New Zealand’s Gun Buyback And Ban Scheme Nets 50,000 Firearms

By William Teach December 21, 2019 – 7:22 am

The Associated Press has this article, which is being trumpeted across a wide variety of outlet as being awesome, but, forgets a very important detail

New Zealanders hand in 50,000 guns after assault weapon ban

New Zealand authorities said Saturday their country will be a safer place after owners handed in more than 50,000 guns during a buyback program following a ban on assault weapons. But critics say the process was flawed and many owners have illegally stashed their firearms.

The government banned the most lethal types of semi-automatic weapons less than a month after a lone gunman in March killed 51 worshippers at two Christchurch mosques. The police then launched a six-month program to buy the newly banned weapons from owners.

The buyback ended midnight Friday, with gun collection events staying open late as police reported in a surge in last-minute returns.

Provisional figures indicate 33,000 people handed in 51,000 guns, and another 5,000 guns as part of a parallel amnesty in which owners could hand over any type of firearm without any questions being asked but without getting compensated.

Owners also modified another 2,700 guns to make them legally compliant, while police said they had seized a further 1,800 guns from gangs since March. And police said they’re in the process of collecting another 1,600 guns from gun dealers.

Police Minister Stuart Nash told reporters Saturday that criminals would find it harder to get their hands on assault weapons because they tended to steal them from lawful owners, but those weapons would now be out of circulation.

Remember, New Zealand banned most semi-automatic guns, not just the scary looking assault weapons. Handguns and regular rifles above .22 caliber are banned. My Walther P22 would be OK, my Walther P9, which is 9mm, would be illegal.

The thing is, it’s interesting that the Police Minister is lauding the fact that law abiding citizens are having to turn in their property because a criminal could steal it, but, about that thing the AP forgot?

But nobody has a clear target for the program because authorities haven’t kept track of the number of guns in the country.

Tentative estimates put the total number of guns in New Zealand at about 1.5 million and the number of weapons that are now banned at up to 175,000. If those numbers are correct, it would mean less than 10% of the banned weapons have been handed in so far. Owners have until Dec. 20 to turn them over or potentially face charges.

The thing is, that number of what is potentially banned is a pure guess. Another guess is 500,000 which do not comply with the law. No one knows. There are surely a lot of handguns and rifles that do not comply. If the rest are shotguns and small caliber handguns and rifles, thieves will just steal them. And people will just purchase large caliber revolvers. So, 50,000 is a fail. Just like when Australia did a similar type ban.

Read: New Zealand’s Gun Buyback And Ban Scheme Nets 50,000 Firearms »

Posted in Current Affairs | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

How Much Of Your Money Have Democrats Pledged To Fight Hotcoldwetdry?

By William Teach December 20, 2019 – 3:00 pm

It’s easy to Do Something about ‘climate change’ when you’re spending Other People’s money

Whatever the number is, expect it to be at least tripled, and they’ll be paying back their donors

Climate change — or, more precisely, fighting climate change — has quickly become one of the top priorities among Democratic voters. Increasingly dire warnings about the devastating effects of climate change, as well as the sweeping Green New Deal proposed this year in Congress, have helped the topic gain traction among voters and politicians alike.

It may be important to the Democrat base, but, of course, not enough for them to give up their own use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral, nor spend their own money.

A carbon tax is a tax levied on polluters — for example, a power plant burning fossil fuels. The goal is to cut emissions by forcing businesses to pay a price for polluting. Many economists back the idea, but it could be difficult to sell politically, as it could mean higher prices for Americans on things such as gasoline and heating.

Most are in favor of it. Some are “not opposed” to nuclear energy, some are against.

Most candidates who have climate plans list target dates for getting the U.S. to net-zero carbon emissions. They differ on the dates when they believe it is possible to get there. Many candidates have set 2050 as a target. That is when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that the world will have to get to net zero to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

All but Bloomberg and Gabbard are for this, yet, are taking quite a few fossil fueled trips. Because this is only for The Little People, not your political masters.

Read: How Much Of Your Money Have Democrats Pledged To Fight Hotcoldwetdry? »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 20, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean encroaching on forest land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on Trump the magician.

BTW, you aren’t seeing a bunch of older photos right now because Photobucket is still down. Supposedly had a power outage. For over 2 days? Did they not pay the power bill?

