“No One Is Saying Get Rid Of Guns, Just Make It Too Hard For People To Get Them”

By William Teach May 16, 2018 – 8:15 am

Pro-2nd Amendment advocates keep saying that what the anti-2nd Amendment folks want to do is essentially disarm law abiding citizens. The Anti’s say “no, no, what we want to do is make it harder for Bad People to get and use firearms. We don’t want to take away the rights from law abiding citizens.” Then they go on to enact laws that make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms, and tell us exactly what they want to do, as we see in this screed by Jami Martin-Trainor at the John F. Kennedy High School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa

The Right to Live

Every time there is a mass school shooting, we hear the exact same thing; send your thoughts and prayers. But, are thoughts and prayers going to stop people from getting shot? Probably not.

Students are going to school every day, worried that they might get shot while trying to get and education. Isn’t it sad that we must think about the possibility of death more than our GPA?

So many problems could be solved in America if we merely had stricter gun control laws. No one is saying to completely get rid of guns. We’re saying to regulate who can get them and make it significantly harder for the everyday person to obtain a gun. It was known that the Parkland shooter had many mental health issues, such as OCD, ADHD, and anger issues, and yet still easily purchased at least 10 guns.

No one is saying to completely get rid of guns. They just want them left in certain hands under Government control, while making it damned near impossible for the “everyday person”, meaning law abiding citizens, to obtain them for protection from the criminals the gun grabbers go soft on and against a dictatorial government.

Notice that Jami completely forgets to mention that it was an utter failure of government in doing their jobs to deal with the Parkland shooter, meaning he was never put on the “do not buy” list.

Violence will exist, but the number of casualties that come from the violence can be decreased exponentially with stricter gun control. If the Parkland school shooter had walked in with a knife, he would not have been able to murder 17 people in minutes.

Or, he could have walked in with a bomb. Regardless, because of the criminal actions of a few, and often people who were able to obtain guns because government failed to do its job, the rest of us are supposed to give up our Rights? No. Hell no. Go pound sand.

Excuses are made by greedy politicians, who are only blaming the children, and not actually listening to us. We are citizens in America, and we all deserve to get a say in our own lives. Gun control is something that we need as a society, because children may only make up a small percent of the population now, but we are the future. We are the new generation and we deserve the right to live.

You get a say, but you don’t get to override the Constitution. Don’t like it? Try and change it. And, if you were honest, you’d be advocating measures to stop bad people from getting and using guns, not taking them from law abiding citizens.

Read: “No One Is Saying Get Rid Of Guns, Just Make It Too Hard For People To Get Them” »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barking Moonbats | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Hamas Launched A War, But Israel Needs To Do Better Or Something

By William Teach May 16, 2018 – 7:43 am

The Washington Post Editorial Board goes through some serious mental gymnastics here. First off, they start off really well, noting that it is Hamas that started the violence, which is the norm. Then, it degenerates badly, as you can see from the headline (which has changed at least twice between when it was published and now)

Hamas has launched another war. Israel needs a better response.

Last night, when I first saw it, it said “Israel needs to do better.” Then, it looks like it went to “Israel must avoid a moral and political defeat.” OK, moving on

ISRAEL AND Hamas have fought three wars in the Gaza Strip over the past decade, and though it may not look like the others, a fourth one is now underway. Having tried and failed to defeat Israel with rockets and armed cross-border attacks, Hamas this spring deployed a new strategy: assembling thousands of nominal civilians to march on and attempt to breach the border fence, in the calculation that many would be killed. The result would be a moral and political defeat for Israel — and perhaps some relief for a regime that is literally besieged from all sides.

The only reason it would be a moral and political defeat is because the Israel/Jew hating (sometimes one, sometimes both) media, governments, the United Nations, and Leftists refuse to acknowledge Israel’s right to defend themselves, and rarely condemn the way in which groups like Hamas act. In this case, using human shields. Seriously, does the above, the first paragraph in the editorial, really seem to be condemning Hamas? Or just telling facts? If they’d stop excusing groups like Hamas, Israel wouldn’t have to defend themselves.

