He's back! Swalwell Pt. 3

Yep - Eric Swalwell is back!The gift that keeps on giving!

From Breitbart:

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and 2020 presidential hopeful said the Second Amendment was not an absolute right.

Discussing his proposal to “ban possession of military-style semi-automatic assault weapons,” Swalwell said, “You know, keep your pistols, keep your long rifles, keep your shotguns. I want the most dangerous weapons, these weapons of war, out of the hands of the most dangerous people. But when it comes to what else we can do, because I don’t even suggest this is all we can do, I also want background checks. So do 73% of NRA members.”

When asked if he wants to repeal the Second Amendment, Swalwell said, “No I don’t agree but I think the greatest threat to the 2nd Amendment is doing nothing. The Second Amendment is not an absolute right. Just like free speech, you can’t shout fire in a theater or lie about the products you are selling. You can’t own a bazooka. You can’t own a tank. You cant own rocket propelled grenades. We should put some limits in place, and I think the American people are with me. I’m no longer intimidated by the NRA.”

All righty then, let's see:

1.  I am an NRA member and Certified Basic Pistol and Personal Protection in the Home Instructor. I don't believe you that 73% want more background checks.  And I do not care if they do or the NRA does.  I do not. Thanks - I will just keep all of my guns.

2.  I think we call that an reductio ad absurdium argument  - whether I can or cannot own a bazooka or a tank or an RPG has nothing to do with me owning the legal firearms I currently own.

This jerk-off is just another of those liberals who believe in magic; find a way to pass a law and all of those gun owners will magically just line up to "hand them in, Mr. and Mrs. America".  Sure some will, because some small percentage of the population is always ready to hand over their freedoms and responsibilities to protect themselves and their loved ones. Such little despots always come along with a smile and a "trust us" approach. I suspect there is a tale to tell about those who have been subject to such events in history.

Once more for the mentally impaired among us:

 - A lot of people are not going to let you buy them back
- You will need willing people with guns to come and take them
- Many LEOs are already refusing to enforce confiscation laws, so good luck with that
- Those you can get to agree to be confiscators are going to have to go house-to-house to relieve their owners of them
- Someone with guns knocks on the door or kicks it in, says there here to take my property?  Lethal force is now justified.

You too can be this stupid - if you try hard enough

Round 2 of the Swallwell chronicles.

So, as we can see, Sara Rumpf notes for brainless Swallwell that trying to confiscate firearms (be honest Eric, that's what you want to do, just wrap it up in the misdirection of "buying back" something you didn't sell) might lead to bloodshed.  He, as might be expected, gets his panties in a wad; "Whose blood, why?" Only a representative from CA who lives with his own security could ask that,  Constitution much?

Now remember, this is the numb nuts who noted that, if gun owners resisted his confiscation scheme - well, the government has nukes so the resistance would be brief.  Now he's gone all mushy because someone said blood will be shed.

I posted it a few days ago, but apparently he needs to see it again:

- A lot of people are not going to let you buy them back
- You will need willing people with guns to come and take them
- Many LEOs are already refusing to enforce confiscation laws, so good luck with that
- Those you CAN get to agree are going to have to go house-to-house to retrieve them
- Someone with guns knocks on the door or kicks it in, says they're here to take my property?  Lethal force is now justified.

So - moron - that's how blood will come to be shed. Will the American people really stand by for that?  Some of us took an oath to defend the constitution - and will go down fulfilling that oath as necessary. I know such focus, commitment, and sheer will is beyond your comprehension. But I've had a long life, and I will not die on my knees for your warped ideology.

Yea, you just give it a try

Just keep pushing asshole!

Good old reliable dumb ass Eric Swalwell, now I guess thinking he should run for president (why not, every other democrat idiot is).

So, he's going to ban our guns ("assault rifles") and then make all of us sell them to the gubmint. I'm sure he figures he will be hiding behind his personal security and those few men and women in gubmint employ who will be willing to try to make his wet dream happen.