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Sierra Club: Trump Should Be Impeached For His “Environmental Record”

By William Teach December 20, 2019 – 12:37 pm

The Sierra Club is on a seriously unhinged roll with this one

Trump’s environmental record should be impeachable: Sierra Club

The Sierra Club has come out in support of the impeachment and removal of President Trump from office. We have never before called for the impeachment or removal of a sitting President, but Trump’s abuse of power and disregard for the law has undermined our democracy.

He has violated his oath of office and his behavior when it comes to the environment is even more reckless – he has deliberately ignored laws and trying to destroy important environmental institutions. President Trump has declared war on the environment. He unilaterally pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, called climate change a hoax, and has muzzled scientists while trying to compromise 50 years of environmental progress.

He is exploiting our public lands while attempting to roll back 85 environmental regulations including the Environmental Species Act and lightbulb standards, and is allowing banned toxic chemicals and pesticides back on the market. He has stacked government agencies with industry lobbyists like EPA’s Andrew Wheeler. Trump’s lawlessness and disregard for institutions is putting our environment and safety at risk.

OMG, he’s trying to allow people more choice with lightbulbs!!!!!!! Impeach now!

Some say that Trump’s tweets make them sick, but it is actually his environmental policies. His EPA’s studies have shown that rolling back the Clean Power Plan would lead to over 1,400 premature deaths and 40,000 cases of asthma each year and freezing CAFE standards would result in 41,000 deaths and 1.67 million cases of asthma over a decade.

Except, the CPP never went into effect, because nearly half the states sued to stop a serious breach of Executive Office power from the Obama administration. And court after court put the plan on hold, and would have killed it if the Trump admin hadn’t.

Trump’s actions are not going unchecked. Sierra Club and others are suing on close to 37 rules he is trying to weaken, from Waters of the United States to coal ash to offshore drilling. We are also fighting the administration for hiding scientific reports, holding private meetings with lobbyists, and the border wall as well as challenging permits for projects like the Dakota Access Pipeline, LNG terminals, and clean power plants.

Courts also forestalled the Waters of the USA over-reach, and would have killed it had the Trump admin not done it first. Also, the Sierra Club wants your power to skyrocket. Look, I don’t agree with some of what the Trump admin has done with real environmental issues, but, they are not impeachable.

We need to not only get rid of Christie’s rollbacks on environmental rules but also move forward on protecting New Jersey from climate impacts and sea level rise by regulating greenhouse gases and getting to 100% renewable energy. Basically, we need to build a green wall around our state.

What he is doing to the environment is a high crime and worse than a misdemeanor. Flooding, sea-level rise, and other climate impacts are getting worse, and blocking the U.S. from moving forward will leave a legacy of destruction.

Read: Sierra Club: Trump Should Be Impeached For His “Environmental Record” »

Posted in Donald Trump, Enviroweenies, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Joe Biden Is Cool With Killing Off Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jobs For The Green Economy

By William Teach December 20, 2019 – 7:02 am

How well did the green economy work under Joe’s previous boss? Didn’t they piss away at least $50-90 billion with their Stimulus? It’s hard to know the exact number, but, one word: Solyndra.

Joe Biden Admits He Is Ready to Sacrifice Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs for Greener Economy

Former Vice President Joe Biden admitted that he was ready to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of jobs to create a greener economy on Thursday.

Biden was questioned by moderator Tim Alberta during the PBS/Politico Democrat presidential debate on Thursday about his clean energy proposals.

“As president, would you be willing to sacrifice some of that growth, even knowing potentially that it could displace thousands or hundreds of thousands of blue-collar workers in the interest of transitioning to the greener economy?” Alberta asked.

This won’t show up in a Trump ad, right? Because he would never do that, right?

“The answer is yes,” Biden said. “The answer is yes because the opportunity for those workers to transition to high paying jobs is real.”

Biden argued that the government could invest dramatically in making homes more energy-efficient and produce batteries to store energy.

He argued that more government spending and regulations could help transform the country into a cleaner energy future.

“We shouldn’t build another new highway in America that doesn’t have charging stations on it,” he said.

Oh, charging stations for the upper class who can afford EVs that cost well over $100k. And, of course those jobs are high paying, if we look back to the stimulus. The cost per job was, depending on the source, at least $278K. Some estimates go as high as $4.1 million. Because the taxpayers funded them. Not that the workers saw that money. But, hey, you’ll lose your job and can get trained to install insulation….oh, wait, Democrats want unfettered illegal immigration, so, they’ll take those low skill jobs. All so Government can control the economy.

