Democrats are down in the polls, and so we have two mass shootings in two days. What’s up with that?
Once is happenstance, twice coincidence, three times is enemy action. Where will the third one be?
Democrats are down in the polls, and so we have two mass shootings in two days. What’s up with that?
Once is happenstance, twice coincidence, three times is enemy action. Where will the third one be?
The more I see child molesters in charge, the more I think that this country actually IS being run by pedophiles. Why would you put an avowed pedophile in charge of the center for preventing child sex abuse?
What’s next, putting Robert Downey Jr in charge of the DEA?
This post brought to you by an idea I had when I saw JKB’s post over at GunFreeZone this morning. It’s how you deal with a shooter wearing body armor:
The left is using the shooting in New York and is going to come at us with every gun control move that they have. There is nothing that they love as much as pools of blood that they can joyously dance in while they call for more control that everyone knows will not work.

At one point or another, we have all made each of these arguments in gun control debates. They are based upon logic and facts, and backed with scores of studies and mountains of statistical evidence.
And they are always ignored.
The left bases its arguments on emotion and catchphrases. The don’t care about science, don’t care about evidence, unless it is convenient to do so in support of their position. All other facts are ignored. Arguing something like this is a waste of time. I know, because I have wasted my time like this for decades.
As they say in War Games, the only winning move is not to play. So don’t.

I will not turn in my guns. Just in case you feel that confiscating them is the answer and you send the cops over to take them, there are two outcomes of that plan.
So my answer to gun laws is this: No.
Your move.
There is a local media story about the New York mass shooter. One of the comments on the story was “Why didn’t a good guy with a gun neutralize him before he killed?”
I typed a great answer: “Because NY has made sure that very few good guys can carry guns. Especially not in black neighborhoods. It is a difficult and expensive process that requires a visit to a judge and must be repeated every 5 years. Despite having similar populations, Florida has ten times as many concealed weapons permit holders than New York.
On top of that, New York doesn’t allow anyone to own magazines that hold more than ten rounds. The bad guy in this case ignored that law.”
That comment lasted less than 20 minutes before it was “deactivated” because it violated the community standards. Since the left can’t defend their ideas with logic and facts, they resort to all they know how to do- shut down the debate.
On last week’s post about the use of force to prevent arson, there were some commenters who pointed out that all arson doesn’t justify the use of deadly force. That is correct, especially in one person’s example of someone burning your garden shed. Burning a garden shed or a backyard doghouse usually wouldn’t be a forcible felony. (Although it could be) Still, it is more complicated than that. Of course it is, because any time lawyers get involved, it always is.
Even armed robbery is not always a justification for the use of deadly force. For example, if the other side’s attorney can prove that, for some reason, you knew that the assailant’s firearm wasn’t functional, then you can’t use deadly force. Let’s say that you knew that the pistol in the robber’s hand was either unloaded or that the firing pin was missing. Even if some critter is pointing a gun at you, you can’t just blow his ass away, no matter how much you want to.
Some argued that, if a structure isn’t occupied, arson isn’t a forcible felony. The courts in Florida don’t see it that way. In fact, this particular legal argument has been made numerous times, and Florida courts have struck it down each and every time. See Woody v. State, 847 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Perez v. State, 840 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Rodriguez v. State, 826 So.2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), rehearing denied with opinion, 837 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, No. SC03-444, 848 So,2d 1155 (Fla. 2003); Diaz v. State, 837 So.2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Delsol v. State, 837 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
Early laws in Florida (before 1979) stated that setting a building on fire was only arson if the building was occupied. That definition was changed in 1979 because many people were finding and using loopholes.
So my thought here, and I can’t find any case law to the contrary, is that an occupiable building (like a church, a house, a business, etc) is presumed to be occupied and this makes it arson. Going back to the “reasonable” belief standard that all gun owners are familiar with means that if you KNOW that no one is inside the building, shooting someone to prevent the arson would be seen as not reasonable.
However, seeing someone beginning to toss a “destructive device” at an occupiable structure would, absent other mitigating factors, be legal, IMO.
The Fed is asking businesses to enact a hiring freeze to help fight inflation. The thought here is to cut off the demand for labor, which will prevent wages from increasing. This will in turn lower the amount of money available to chase goods, which will reduce demand and thereby control inflation. In other words, they want to make everyone poorer by keeping you from being able to get a job or run your business.
This is a common scenario for socialism/communism:
How long will it be before we are eating our pets?
Inflation won’t be controlled by keeping people poor on purpose. It will be controlled by stopping leftist idiots in the government from doing things like mailing out checks so people can have free Internet.
Governments are jumping on the boogieman of so-called ‘ghost’ guns, which as you all know, are privately made firearms. That isn’t how they are defining it, though. Just like how the anti-gunners redefined “assault weapons” to be a moving target that no one really can define or understand, ghost guns are a made up term that can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
Cities are passing bans against possessing or even looking longingly at ghost guns, which they are defining as any gun without a serial number. This casts a wide net that will capture such things as C&R firearms. Many firearms made before GCA68 became the law of the land do not have, and were not required to have, serial numbers. To engrave a collectable firearm with a serial number would destroy its value, while not engraving that firearm with a serial number makes you a criminal.
Yet passing a law that prohibits privately made firearms will do as much to stop criminals as it did to stop illicit drug dealers. When a person can make a submachine gun for less than $100 of Home Depot parts and some common hand tools, there is little that can be done to stop them. They are making firearms in caves in Pakistan, and in the jungles of the Philippines:
Spain is proposing a law that would force employers to give women up to 5 days’ paid leave each month so they can stay home when having menstrual cramps.
If this comes to the US, I am going to declare myself to be a tranny so I can get a week of paid leave every month.
Seriously, though: why would any employer hire premenopausal women under such conditions?
Florida agriculture commissioner Niki Fried announced that she is adopting the Biden plan of selling gasoline that is 15 percent Ethanol (E15), instead of ten percent (E10). This move, they claim, will save motorists 10 cents per gallon, or about 2 percent.
The problem is that E15 has about 3 percent less energy per gallon than does E10, meaning that you will spend the same amount per mile because of increased fuel usage, making this plan a wash. The left is just hoping that you are too stupid to notice.