Gun Free Zone

This is a lawyer.

Forget the Second Amendment and anything else: He is plainly stating that there is no right to possess an item. Anything you may “own” is only by the grace of almighty Government to give you that privilege and that can be removed at any time.

And that is why we have a Second Amendment.

NYC (Fulton stop) – “Every Zionist Shot” and “Every Cop Shot”.

We have no words @NYCMayor @NYPDTips @NYPDHateCrimes @MTA pic.twitter.com/5MNFwMvh9M

— StopAntisemitism (@StopAntisemites) January 16, 2024

“Every Zionist shot.”

Some piece of shit said the quiet part out loud. He forgot they are only supposed to call for the genocide of the Jews in semi-coded ways that gives them plausible deniability with the media.

This is what they want.

I will never give up my guns.

I will remain armed and vigilant.

If they want to choose violence, I will make sure I am better at it than they are.

Thank you for the replies to “The Argument”. The person I was speaking with was listening. He wasn’t anti-gun, nor was he regurgitating anti-gun talking points.

This is different from some of the people who stuck their oar in. The people who said things like, “We need to ban assault weapons, those large bullets are too dangerous.” or something like that. Another was, “There is no reason for large capacity magazines.” Those people aren’t listening nor are they open to learning. They might be, but that is a different discussion.

I don’t do the car ban thing. The response argument is always, “But we NEED cars. You don’t need a gun.”

My wife loves me dearly. She reads my articles. Her eyes glaze over when I quote too much from a case document. Trying to explain to somebody without the papers in hand how the Second, Seventh, and Ninth twist words is futile, in my opinion.

My “Why are you advocating for breaking the law?” is my attempt to address this.

The “slippery slope” argument is difficult to make. In my opinion, the better way of addressing it is to ask, “What is your exit plan if your proposal doesn’t work as you think it will?”

I have had luck in changing people’s feelings. I handed a NYC boy a magazine with more than the allowed number of bullets. He took it, I grabbed it back. “You can’t have that! Your state says that having that will turn you into a mass murder.” I took one round out, handed it back. “Ok, now we are safe.”

The absurdity of that was enough for him to open his mind and actually think.

Sometimes facts are not about accepting or disregarding, sometimes it is about interpretation. The problem with that is exactly the same as with “We’ve never tried real Communism with me in charge. If I’m in charge, it will be a utopia on earth.”

We have had an excellent opinion out of the Third Circuit court. You can go listen to Mark Smith talk about it, or I’ll give you a write-up tomorrow.

I’m eagerly awaiting this week’s comments. Please comment.

Dancing with the tacticool stars?

We are living in a great era for training. Unfortunately, we are also plagued with tactical gimmick BS.

Besides the usual and highly organized election cheating schemes being prepared, there is the self-destruction pattern we are seeing.

I have already stated that I was not planning to vote for Trump. Very early on, I felt that he was directing more (and unnecessarily) attacks to DeSantis than to any Democrat including Biden. If you do not live in Florida, you may be swayed to think by what the MAGA train said that DeSantis is some sort of camouflaged RINO, but I believe Trump felt out staged by how well DeSantis did during COVID and how he had the guts to stand and do the right thing rather than follow what D.C. was telling him to do. Trump hates being out-staged and outsmarted.

But what I am seeing now is that the MAGA Inner Party, or at least they official war dogs are in full fledge attack mode against anybody who did not support Trump from the get-go or has any criticism of him, valid or not. They are basically imposing some sort of purity test for Republicans and those who fail shall be branded Enemies of MAGA and treated accordingly.  Just peruse Laura Loomer’s X/Twitter account and the bile she is spewing. Her friends and acolytes may even be worse.

They are not interested in getting everybody under one political tent, but rather to build a moat for the selected ones. And this is making people rethink their choices when it comes to pressing the lever come November. Will they vote for Biden or whatever last-minute candidate the Dems select? No, but I already know some who simply will not give their vote to Trump either or anybody else. And they do not have to be millions of people overall, but enough thousands in particular locations to ensure losing an electoral vote.

And I believe that is happening.

Fucking great day when you realize you are hated by the Left in general and also by some of those who are supposed to be on your side of the Constitution.

But if nobody hates you, then you are not doing your duty.

From the NY Post:

Suspect in NYC stabbings eerily smiled at first victim after random attack: ‘Turned to look at me’

A maniac accused of randomly stabbing multiple people with a hunting knife in Queens flashed a menacing grin at his first victim after slashing him in the back earlier this month, the man told The Post on Wednesday.

The 61-year-old grandfather said he was on his way to the laundromat on Jan. 8 when he was allegedly attacked by 27-year-old Jermain Rigueur.

The man was the first of at least five victims in Queens terrorized during the stabbing spree over the past two weeks, police said.

A suspect in the case was taken into custody Wednesday after a manhunt by the NYPD.

The original story brings to mind the Maksim Gelman stabbing spree.

Rigueur, who lives in Queens, works as a greeter at Woodhull Hospital in Brooklyn, sources said.

No charges had been filed against him as of early Thursday.

The five victims were all left wounded and bleeding when Rigueur allegedly plunged a hunting knife into them, police said.

Then this week, 34-year-old Shaneka Anderson was stabbed as she walked home just after midnight Tuesday from her job with the TSA at LaGuardia Airport.

The next three victims were knifed Wednesday morning, leading cops to alert the media as they began their search for the serial stabber.

The NYPD sounded the alarm at a press conference the same day and blasted out images of the suspect before it took Rigueur into custody that night.

There was a madman on a stabbing spree.

The people were told nothing and it took the police several days to hunt him down.

This is another case where the people of NYC were left defenseless in the face of a madman with a knife while the Waffen NYPD bumble-fucked around uselessly for a while.

The good people of NYC need to be able to defend themselves.

The Bruen decision needs to be enforced in NYC, and the people be allowed to carry concealed to defend themselves.

I attended a get-together on Saturday. One of the other people there started a discussion about firearms and the Second Amendment. Since we were in an area where there were not a bunch of people, and because he was acting in good faith and with an open mind, we engaged in a discussion.

As most such discussions go, it is difficult to pin somebody down. There is a heartfelt need to “do something”.

Some of the issues that I had were his inability to accept that we already know that bad things happen when we give an inch.

A big issue for him was training. The standard, “You are ok, and he is ok, but there are idiots out there that do dumb things, they should have training.”

My response was that a training requirement leads to de facto bans. He claimed that we don’t know that they will. When I listed the states that had done this recently, that was not accepted as proof.

He drove forward with the idea that we could write a law that would be safe from that type of meddling. He invited me to propose language for that.

I went home unhappy with my performance.

Having thought about it a bit, I think my argument should be more along the lines of:

Why do you want to break the law?

Every one of the people that I have discussions with has some sort of acceptable way of working around the Second Amendment. They argue that I should “follow the law” if they pass an unconstitutional law. At the same time, they are unwilling to obey the law, themselves.

Often they want to engage in hypotheticals where they can make such a law.

One of my standard responses is, “If you would like to do that, then you need to pass an amendment. That amendment will then allow you to pass such laws.” I did use it. He’s response was, “You would oppose that?” “Absolutely, totally.”

I then explained that they are pre-existing rights. That the Second Amendment is there to protect those rights. The Second Amendment does not grant those rights.

Regardless, I’m left feeling unsatisfied with my performance. I need more practice.