Read: Joe Biden Is Cool With Killing Off Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jobs For The Green Economy »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: The 63 Million Are Tyrannical, And Impeachment Vindicated Democracy Or Something

By William Teach December 20, 2019 – 6:48 am

You can always count on the NY Times to provide a good Hot Take, and Excitable Michelle Goldberg has been on a roll lately. She even has to go back to George Bush 43

The Tyranny of the 63 Million
Impeachment didn’t undermine democracy. It vindicated it.

When George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore in 2000 but became president anyway, he did so with almost 50.5 million votes. I didn’t know that number until I looked it up, because it would have been unimaginable for that president — even though he could be quite demagogic — to brandish it as proof that he represented some quasi-mystical conception of “the people,” in contrast to the nearly 51 million citizens who voted for his opponent.

Anyone who pays attention to politics, however, knows that Donald Trump got around 63 million votes in 2016. That number has taken on a totemic significance for him and his supporters; any attempts to restrain his power are seen as a sin against the 63 million. During the long impeachment debate in the House on Wednesday, Bill Johnson, a Republican from Ohio, called for a moment of silence to “remember the voices of the 63 million American voters” whose will Democrats would defy, as if seeing Trump held to constitutional standards was a sort of death.

On the surface it seems strange, this constant trumpeting of a vote total that is more than two million less than the total received by Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton. Trump didn’t just lose the popular vote — he lost it by a greater margin than any successful presidential candidate in American history. The right’s bombastic repetition of Trump’s 63 million could be just a propaganda trick meant to bully America’s anti-Trump majority into seeing itself as marginal, despite the more than 65 million votes Clinton received. But as I watched impeachment unfold, it seemed like something more than that — an assertion of whom Republicans think this country belongs to.

If you think she’s upset over the way the rules are laid out, you’d be correct, just like so many Democrats. If you understand the reasoning behind the Electoral College, there’s no need to explain it. If you hate it because Hillary lost (and, let’s face it, most were simply voting for the Democrat candidate because that’s who they always vote for or against Trump, just like a goodly chunk against Bush 43, not for John Kerry. Do you think people really liked Hillary?), then there’s not point wasting finger movement explaining the point.

In a sense, he’s right: We face the horror of Trump because the structure of American democracy gives disproportionate power to a declining demographic group passionately convinced of its right to rule. Trump, with his braying entitlement, his boastful ignorance, his sneering contempt for pluralism, is an avatar of a Republican Party desperate to return to the 1980s, or the 1950s, or maybe the 1910s. He can’t betray America if, to those who fetishize the 63 million, he embodies it.

It’s interesting that Michelle positions this as a “right to rule”, rather than as the President and Congress serving the people. It says quite a bit about the Modern Socialist/Progressive/Statist mindset.

“There’s been a lot of talk about the 63 million people who voted for Mr. Trump,” the House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, said in his surprisingly moving speech on Wednesday. “Little talk about the 65 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton.” With the House’s impeachment vote, the America outside of Trump’s ruling faction finally mattered.

So, right there, we see that impeachment is about overturning the 2016 election. Case closed. She attempts to downplay it in the next paragraph, but, we know what she, and the rest of the Dems, mean with impeachment theater.

Read: NY Times: The 63 Million Are Tyrannical, And Impeachment Vindicated Democracy Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Liberal World, Unhinged Tools | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Youths Have Totally Changed The Climate Crisis (scam) Movement Or Something

By William Teach December 19, 2019 – 4:14 pm

Right, right, because people who pretty much don’t live on their own, mostly depend on their parents for an allowance and to get to rallies and such, don’t pay rent, food, clothing, and aren’t even close to living in the Adult World should be listened to

How Youth Have Changed the Climate Movement

We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children,” affirms the Oglala-Sioux version of a belief common to several indigenous cultures. To David Brower, the “archdruid” founder of Friends of the Earth, and other environmentalists, “stealing it from our children” better characterizes modern humans’ degradation of the earth. The only hope, Brower declared nearly 50 years ago, is “what young people can do before older people tell them it’s impossible.”

Yeah, well, they have almost no Adult responsibilities, so, they can focus on this silliness. Once they enter the Real World, well, let’s see how much they care when their proposed policies reduce their paychecks, movement, liberty, choice, etc.

The youth-led climate strikes in September that drew some 4 million marchers worldwide demand a far broader concept of democracy if the environmental goals they advocate are to be won. The climate-strike revolution represents a huge new step for human rights that expands hierarchical oppressions to include the dimension of future time. The young are a distinct class because they, not the old, will face climate change’s worst devastations

By broader, they mean democracy like Saddam Hussein offered, where you voted the way you were told to vote, or be thrown in prison or  executed.

