Is a newborn racists? According to the left the answer is “yes”. If you are white, if you are “cis”, if you are male you are born hating.

This does not match reality. Nobody believes that a black man is any less capable of a white man. Nobody believes that a woman is any less intelligent than a man.

People have the opportunity, in these United States, to grow and become anything they are able to do.

This does mean that I don’t expect to see very many female lineman climbing poles and pulling heavy cables into place.

20 years ago you never saw a woman flagman, today they are common.

Regardless, people are not born hating others. They need to be taught to hate others. Sometimes that is done by the people you are with. All you have to do is visit an inner city community and you will quickly learn about hate. We’ve seen the videos of 5 year olds hating on a cop just because he is a cop.

He had to be taught that.

You are also taught to hate by the people that hate you. When a group constantly attacks you, you will learn to hate them.

So the question is: Who taught the left to hate?

P.S. I use the rhetorical “nobody…” to mean “not part of a third world shit hole country.” Yes, I know there are exceptions.

This is just a bunch of links that I collected and didn’t write about.

Oregon gun control Measure 114 attracts national attention as one of strictest in U.S.

Supporters call it a ‘no-brainer’ to save lives. Opponents say it will hurt lawful owners

Opinion: Who is at fault for America’s soaring gun violence? Experts weigh in | CNN

As part of the CNN Opinion series “America’s Future Starts Now,” we asked a group of six experts from different fields and backgrounds to share their ideas for addressing concerns about guns and violence so that all of us can feel a bit safer.

We need to come together as Americans for gun safety

We need to come together as Americans for gun safety and embrace bipartisan ways to make our families safe. As a survivor of gun violence, we need to act.

Big Island takes lead over Maui in concealed gun permits; none issued on Oahu and Kauai

HONOLULU (KHON2) — The Big Island has pulled ahead of Maui as the county with the most concealed-carry gun permits approved since a United State Supreme Court ruling this summer forced Hawaii…

These are the faces of the rising number of Black gun owners in the U.S.

Black gun ownership dates back to before the country’s founding. In “Armed Doesn’t Mean Dangerous,” photographer Christian K. Lee captures the growing number of Black Americans who own firearms.

A top-ranked high school got rid of merit-based admissions. Then students’ grades tanked.

Data show that students admitted by lottery to San Francisco’s Lowell High School are academically faring much worse than their peers.

Oath Keeper testifies about massive gun pile stashed in hotel on the eve of Jan. 6

A member of the Oath Keepers who took an AR-15-to a Virginia hotel on the eve of the Jan. 6 riot described entering a room filled with a large stash of weapons

Glock AR-15 Rumors Run Rampant. That Would Be a Nightmare.

Photo Illustration by Erin O’Flynn/The Daily Beast/GettyBruce Willis rhapsodized about them in Die Hard 2. Tupac rapped about them, and was killed by one.Between cops and hip-hop stars and actual gangstas and everyday gun nuts, the reliably deadly Glock has become a generic term for all semi-automat…

How the Supreme Court put gun control laws in jeopardy nationwide | CNN Politics

It did not take long for top gun rights activists to realize that the Second Amendment ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in June was going to transform the legal fight over access to firearms.

In 2009 the supreme court heard the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. At issue was the question of a ban on corporate electioneering communications ( 2 U.S.C. §441b ).

Citizens United was a non-profit corporation that had made a film about Hillary Clinton and wanted to release it for video-on-demand via cable companies. They were going to pay the cable companies so that the film would be free to viewers.

The Federal Election Campaign Act limited what a corporation or union could say.

Consider the situation, you and a few of your best friends want to make a movie about Brandon. You all put up money and pay to have it professionally done. That means hiring talent, directors, crew and a dozen other things. All of these people want a contract to protect themselves and to know what they are getting into.

Because of the FECA the situation is this, if one of you decides to be the front man, all the contracts are written personally between that person and every other person involved. That person is now liable for anything that happens. And since it is them personally that the contracts are with all of their wealth is also at risk.

In addition, since all the contracts are with them, if they decide to do something you don’t like, you have no legal voice.

The answer to this is to incorporate. This is the case for almost every movie made. Somebody decides to make a movie, they find somebody to green light the movie, they form a production company. That company exists for the duration of the creation of the movie. At the end of that time the corporation is dissolved. This protects everybody involved.

But under the FECA doing this the first way, as a personal project was legal, doing it as a corporation was illegal.

Citizens United expect to run afoul of the law so the asked for injunctive relief against the Federal Election Commission. The case made its way to the supreme court, was argued in 2009 and the opinion was issued in 2010. 2 years after the election.

The Court noted that §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures and electioneering communications is a ban on speech and “political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.” Accordingly, laws that burden political speech are subject to “strict scrutiny,” which requires the government to prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. According to the Court, prior to Austin there was a line of precedent forbidding speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity, and after Austin there was a line permitting them. In reconsidering Austin, the Court found that the justifications that supported the restrictions on corporate expenditures are not compelling.
— Citizens United v. FEC

The Citizens United case became one of the boogiemen of the left. They claimed that because of Citizens United, the wealth would be able to buy elections. The implication being that the wealthy were Republicans and thus Republicans would be buying elections. They were projecting of course.