On Monday, this cruel and cynical tactic paid off, albeit at enormous human cost. By the Israeli account, Hamas assembled some 40,000 people at 13 points along the border, then sent groups of them toward the fence, armed with wire cutters, slingshots, knives and, in a couple of cases, firearms. They were met with clouds of tear gas, but when that failed to disperse them, Israeli snipers opened fire. At least 60  Palestinians were killed. On Tuesday, Israeli officials said two dozen had been identified as militants of Hamas or the Islamic Jihad.

They forgot the flaming bottles, tires, and kites, along with lots and lots of rocks.

On cue, condemnations of the government of Benjamin Netanyahu poured in. Israel was accused of carrying out a “bloodbath” by Human Rights Watch, while Amnesty International said its soldiers may have committed war crimes. European governments summoned Israeli ambassadors and called for an investigation; at Poland’s urging, the U.N. Security Council observed a moment of silence for the victims. Only opposition from the Trump administration likely prevented a Security Council condemnation of the Jewish state.

This same UN can barely find it in themselves to condemn Hamas and the violent Palestinians.

With the White House’s strong support, Mr. Netanyahu will likely shrug off the international onslaught. He shouldn’t. As the Palestinians well understand, Israel can ill afford further damage to its standing. Sympathy for it is dangerously eroding on U.S. campuses and among Democratic voters — not to speak of in other Western countries. President Trump’s embrace of controversial pro-Israel initiatives, such as the move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, may in time produce its own backlash.

First, if people would stop taking the side of terrorists, Israel wouldn’t have a problem. Second, being pro-Israel is apparently considered “controversial” at the Washington Post. Which leads back to the first point.

The question for Israelis is why their government, with weeks of warning about what Hamas would attempt, did not develop a strategy to defeat the operation by minimizing the loss of life. Clearly the government must defend its borders; if it had allowed thousands of Palestinians to pour across toward nearby Israeli communities, the bloodshed could have been much greater. But it seems likely such a breach could have been stopped without such extensive use of lethal force. That impression is only strengthened by the stridency with which senior Israeli officials defended the killings and even called for more. Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan on Tuesday proposed the assassination of Hamas’s leaders.

See? It’s all Israel’s fault. If only they had done something else, which the WPEB fails to offer as an idea, they wouldn’t have had to shoot violent Palestinians who elected a State Department designated terrorist group to be their government.

In fact, Israel can ill afford to escalate, given the low-grade war it is already fighting with Iran in Syria. Most likely it will watch as Hamas reaps the gains of its strategy: Egypt already has responded by relaxing its own closure of the Gaza border. Unbothered by the death toll, Hamas leaders say the marches will continue — which means Israel needs to find a way to stop them without being defeated by them.

Israel made it quite clear that the terrorist disciples should not approach the border, and has said this for weeks. What else are the supposed to do? But, notice, again, that Palestinians under Hamas getting violent is blamed on Israel. And it’s no wonder

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/996572085177782273

Few elected Democrats offered positive words for moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Chuck Schumer was one of the only ones. Most either failed to mention it or decried it. Similarly, few elected Dems are slamming Hamas and the Palestinians. Most seem to be taking the anti-Israel side. Which is the norm.

Read: Washington Post: Hamas Launched A War, But Israel Needs To Do Better Or Something »

Posted in Current Affairs, Dhimmitude, Israel, RoP | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ To Make Wines Taste Smokey

By William Teach May 15, 2018 – 4:51 pm

Another day, another deranged linking of Things That Have Always Happened to Other People using fossil fueled vehicles and refusing to buy local…..hey, don’t they ship wines produced on America’s west coast all over the country and world using fossil fueled vehicles? That’s bad for ‘climate change’. They should end their businesses right now, except for a small part to sell locally

Smoky wine: A taste of climate change
As the planet heats up, wildfires in wine country are becoming more frequent and more intense, forcing vintners to get creative. And you can taste that.

David O’Reilly produces wine in Washington state’s Yakima Valley. Originally from Ireland, he has come to know the land here intimately, planting each grape species in the soil type and microclimate that suits it best — whether that’s the cool north side of a hill or the dry rocky earth where his Syrah, Grenache and Mourvedre vines thrive.