Climate-change activism is not new, but the role of youth in it today is. Today’s youth reject the idea that they are junior auxiliaries to adult movements. They challenge the traditional rule of older people over the young, and, most radically of all, uphold the interests of future generations as equal to those of present ones. They find true elder wisdom manifest in hard science and lambaste the old as immature and selfish for rejecting that science. “Why do we have to clean up the mess that past generations, and your generation, has left us?” Nazar interrogated Congress members in February.

Again, wait till they are adults with adult responsibilities. Suddenly, this whole super important issue will be relegated to a minor issue to discuss in bull sessions in coffee shops, but, otherwise, they’ll mostly be in the same world of care as those who are polled who say they refuse to spend $10 a month more to Solve Hotcoldwetdry.

The rest is yap yap yap

Young people see future-facing issues such as climate change, gun violence, human rights, proactive government, and globalism more clearly than older leaders but are denied pathways to power on account of their age. Extending voting and office-holding ages to 16 or even younger is crucial to bringing future-focused issues to the forefront. In an America whose leaders increasingly reject even short-term investments to fix bridges and fund schools, winning tough action on long-term threats like climate change demands a revolutionary reimagining of innovative solutions.

They usually forget to show up to vote. Think of yourself when you were 16: you knew it all, right? Until you became 17, and realized your 16 year old self was a fool. Followed by 18, 19, 20, etc. Let them get out in the Real World and see how it works.

Read: Youths Have Totally Changed The Climate Crisis (scam) Movement Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 19, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle creating horrific heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post noting Pelosi should not play three dimensional chess with McConnell.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

New One: Oregon’s Climate Policies Failed Due To White Nationalist Organizing

By William Teach December 19, 2019 – 10:30 am

The failure to pass climate laws that take money out of people’s pocket while limiting their freedom, liberty, and choice and giving the government more power couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the notion that ‘climate change’ is popular in theory, not practice, and that people do not want to pay out of their own pockets, right? Nope, nope, it’s white nationalists according to the Sierra Club

White Nationalist Organizing Threatens Climate Progress in the Northwest

Wondering why Oregon’s attempt to pass legislation to limit carbon pollution failed this year? Eric Ward, executive director of the Portland-based Western States Center, attributes the disappointing outcome to the rise of white nationalist groups in rural Oregon. Those groups threatened violence to defend GOP lawmakers who fled the Capitol to prevent the passage of the climate bill.

“Right-wing and nationalist groups have been increasingly visible in Oregon over the past five years as rural voters get more disillusioned,” said Ward. “In frustration, there are organizations and individuals who have stepped into a leadership gap and are attempting to provide parallel leadership. But that leadership is led by bigotry and threats of violence.”

Why would they be disillusioned? It couldn’t be due to the Democrats pushing authoritarian government, could it?

At the 2019 Activists Mobilizing for Power (AMP) conference, hosted by the Western States Center, hundreds of advocates came together to talk about how the rising influence of white nationalist groups is impacting issues from climate change to education. 

Activists Mobilizing for Power is a gathering for policy advocates and social justice organizers from every issue area in the progressive movement. One of the things that sets AMP apart from other activist conferences is its regional focus: AMP is designed to bring together justice leaders from the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain West states. This approach offers a unique opportunity for activists from every community to learn from each other about emerging trends in the Northwest that impact folks across issues and states. It’s the only event I know of focused on building progressive political power across issue areas in a particular region of the US.

The world is changing faster than ever. Achieving our goals in this moment—when climate change, economic structures, and governing institutions all fuel inequity—means fighting for a bold agenda that recognizes the interconnected nature of our planet, people, economy, and democracy. The theme of AMP this year was “Democracy Under Siege,” with a focus on countering white nationalism and defending inclusive democracy.

Whoa, that’s a pretty white picture.

I know it’s a stretch for some folks to make this connection, all the way from fighting climate change to fighting white supremacy. But the bigots and the militia members get the connection. Many of them believe that our work to stop climate change is part of a vast global conspiracy to eliminate the “white race.”

There’s always an excuse from Warmists as to why they keep failing. Especially when we get

The Sierra Club is committed to a just, equitable, and sustainable future built on a foundation of racial, economic, and gender equity—a future where all people benefit from a healthy thriving planet and a direct connection to nature. We can’t build that world without confronting hate through spaces like AMP. We can’t even pass legislation to limit carbon pollution while white nationalists are willing to use violence and intimidation to enact their hateful agenda.