With very little research it is easy to see that many Democratic institutions have been funneling vast amounts of money into elections for years and years.

To get an idea of how bad it really is, just ask any Union Representative “Who was the last Republican that the union endorsed?” In most cases they have no answer.

Using their standard battle rules, the left immediately labeled that which they disliked with a pejorative and proceed to attack every time a conservative donated money to a conservative cause as “dark money.”

Dark money is the bugaboo of the left. The Koch Brothers were constantly attacked as dark money. Never mind the fact that people like Soros and Bloomberg spend much more, each, on leftist causes.

The definition of dark money is funding that can not be traced back to a person or entity. In general, if you give money to a political candidate above a certain level it is recorded and is a public record. Certain donations to nonprofits (PACS) are also reported.

The way around this is that money given to some funds are not required to be reported. That fund can then donate money to other nonprofits and that donation is reported. So you give $20,000 to a Republican candidate and you go to jail. You give $20,000 to a Democrat candidate and it is ignored. If you give $20,000 to a pro-republican fund and they in turn give $20,000 to a PAC working in support of that candidate and your name is never mentioned by that PAC and there are no laws broken.

If this is done by conservatives, it is dark money.

If it is done by leftists it is just business as usual.

A new group anti-gun group has shown up, Project Unloaded.

The mission of Project Unloaded is to create a new cultural narrative that guns make us less safe.

Research shows that teens and young adults are forming opinions and making decisions about guns. Through creative and cultural campaigns, Project Unloaded establishes safe spaces for open conversations about guns and provides accurate information about gun safety to inspire the next generation to choose on their own terms not to own a gun.

This group is almost entirely funded by a series of fund managed by Arabella Advisors. There are four major funds managed by AA and they are all receiving vast amounts of ‘dark money’, over $1.5 billion according to tax filings. LIBERAL DARK MONEY JUGGERNAUT RAISES $1.6 BILLION TO FLOOD LEFT-WING GROUPS WITH CASH, TAX FORMS REVEAL

All of this is to say that once again we are winning. As our rights are acknowledge by the Supreme Court, the left immediately pivots to a new way of attacking.

On Thursday 2022-10-20, federal judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. issued a TRO against the state of New York in regards to parts of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCI).

As part of the CCI NY state attempted to make so many different places within the state “sensitive places” that it would become nearly impossible for a CC holder to travel or go anyplace where they were not in violation of the law. Since the law states that violation of a sensitive place is a felony a person exercising their constitutional guaranteed right to keep and bear arms could become a prohibited person.

The courts have ruled numerous times that exercising your rights does not rise to the level of allowing the cops to have a “reasonable suspicion” that a crime is happening. I.e. the cops can’t arrest you for protesting in a public square or trespass you for filming when you enter a government building (exceptions for certain secured buildings).

In Hardaway, Jr v Nigrelli (First Deputy Superintendent NY State Police) the judge found that NY’s ban on firearms in churches (et all) is unconstitutional. He goes on to say that most of the CCI is unconstitutional but because Hardaway is only challenging the restriction in churches that is all the TRO covers.

They way this works is that the plaintiffs go to a judge and request an injunction. The court then schedules a hearing. The parties are allowed to file different pleadings. Often times the party that expects to loss will request delays. Thus it could take months or even years before the case is actually heard by the judge.

The plaintiffs can request a temporary restraining order (injunction). The TRO remains in effect until the case is heard. This can force the parties to move more rapidly to the actual hearing.

In order for the judge to grant a TRO the judge must believe that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of the case. In other words, the judge believes that the plaintiffs will win. In some cases the judge will grant parts of the request and deny other parts.

We saw this in the Antonyuk v. Hochul (Governor of the State of New York). This is the GOA case where they are suing the state of New York over the complete CCI.

Plaintiffs thus seek emergency injunctive relief, in the form of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, halting enforcement and further implementation of this patently unconstitutional statute, until a decision on the merits can be reached.

In the second case the judge issued a TRO which blocked part of the CCI but allowed other parts to remain. He then held the TRO for 3 business days to allow the state to appeal the TRO, which they did. The appellate court blocked (held) the TRO. The judge is still likely to find the CCI unconstitutional when the case is finally heard but in the meantime the CCI stays in effect.

Except for the part about banning guns in churches. Hardaway, Jr v. Nigrelli has a TRO which does block that part of the CCI.

Another win for us.
Hardaway v. Nigrelli Decision and Order
GOA: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (v CCI)

We had our first contributor posting from a reader. Thank you very much!

Last week we had some positive feedback on tracking court cases as well as “more about guns!”

I have tried to add a little more humor to some of this weeks posts.

For Tuesday Tunes, do prefer the short “here, enjoy this” posts or longer “things to think about while you listen”?

For people that are sending us prompts for articles, THANK YOU. Please let us know if you want us to acknowledge your contribution and if so, how. If you are a member we would like to add your membership levels to such prompts.

Is there anything you’ve wanted us to opine about but which we have not? Or which we did to little or to deep of a dive about?

