The Norwegian Military is having all of its non-combat deployed personnel turn in their sidearms (original source) due to budgetary reasons. The Aftenposten article doesn’t give a reason (according to Google translate), but it’s not hard to figure out. Norway has an economy dominated by oil and gas, which took a hit in price, but that isn’t enough to cause such a shortfall for a military that is only 11,600 troops in size. Norway prides itself on its Welfare State, which has been sapped to the breaking point by Refugees. Norway, with its population of 5.2 million people took in some 30,000 refugees and put them on the government dole, and gave another $1.2 BILLION away in aid. That’s $240 per Norwegian citizen. If the Glock Blue Label pricing is any reflection on what the military pays for the P80, for what the Norwegian government gave in foreign aid, they could have bought 2.6 million new pistols.
Norway has disarmed its troops because it over spent on welfare and aid to the same people it now has to teach not to rape their way across Norway. Congratulations Norway, at least you can stand as an example of what NOT to do when it comes to welfare and military spending.
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Antonin Scalia, died on Saturday.
His death, for more than the election of Barack Obama, or the potential election of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or even Michael Bloomberg is the biggest threat to guns rights in the United States, since the introduction of the Brady Bill in 1993.
No, that is not Hyperbole.
There was no greater friend to the Second Amendment on the Supreme Court than Justice Scalia. It was Justice Scalia that gave the Opinion of the Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller. Justice Scalia’s opinion in Heller shaped the outcome of McDonald vs. the City of Chicago, on which he voted for the majority.
Justice Scalia’s origianalism on the Second Amendment was well founded by historical prescient. If you have the time to listen to the two hours of oral arguments in Heller, it is an amazing lesson.
The Supreme Court has been gun-shy recently, and has refused to add gun rights cases to the docket. My fear is that in the absence of Justice Scalia, especially if (when) his seat is filled by a more liberal justice, the Supreme Court might revisit the issue of gun rights with the intent to reverse some of the more important parts of Heller and McDonald. While it would not be likely that the Supreme Court could completely reverse the decision that gun rights are individual rights, it can chip away at gun rights significantly. Such a decision would not be hard to do. Simply taking on a challenge to a state level assault weapon’s ban, and deciding that the AR-15, the most popular long arm in America, is a “dangerous or unusual weapon” and “not it common use” to uphold an AWB. Although the individual right would, technically, be maintained, the teeth to the right would be pulled.
An anti-gun Supreme Court is a far greater threat to gun rights than any president or legislator. The politicians can be voted out of office and new politicians voted in. But the Supreme Court holds sway for decades and generations. With the passing of Justice Scalia we must redouble our efforts, and then redouble them again to push for gun rights. Anti-gun legislation that does not get passed cannot go before the court to be upheld. We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect our rights. All challenges to gun rights must be nipped in the bud.
UPDATE
I wanted to put some work into this post, I have a great deal of respect for Justice Scalia, even if I didn’t agree with him on every decision.
My heart is broken by all the people calling Justice Scalia a bigot, a racist, or a homophobe. It is disgusting to belittle a man who was a staunch defender of individual rights. Justice Scalia’s dissent in Maryland v. King, on the issue of 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search is blistering. Justice Scalia was an ardent defender of the 1st Amendment. His opinion in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association is a masterpiece in the defense of free speech. Justice Scalia was famous for noting that while he didn’t like flag burning, burning the flag is a protected form of free expression. Justice Scalia was a defender of property rights, joining the dissent in the much hated ruling in Kelo v. New London. Lastly, his dissent in King v. Burwell is beautiful.
While I may not completely agree with Scalia’s dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, allowing the popular culture to use it to cement Justice Scalia’s legacy is wrong and dangerous. To listen to way so many people have been talking about Justice Scalia, one would get the impression that they were absolutely fine with the government banning books, movies, and video games, seizing your property, banning your guns, taking your DNA and searching you with a proctoscope on the side of the highway during a dubious traffic stop, and limiting your ability to complain about it, as long as the gays can marry. On second though, that is exactly what progressives stand for, so no wonder they hate Justice Scalia.
I’m lukewarm on Jeb Bush. I lived in Florida when he was governor and he was a pretty decent governor, but he lacks the fighting spirit that the GOP needs right now. But that is neither here nor there at the moment. Jeb Bush tweeted this:
OK, that’s cool. Needs night sights though. I assume it was a gift to the governor and not something that he had engraved for himself.
But of course, Think Progress can’t leave well enough alone, and decides to chime in with about a ton of equivocation.
We’ve been told for years that violent lyrics in Hip Hop, and violence on TV doesn’t cause crime (I agree on both points). So how does one tweet about one gun make the Governor of a state, with his legally owned handgun, morally culpable for crimes committed by other people. That’s right, it doesn’t. But that doesn’t stop Think Progress from distorting all logic to make that claim.
Frankly, I wan’t my president to be a gun owner. I want my president to have a CCW permit. I want the chief executive of the United States, tasked with enforcing America’s gun laws (as well as all other federal laws), to have a little bit of first hand knowledge of America’s gun laws.
