authority of the government derives from the Constitution. Any power or authority that the government takes upon itself that is outside of that authority is nothing more than tyranny, an unconstitutional power grab that is based upon the principle of “might makes right” that flies in the face of the principles upon which the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” was built upon.
There are those who would try and make the case that there is some balancing act to be done, but that isn’t how our government is supposed to work. Thomas sees that. Scalia, although a pragmatic sort of man, saw that as well. Kavanaugh does not.
The left, well, they don’t see the Constitution as anything more than a piece of paper containing words that can be worked around, as long as the words are pretty enough.
Fuck them. Not one more inch. This decision is proof to me that the jury box isn’t completely dead. The war continues.
Antigun
Blood in the Streets
My news aggregator turned up this little gem: A convicted felon flouted gun laws and was arrested at gunpoint. When he was arrested, he had three different handguns, as well as a supply of drugs, on his person.
What really struck me about this, is that this story came to me while the liberals of Florida are in the midst of a meltdown over Republicans (and especially Ron DeSantis) pushing Constitutional Carry in this state. The biggest arguments that I see are:
- that, without a law making permits necessary for legal concealed carry, criminals will carry guns
- Police can’t tell the difference without permits telling them who the good guys are
What is so disingenuous about this, is that it wasn’t that long ago that they were saying that people with concealed weapons permits are nothing more than criminals who haven’t been caught yet, who will snap at the slightest provocation and turn every contested parking space into a full scale firefight.
As I said in response to the above linked article: There are already 25 states that have passed Constitutional Carry. Crime and shootings in those states haven’t gone up any more than anywhere else. Every time a gun rights bill comes up, the anti gun people drag out the same old, tired arguments about how every car accident will result in a gun battle and it never happens. They did made that argument in 1989 when Florida passed concealed carry. None of it happened then, and none of it will happen now.
What we know for sure is that criminals are called criminals because they don’t obey the law. This is evidenced by the number of convicted criminals who are caught not only possessing weapons, but doing so without a permit. Therefore, we must assume that this law only works to prevent people who AREN’T criminals from carrying weapons. Who would be opposed to a person who isn’t committing crimes carrying a weapon? The answer is obviously one of the following:
- people who are planning to commit a violent act against that armed person
- people with so little self control that they themselves know that they cannot be trusted to carry a firearm, and are projecting that lack of violent impulse control upon others
So my question to those people who are opposed to law abiding citizens carrying weapons is: Which of those are you?
Antigun
Thousands of Rounds?
ATF should be called Agents That Fib. They are on the record as claiming someone with a Glock switch is capable of firing ‘thousands of rounds per minute’ from a Glock handgun. Anyone with gun knowledge knows that they are talking about cyclic rate when they say that a gun is firing 1,200 rounds per minute. That would require a weapon to have an unlimited supply of ammunition. It’s an attempt at dishonest manipulation of soccer moms.
“It turns a semi-automatic firearm into, essentially, a machine gun,” explained [ATF Agent] Estevan. “So, instead of one round being discharged from a firearm with the single pull of the trigger, when the switch is installed onto a firearm, you’re looking at 1,200 rounds with the single pull of the trigger within a minute.”
If you have to lie in order to make your point, perhaps your point isn’t worth making.