Well, ya'll come on down...but remember it's going to be a house-to-house operation, with losses at each stop. Folks like me are just too damned old to be willing to go down that road, end our lives on our knees to you; a life that included serving in the forces that defend the country and constitution. So how long will it be before "the people" lose their taste for that kind of domestic bloodshed?

I would hope that, beside us old farts, the young ones would see the folly in submitting to a long life on bended knee, dependent and subservient.

Either way - come on down.  I have nothing better to do and I grow tired of your foolishness.

A truly tragic occurrence

Tragic story of a young lady, far too trusting and naive, getting into a car she thought was her Uber ride.

Tragic and unnecessary death

Lessons to be learned:

1.  First, let's remember that, even if it were her Uber, to assume all is well and she can let her guard down was not good.

2.  Given #1, be on alert whenever getting into ANY strange car (or standing on the street at 2 AM).

3. Carry some form of self-defense tool.  I would suggest a firearm, but if you are not willing to do that, carry pepper spray, carry a taser, carry a club.  Be sure you know how to use the weapon you choose.  Carry something (but really - make it a firearm)!

4.  Have that weapon you choose to carry in your hand surreptitiously when you get into the vehicle. If it is in your purse, your hand should be in the purse, holding onto it, ready to deploy. If in a pocket, then likewise.  If carried in the waistband, have a hand hovering over it. Better to be prepared for the violence that never happens than be caught unaware and unprepared.

5.  Sit behind the driver, where you have the advantage and cannot be easily reached or targeted.

6.  Don't hesitate to use lethal force as necessary. If you are unwilling to use force, then you should not get in cars with strangers or be on the street at 2 AM. No one is advocating that you look for trouble, but that you be damned ready should it find you...and you never know when it might do so.

7.  Nothing good happens on the streets at 2 AM - unless your a violent criminal - at best you survive.

Not blaming the victim - it would be best for all of us if we lived in a world where things like this did not happen, where people like this perpetrator did not exist.  But they do exist and will continue to do so, so it behooves each of us to be prepared for them.  I suspect this young lady would have said she could never do those things - and am certain she never thought that this kind of event could happen to her.  It did.  That is unfortunate.

This is how it should go!  [SORRY - LINKEE NO WORKEE...BUT SHE DRAWS FROM HER WAISTBAND AND PUTS TWO INTO HIM AND HE LIES ON THE GROUND LIKE THE POS HE IS!]

And now they are truly lost...

 

Oh, the gnashing of teeth and crying of bitter tears.  The long-awaited Mueller Manifesto that would bury Trump is nothing more than a small fart in a hurricane. The report they thought wold vindicate their insanity has left them in limbo, with nowhere to turn be even crazier land.

But we can see that the madness is upon them, that no data, no facts, no lack of data can make a dent in the delusional architecture. 

 

The bizarre spectacle of those who, in their strong belief that there is no way HRC could possibly have lost without some kind of illegal influence is funny and frightening. It is clearly pathological.  It is the only way to explain how a group of people can be so disappointed that there is no evidence that the sitting US President colluded with a foreign power to win the election, that they would have preferred such behavior, feeling it would have justified their loss.

Bring in the clowns...

Man, I hate to give hateful, liberal dumb asses any space in my life or blog, but sometimes idiocy just takes the life right out of you.

Enter Chris Murphy (D - shocking) Connecticut.  There are, in large terms, two kinds of people; those who do not know anything about teh subject at hand, so they just shut the hell up, and those who know nothing about the topic at hand and think it important that everyone else know. In the second group, we find a subset who want to use their ignorance as a blunt instrument to blame everything on others.

Hence, Chris Murphy, tweeted thusly over the weekend:

***********************

Nobody needs an AR-15 to hunt.

Nobody needs a semi-automatic rifle to defend their home.
But mass shooters NEED these weapons in order to murder as many people as efficiently as possible.
And so nobody will miss them when they are illegal – except for the killers.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT)
***********************

I bet he really thought he was being clever (perhaps he wants to compete with "Beto"), but how stupid is he?  Let me count the ways.

- I do not hunt, but I need an AR 15.  Why? Because I want one and I have done nothing that would lead to the conclusion that I cannot have one.  I carried an M16 in the Army and enjoyed firing that platform. Hence, I need it because I want it and he and no one else can really tell me otherwise.
- I need one to defend my home or property should the need arise.  From here I could reiterate point 1; I have done nothing to suggest that I should not have one. I am of age, responsible, well-trained, and have the right.  I have many things that others have misused, abused, or employed to hurt others.  My car, my kitchen knives, the gasoline that powers my cars and lawn mower, my axe, my machete, the fertilizer for my lawn, and so on.
- As has been noted elsewhere, his point 3 is simply not true.  There are several modern examples of handguns and other weapons being used in mass killing events (Oklahoma City, Virginia Tech, Nice FR). Mass killers use knives, explosives, trucks, etc.
- I will miss mine (well, I won't because I will still have them, no matter what he does). But the notion that those who own these rifles, who want these rifles and would miss them IF they were taken, are killers is insulting. I am not sure who he thinks he is convincing with this line of ill reasoning. Some people cannot help but show their ignorance and contempt

Chris Murphy is your prototype know-it-all, telling others how to live, talking about things he knows little or nothing about. He and his ilk will keep inciting violence, running their mouths, calling large number of their fellow citizens deplorables or killers, thinking this will solve the problems. All they are doing is creating enemies.

So, let's note the conundrum here:  When a group like ISIS or Al Qaeda or Boko Haram or just some homegrown yahoos commit an atrocity in the name of Allah, we are told that this is not Islam or all Muslims, but just a small minority.  When a small group of Muslims fly planes into buildings and kill thousands, we do not condemn all Muslims nor do we ban airplanes.  But, when an owner of a long gun (or really any gun) commits a killing of some sort, it becomes the fault of all gun owners (and really white males) and guns themselves. 

It's all about incrementalism

It is not unusual to hear Second Amendment advocates respond to suggested or pending gun control legislation by noting that "This new law could not have done anything to prevent previous mass killing events." They are, of course, quite correct.  Recent legislation passed in the US House that would require "universal background checks" would not have done a thing to stop any of the recent mass killings, be it Newtown, Parkland, Orlando, or Las Vegas.

An important point that must be noted in the passage of such legislation is that those passing it do not care if it is effective or not.  Their point is incrementalism.   In psychology we could call this desensitization. For instance, in theories of suicide risk and commission, one fact that is considered is how certain experiences may desensitize the individual to eventual lethal self-harm.  In the suicide literature this is referred to as acquired capability. So, experiences that decrease one's sensitivity to violence or might include self-harm, whether cutting or even the use of injectible drugs, might play one part in suicidal actions. Of course there are others and this is simply one example of how small increments in risky behavior can lead to large leaps over time. Similarly, va small changes, even inconsequential ones, we become desensitized to attempts to infringe on our rights as each becomes the new normal. This is also likely why it has been suggested that with these small irrelevant bills, they will let things stand for a while - expecting that everyone will adapt to teh new normal.  Thankfully, these house bills are unlikely to become law - but even teh gesture has relevance.

With regard to gun control legislation we see this process in what is often called "boiling the toad".  Turning up the heat by small degrees until it turns deadly. Turn it up too quickly and the toad will leap from the pan.  In social psychology and sales, this is called "foot in the door". Don't ask for too much too soon, but make a small request and once compliance is gained, add a bit onto it.  At that point, each escalation is a small step in relation to the last, while obviously a large leap from point A. Of course, each small request is seen as "reasonable" and "common sense". We retreat a step at a they advance a step at a time.

Conversely, those who are quick to say :We are not coming for your guns" may be using a bit of the old "door in the face" approach, which entails asking for a large favor and when rebuffed noting, "Well , how about just this little bit then". Ask to borrow $100 and when you get the WTF response, say, "All right, how about 5?"  So when they say "No one is coming for your guns" they are implying the large demand, but then they follow with "Okay, how about this small reasonable, commonsense thing then?"

It doesn't matter that the small thing will not work - it is simply a small step toward the ultimate goal, one more degree added to the water in the pot. Remember - the water is never fine!