Also, if I were president, I would have to have a 1911 engraved with my name with the Seal of the POTUS inlaid in the grips. I’d carry that everywhere.
Some nameless comedian decided to pick up a bit part in an independent film as a drug dealer’s bodyguard. He had an Airsoft gun as a prop. He is now in jail on gun charges.
Why?
Because New Jersey, that’s why.
(You gotta f**king problem with that!? Whatcha looking at!? You need me to come over there and knock you upside the head?)
I’m of two minds on this.
On the one hand, it is absolutely ridiculous. An Airsoft gun is not a firearm. He wasn’t using it in a threatening way to commit a crime. So what benefit is it to the peace and tranquility of New Jersey to prosecute this guy and put him in jail?
On the other hand, every egregious and capricious anti-gun act by a state like New Jersey like this, highlights just how completely unreasonable gun laws are in states like New Jersey. The state has become Reductio ad absurdumunto itself. Hopefully it will begin to dawn on the good people of the petroleum refining and distribution garden state that there government is not there to help them, and they are more likely to be arrested for a toy than be protected from some law abiding citizen and his gun.
Florida scumbag Congressman Alan Grayson, a man who made his Congressional reputation berating Wall Street on TV, turns out to have been moonlighting as a Hedge Fund manager. Not just that, but he used his power, influence, and Congressional resources for his Hedge Fund.
But this scandal adds to a long list of other scandals of abuses of power, corruption, and hypocrisy that the Democrat party is facing. What’s truly noticeable is that these scandals rarely sink Democrats, where Republicans who get caught with their hand in the till, generally go down in flames.
Elizabeth Warren gets caught abusing affirmative action hiring practices, becomes a Senator, and now is gaining backing for an eventual Presidential run. Hillary Clinton is running for President while being investigated by the FBI.
Some people blame the media for going soft on Democrats, but I have another theory.
One of the hallmarks of totalitarian governments is that the leaders don’t have to follow the same rules as the rest of the populace. Rules are for the little people. North Korea may be under rationing, but Kim Jong-Un is tubby.
Our nation was founded under exactly the opposite principle, that every citizen, including our elected leaders, are bound by the same laws. No man is above the law.
So for Democrats, these scandals are times they got caught in their moral failings, it is a chance to level up. If you are a Democrat, and you weather a scandal, it proves that the law doesn’t really apply to you. You are not one of the “one of the little people.” Come out on top and you are ready for the big leagues.
If a scandal breaks you, too bad, you were never really qualified for a leadership role. Anthony Weiner was broke. His wife came through with sycophantic fans and has gone on to scandal some more.
Surviving a scandal that would crush a Republican is for a Democrat, a qualifying event. Trial by scandal. It is part of their leadership CV.
Will Grayson’s getting caught lining his pockets by abusing his seat ruin him or elevate him to DNC big wig? Only time, and Florida Democrats, will tell.
The first is a step-by-step on how you should awkwardly ask your potential boyfriend if he owns a gun and if he’s going to use that gun to kill you – because that’s what men with guns do to women.
The first article quotes Shannon Watts multiple times:
“It’s crucial that single women understand the risk factors and tackle talking directly about the role guns may play in their daily lives,” says Watts. “Being armed with the facts isn’t anti-gun, it’s pro-information. And it may save your life.”
“Do you have a gun? How did you get it? Is there a problem with your going into a gun shop and buying a gun?”
Why not just make your date fill out a Form 4473 before he picks you up for dinner?
“Where do you keep your gun?”
If the answer is other than “it’s on my hip right now,” why does it matter on a first date? Or is she going to ask about the state of my smoke alarms and fire extinguishers next?
“‘[B]oyfriends are becoming an increasingly large proportion of those who commit intimate-partner homicides,’ says Shannon Frattaroli, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Gun Policy and Research.”
Oh Gee, what an absolutely unbiased source. The article then devolves into a diatribe on the gun show and private seller “loophole” and more stories about how the “he was such a nice guy” boyfriend buys and gun and murder ensues.
The second is an article, rife with cherry picked data and an accompanying video, to make the case that men who own guns are douche-bag “gunsplainers” who are more likely than not to use their gun to murder their wives and girlfriends. The video embedded in the second article is straight from Everytown’s YouTube channel.
A few days before Valentines, and Cosmo becomes a shill for MDA/Everytown. The thesis of the THREE articles is “Don’t date a guy that owns a gun, if you do, you are probably going to be murdered.” Cosmo presents this as dating advice, that women should bring up the issue of guns on the first date and interrogate their potential boyfriends their gun owning and gun buying history.
I’m pretty sure that if my date was convinced by Cosmo to assume that my gun ownership was a sign that I’m a domestic abuser and gave me the third degree about it over ravioli, that date would be over before I got my unlimited bread sticks refilled.
Then again, what do I know? I’ve been with my wife for 12 years and I’m pretty sure I haven’t murdered her. Hold on, lemme check… nope, still not murdered.