On Oct 16th, 2022 somebody decided that a electronic message board alongside I-93 in NH could be put to better use than “Shoulder Closed, 1/2 Mile Ahead.”

The despicable evil person parked somewhere near before making their way to the control box. They managed to open the control box with no reported damage. At that point the reprogrammed the sign to flash an entirely different message.

One that was so disrespectful and rude.

A construction crew was called out. They found the vanalized message board and immediately turned it around so as to not offend anybody driving past. With a little bit of effort they were able to shut it down.

PSA: Do not go to unattended roadside message boards and reprogram them to say “Fuck Joe Biden.”

That is all.
NH DOT sign in Manchester vandalized to display vulgar message about Biden

So then, what you’re saying is, people with conservative right-political convictions can have extremisms which are principled disciplines and are therefore the very soul of their existence and can become subjective in nature rather than objective in nature. And people with liberal left-political views are pawns without exercising their intellects to the point of developing principled disciplines and therefore having no soul, but instead a State created existence, personally shallow.

The former has various levels of ‘Critical Thinking’ while the latter does not and believes critical thinking is nothing more than mean insults thrown about as a young child does–projecting their immaturity onto their political enemy, knowing only subjectivism as the determiner of all things. The former succeeds due to exhaustive comprehensive planning while the latter fails due to the total lack of any realistic planning at all.
— There is no left wing extremism! David Douglass

I’m trying to parse this so I’ll take in in chunks.

I do believe that people that lean conservative or right are more likely to have principled disciplines. Stated differently, I have found that people on the right are consistent in their beliefs. That if they have a moral principle it is highly likely that they apply that principle across the vast majority of their lives.

When I was fighting for my children I had to take a psych evaluation. One of the questions in that survey was “do you lie?”. The answer I gave was “yes”. Yes, I do lie. Sometimes it is to hide information or to mislead. In other cases it is because to bluntly tell the truth would hurt somebody I love and that is worse than the lie.

“Honey, does this dress make me look fat?” “You are beautiful no matter what you are wearing. I love you without bounds.”

The left has goals. The principles they seem to live by are built around those goals. Since they are goal oriented this means that their principles morph depending on the goal. They want Trump out of office so him holding on to the rail as he walks down a wet ramp is an indication that he is unhealthy and should be removed from office. They want Joe in office so him falling multiple times walking up the steps is nothing.

Trump says something rude and it will cause world war III, remove him from office! Joe sends military aid to somebody that is threatening nuclear war and it “is the right thing to do.” Everything is goal oriented.

When somebody on the right is looking at principles, they discuss principles. “If I am against abortion, are there any exceptions? How is abortion different than the death penalty? How can I hold an anti abortion point of view at the same time I believe in the death penalty?”

I am looking at the principle and making sure that it is consistent across my entire view point.

The left seems to look at an issue, judge the person based on their opinion on that issue, then start hating that person. Once they have decided that a person or idea is evil, then the goal becomes removing that person or idea. They aren’t looking at first principles, they are looking at the goal.

If Amy Coney Barrett becomes a supreme court justice then Roe v Wade will fall. The left hates Amy and anything they can find to justify that hate is grist for the mill. They will attack because of the goal.

This goal orientation is what allows a leftist to hate one person for an opinion while loving another person for the exact same opinion. Obama taking 30,000+ documents with him when he left office is no big thing. Him promising to scan and return them is all that is required. Trump taking many less is cause for an FBI raid.

Nobody asks why they didn’t raid Obama, Obama is the light giver, Trump is the devil come to earth.

I refuse to see people on the left as not thinking. I believe that there are many very smart people on the left. People that have good, grounded, principles. The problem is that when they let their emotions take control they stop thinking and start emoting.

It is well known that people respond to emotional appeals much more readily than to appeals to the intellect. There are people that have huge communications channels that know this and use it.

An example of this sort of emotional appeal is the assault weapons ban. Many leftists want an AWB. Assault Weapons are so deadly and dangerous using such deadly ammunition that no civilian should ever be allowed to own them.

When I’m talking to an open minded leftist about guns and they are willing to listen I’ll show them ammunition and ask them to decide which is the one they wish to ban, because it is just too deadly. They always go for the big stuff. 30-06, 7.62x54r, 7.62×51 NATO are all “evil” in their eyes. They never pick the 5.56×45. Never.

I then ask them to decide which of two rifles they would ban, the M1 or the AR15, showing them both. If I show them the AR-15 dressed in black with the tacticool stuff attached, they want to ban that. If I show them “Mrs. Pink”, an AR-15 with pink furniture they are much less sure of themselves.

It is the emotional appeal that has them hating.

It is difficult to cause a principled man to change his principles. This is why we talk about the dimmer vs. the switch. People on the right have an off on switch. The people on the left use a dimmer. It is easy to turn the dimmer up just a little bit more.

To flip the switch requires that the principles a man believes in must align or be broken.

A man that is peaceful does not wish to become violent. Yet there is that point where they do flip that switch. Harming my children would cause that switch to flip for me. I would do what I can to “make it right”.

Why I believe the right succeeds is another article. I have to think on that for a bit.