I thought the Sierra club was about actual environmental concerns? Apparently not.

Read: New One: Oregon’s Climate Policies Failed Due To White Nationalist Organizing »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Why Not Embrace Super Long Trips To Avoid Flight Shaming Or Something

By William Teach December 19, 2019 – 8:33 am

I always enjoyed the reviews for the Chevy Volt when it first came out: all those ones of people taking double the time to get anywhere because they had to charge the vehicle, and had to plan their trip to be able to stop to charge it. Oh, and how they were freezing or sweating because they didn’t want to kill the battery charge by using climate. Now

See? Prolong the journey! This also reminds me of how St. Greta of Stockholm was being lauded for her sailboat trips, saying we should all do that. Right, because we all have weeks and weeks of vacation time, most of which we would spend traveling to and fro. Anyhow

(NY TImes) Many travelers today are mindful of the environmental cost of flying, and perhaps nowhere more so than in Sweden. In the homeland of Greta Thunberg, the teenage climate activist who has inspired a worldwide no-fly campaign and a generation of youth protesters, the buzzword is flygskam, or flight shame, a term that was added to the Swedish lexicon last year. The peer pressure there can be palpable. (big snip)

Over the past two years, I’ve witnessed this same shift within my social circle in Stockholm, where I live half the year. Although everyone still flies, many now choose the train when possible. After my friend Malin insisted she enjoyed taking the train when returning to her hometown, Umea — the six- to seven-hour trip spent binge-watching episodes of “RuPaul’s Drag Race” on her laptop (of course she would)— I reconsidered my own rail skepticism. Rather than always seeking the most efficient route, could I instead embrace the journey?

As a travel writer who splits her time between Sweden and Italy, far from family on the other side of the Atlantic, I can’t envision a future in which I completely abstain from flying. But every big change begins with one small step, so in September, I started by giving up one flight.

ZOMG, one flight! See, fossil fueled flights are evil, but, she can’t give them up for her job and lifestyle, it’s just you who should be forced to do so.

Had I nabbed the cheapest train tickets for each leg of my trip from Stockholm to Paris, it would’ve cost €79.80, or about $87. (Most rail operators use dynamic pricing, like airlines, so prices vary depending on how far in advance you book.) By comparison, Ryanair touts a fare from Stockholm Skavsta to Paris Beauvais airport of only 139 Swedish kronor, or about $14. But add to that the cost of the airport bus in Sweden, the shuttle in France and the carry-on charge (oh yes, it’ll cost an additional 99 kronor to board with anything larger than a laptop bag). In the end, the budget flight would have taken eight hours city-center-to-city-center with no delays and cost $93 with one checked bag (or $65 without) — faster than the 18 hours by train, sure, but not necessarily cheaper.

I’d pay $93 to be there in few hours vs taking all day. A round trip ticket to Trenton, NJ from Raleigh, NC is around $188 with 1 checked bag. Excluding time to and from the airport, it costs me around 3 hours, since you SHOW UP ahead of time for Frontier, or they close the ticket booth. You do not show up late. A train will take almost 10 hours, and cost about the same. Of course, I can also drive, and take 8 hours.

This trip was not about negligible savings, though. It was really about anxiety.

Mine started in 2018, during one of the hottest summers on record in Sweden. Wildfires raged in parched forests, farmers battled drought conditions, and fire warnings were issued for large swaths of the country. The overnight temperature in my non-air-conditioned apartment did not dip below 85 degrees for weeks on end, and the entire Stockholm region sold out of fans. Lying awake at night with a single desk fan wedged in the window, I was consumed by creeping dread.

 

The whole trip is described in detail, worth the read, and Ingrid wraps up with

The final tally: 18 hours and 56 minutes of active travel time, 41.8 kilograms of carbon emitted, (300 kilograms less than that cheap, two-hour flight), one book of Alexander Chee essays read cover-to-cover, six Instagram stories of the passing views, countless naps and a piqued interest in discovering where else the rails might take me. I guess you could count me among the new generation of #trainboasters.

Hey, if the train was easy, cheap, and I didn’t then have to drive 1 1/2 hours to the parents house, I would love to take it for the convenience of not driving. Let me read my book. It’s not. So, if I need quick, I fly.

Read: NY Times: Why Not Embrace Super Long Trips To Avoid Flight Shaming Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on NY Times: Why Not Embrace Super Long Trips To Avoid Flight Shaming Or Something | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove