Gun Free Zone

Other than in selected areas of San Francisco and South Beach, the idea of having a President Buttplug simply does not resonate with the public and what is worse, he knows it.

why 20 PETE 20 and not 20 BUTTIGIEG 20?

I figure he is pandering to a group so he can do a Bernie Sanders: Collect monies and buy a third domicile somewhere.

An article sent by reader Dave:

East St. Louis public housing residents can own firearms and stay in their residential homes once again, a federal judge ruled last week. U.S. District Court Judge Phil Gilbert said the East St. Louis Housing Authority overstepped its authority in denying tenants their Second Amendment right to own functioning firearms while living in their subsidized homes.

Now, this is not a new thing that has happened. Back in Clinton times, they got spanked by a Federal Judge for treating user of Public Housing as if they were less than human and used guns to excuse to conduct warrantless searches. Some Public Housing Authorities do not ban the possession of guns as condition of a lease as their legal departments find it in violation of the Bill of Rights and some like the case above do and from my experience, they always lose in court.

There is a great Law Review paper from Jamie L. Wershbale you may want to read about the subject: The Second Amendment Under a Government Landlord: Is There a Right to Keep and Bear Legal Firearms in Public Housing

Anyway, besides the legal aspect, this court decision is a great example as how the same topic in gun control keeps coming again and again. Just because we had legal wins does not mean they will stop pushing back. The law only works when it favors them and they like to ignore it if otherwise.

Like I said the other day, there are no original thoughts in the Democrat party.

Nobody running for President on that side of the aisle want to be out of lockstep, so they all end up taking ideas from one another.  They just repackage them in their own words, but they are all the same.

Take Buttigieg’s stance on Capitalism.  He can’t call himself a Democratic Socialist, because that’s Bernie’s shtick.  So he says the same thing that Bernie does about capitalism letting people down and calls himself a Democratic Capitalist, heavy on the Democratic.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg: "I think the reason we're having this argument over socialism and capitalism is that capitalism has let a lot of people down." https://t.co/TsjBqrq2gT pic.twitter.com/lp86oOkqEC

— The Hill (@thehill) April 17, 2019

How is Democratic Capitalism any different than Democratic Socialism?  If you let “the people” through the power of government, tell you how you can use your money, it’s still doomed to fail the way all planned economies fail, regardless of what you call it.

The only let down of modern capitalism is that the richest generation, raised in the greatest lap of luxury ever experienced by humans ever, is so spoiled that they believe that it’s unfair that they have to get a job and work, and can’t all be millionaires in their late 20’s as part time Instagram influencers and so want the goverment to take care of them.

You’ll never hear a Democrat say that.

But I digress…

Now that Beto has proven to be little more than a lackluster angsty teenage furry, trapped in a middle age white man’s body, Pete Buttigieg has become the new media darling.

Eric Swalwell had (barely) more than a dozen people show up at one of his rallies to listen to him rant about taking Americans’ guns away.

The progression of Democrat politics could mean only one thing, Buttigieg had to steal Swalwell’s idea.

Buttigieg says "assault rifles need to be on the table" for a ban because, "We’ve already decided that this is within the Second Amendment because we’ve decided that somewhere in between a slingshot and a nuclear weapon, we can draw a line. And that’s not unconstitutional…" pic.twitter.com/EFU701pWjg

— Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) April 17, 2019

I thank Lt. Buttigieg for his service, but as a fiance intelligence officer with the Navy Reserve, his weapon of war was Quickbooks.

That the Navy made him carry a stripped M4 around base for his single seven month tour in Afghanistan is neither expertise in or justification for the banning and confiscation of assault rifles.

Let me be blunt, my AR-15’s are not on the table.

Neither are those of the 50 million other Americans who own the type of semi-auto rifle that these people would classify as an assault rifle.

Appealing to your Naval service, in which you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, as rationality to restrict the Second Amendment is both wrong and offensive.

This one is coming from Spain.

The Nazarenos or Penitentes wearing the garb that goes back to the XIV century. It is penance as they do long marches and get share of time carrying heavy floats doing the stations of Jesus’ walk to his crucifixion . The rob and mask guaranteed anonymity.

Sometimes I bump into some seriously exaggerated articles in the old papers. The Lebel rifle was revolutionary in the sense it was the first rifle adopted my a military sporting the new smokeless powders which did improve the ballistics of the bullets, but there is ballistics and then there is a bit of too much.

How bad ass? It killed the factory where it was being made! Just kidding.

But do enjoy the long article I found.

I do believe the 1911 people stole some of the overblown qualities from the article.

Anyway, it shows that over a century later, journalism still can’t come up with a decent article about a gun.

The Sun Sentinel echoed on it way the usual party line:

Democrats argued that arming teachers will have unintended consequences, such as teachers using excessive force or mishandling their guns.

Educators should be focused on teaching — not having to provide security at schools, said Sen. Gary Farmer, D-Fort Lauderdale. “We should be giving our teachers tools of mass instruction — not arming with tools of mass destruction,” he said.

Senate Democrats lose fight to remove arming-teachers provision from school safety bill

I was watching the livestreaming of the arguments in one of the commissions and I was struck at how easy it come to the mouths of those against the bill the principle that teachers who are allegedly trained professionals, will suddenly become bumbling morons and hyper violent individuals the moment they decide to carry a sidearm in class.  As a teacher, and not matter if I favor or not the Guardian Program, I’d be insulted as hell to be characterized like that. And parents? You call the teachers irresponsible and unsafe, but yet you have no problem ditching the fruit of your loins in schools for half a day under their care? Isn’t that a contradiction?

Democrats succeeded in adding new requirements that districts notify law enforcement and the state’s Office of Safe Schools if a school safety officer fires a weapon or faces disciplinary action. Statistics on incidents involving school safety officers would be required to be published annually.

I spoke of this one before and I do believe five or ten years down the road, they will be sorry they added this to the bill. They added that to the Concealed Weapon License reports and the only thing it has done was to prove every Gun Control activist a liar.

Every Republican in the Senate backed the arming-teachers provision with the exception of Sen. Anitere Flores of Miami who skipped the vote. She voted against it in committee.

I guess faced between having to follow party line or follow the directives of Bloomberg’s  Moms, she chose to hide herself somewhere in the building or develop the vapors or something. I am sure as hell not going to forget her as she gets term-limited next year if I am not mistaken.

Sen. Perry Thurston, D-Fort Lauderdale, said he’ll keep fighting, but he’s not optimistic Republicans will budge.

“They locked down on their position,” he said.

I believe it was the election that was the “come to Jesus” moment for the Republicans. The loss of the Agriculture Department to a pothead with the support of Moms Demand and all the manual recounts, specially for the Senate seat had to be a shocker. I know I was not the only one pissed at them when I made it clear Scott was not getting my vote.

The election went from “It is OK to ignore Broward and their shenanigans” to “Oh crap! Why is this so close? What group of voters did we lose?”

You guys lost the faithful Gun Owning vote. Not all of it, but enough to make you sweat. At least that is my take.

I am not claiming victory yet on this bill. But I may engage in celebratory dancing sometime in the next days.

Earlier I covered one of Congressman Eric Swalwell’s idiotic Tweets about gun confiscation.

There was a reply in that thread that I saw that I really wanted to take apart.

It is from German Lopez, who is a correspondent at Vox who writes about guns.

With respect to Mr. Lopez, no, it is not odd.

We are law abiding citizens because we believe in just and reasonable, good faith laws.

This does not apply just to gun laws, but to all laws.

Good people are not morally obligated to obey evil laws.

Followers of this blog might remember from a few weeks ago a Georgia State Representative that proposed a Testicular Bill of Rights law as a protest to Georgia’s heart beat bill.

If passes – unlikely, but say it happened – it would be a crime for a married man to have consensual sex with his wife without a condom.

I would not obey that law.

A radical feminist a few years ago proposed replacing Fathers’ Day with Castration Day, making castration of men mandatory.

You can say this is extreme and would never happen, but barely two generations ago, when my Grandfather was a young man, Germany was castrating Jews, Gypsies, and the mentally defective against their will.

In the United State, the Supreme Court decided in 1927 in Buck v. Bell that compulsory sterilization of the mentally defective was Constitutional.  Buck v. Bell has never been overturned.

I have covered three news stories, one in England, one in Canada, and one in Texas in which the goverment has engaged in the compulsory chemical castration of children under the guise of gender affirmation.

With the modern Left, every old bad fascist idea is new an great again as long as it’s woke, so the idea of the compulsory sterilization of undesirables being mainstreamed is not that far fetched, as long as the justification is woke.

I will not obey that law.  I will not submit myself or allow my son to subject to that.

The Supreme Court has never overturned Korematsu v. United States, justifying Japanese Internment.

Anybody who follows social media knows that the Left calls NRA members and white males in general terrorists after any shooting.  Sitting Congresswoman Ilhan Omar said in her official Twitter that the NRA “are the true enemy!”

If a Progressive were to use Korematsu to justify the internment of NRA members or gun owning white men or any other category of woke undesirables.

I will not obey that law.

Twitter is now enforcing Sharia blasphemy laws on its American users.  This backs up the EU’s court’s support for Sharia blasphemy law enforcement in Europe.

New Zealand is trying for restrict the free speech of Americans, and is jailing its own citizens for having a PDF.

The Left in America hates free speech, loves to deplatform speakers, and believes hate speech should be banned.

If a Progressive judge from the Yale Law School class that protested Kavanaugh overturns the 1st Amendment and prohibits hate speech and defines writing a Conservative blog as a hate speech violation, and orders me to stop blogging.

I will not obey that law.

I will not obey bad and restrictive laws that deprive me of my live, liberty, property, or Constitutional protections.

I obey the law as is today because I want to participate in a free society.

When the law says I have to give up my guns, my right to speak, or my bodily autonomy, I will not obey the law because it is not a law written in good faith.

Understand that the purpose of Swalwell’s idea is to turn tens of millions of people who up until the moment the law goes into effect are both law abiding and have never harmed anyone into felons.

The purpose of Swalwell’s law is the subjection of tens of millions of good people to a loss of liberty and property.

Saying “yesterday you were law abiding, but today, without doing anything different, you are not law abiding and you must give up your rights and your property to be law abiding” is not an argument or a law passed in good faith.

To put it bluntly, I will not agree to walk into a concentration camp just because the law says I must.

That’s not odd.

To think that I, or millions of other Americans, will subjugate ourselves to some petty tyrant because he scribbled his name on a piece of paper.

That’s odd.