These subtly different environments contribute to a wine’s unique flavor. But now, O’Reilly has to contend with with impacts of global warming on the taste, too. Last summer, wildfires swept down the western United States, forcing entire communities to evacuate, burning homes and scorching the land.

In July 2017, an errant firework landed on a dry, grassy hillside close to O’Reilly’s vineyards, starting a fire that spread across the arid landscape.

Whoa, whoa, so it wasn’t Hotcoldwetdry that started the fire, but an “errant firework”? Sure, that’s man-caused, but not liked to the feeling from Warmists that the tiny changes in the climate are mostly/solely caused by mankind

Flames soon encircled O’Reilly’s land. Firefighters worked through the night to keep them from reaching his hilltop house, and his neighbors’ homes. But several rows of grapevines burned to the ground.

And even the grapes that survive such a fire can be ruined if they’re contaminated by smoke, changing how the fruit tastes.

It’s a problem more and more winemakers around the world could be facing.

What, idiots starting fires with errant fireworks is a problem winemakers are facing around the world?

Read: Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ To Make Wines Taste Smokey »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | Comments Off on Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ To Make Wines Taste Smokey | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 15, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…are storm clouds caused by climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Creeping Sharia, with a post on what just opened in Atlanta.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Crazy Democrat Promises 100% Clean Energy By 2035 By Government Law

By William Teach May 15, 2018 – 10:37 am

Randy Bryce is running for the 1st Congressional district in Wisconsin, and he has a pledge

That link goes back to a screed from last year that says

Here are six details that make the Off Fossil Fuels for a Better Future Act unique and necessary:

  1. It’s aggressive.  Let’s be honest: we’re running out of time. The OFF Act ensures that the U.S. make a just transition to 100% clean renewable energy by 2035 (and 80% by 2027). We must act now.
  2. It’s necessary — if, you know, we want to stop extreme climate chaos.
  3. It’s focused on people, not polar bears (but it will help the polar bears, too).
  4. It creates jobs – and stops pipelines. (yeah, it creates government jobs while killing private sector ones)
  5. It’s direct – it bypasses false solutions. (it just creates false solutions for a false issue)
  6. It’s feasible – technologically and politically.

Now, let’s look at that last one

We have the technology. We know we have to do this. We have the passion and the power to make it work. Let’s become relentless now — and celebrate the benefits for generations to come!

ASK YOUR REP TO SPONSOR THE OFF ACT

Well, Randy isn’t my rep, but

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/996372279494889477

Nor is he the only one yammering about ‘climate change’

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/996373160852254725

It’s campaign season, so Dems are out in force, yet, what none of them will ever say is how they are living the Warmist life. That they’ve stopped using fossil fuels. It all seems about forcing you to give up your use of fossil fuels, and seeing your cost of living skyrocket.

Randy is also, unsurprisingly, an Israel hater.

Read: Crazy Democrat Promises 100% Clean Energy By 2035 By Government Law »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Boulder, Colorado, Prepares To Pass Gun Ban

By William Teach May 15, 2018 – 7:56 am

This has been in the works for a couple of weeks, having moved forward in previous meetings. Today is the third reading, and, will become law (and a lawsuit target) if passed. But, can it be enforced?

Boulder’s preparing to pass a new gun law. But can it be enforced?
The ‘teeth’ behind the proposed ban on assault weapons have been questioned

The Boulder City Council is preparing to adopt a local ban on the sale and possession of assault weapons, bump stocks and high-capacity magazines.

But city attorneys and police officers are under no delusion that the ban will be enforceable on any broad scale.

In fact, Boulder officials have been very open about the limits of the law.

City Attorney Tom Carr, who’s been responsible for drafting and redrafting the law in the council’s vision, said that the city is not going to go out looking for people who possess the items that Boulder is primed to ban.

They won’t go looking, wink wink.

“My officers could only take action if they came in lawful contact with someone who was in (illegal) possession or if they observed a weapon” subject to Boulder’s likely ban, Boulder police chief Greg Testa said on May 1.

What would they do then? Will they arrest a person engaged in their federal Constitutionally guaranteed right? Take away duly purchased property, against section 3 of the Colorado Constitution? Or section 13

Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Pretty damned clear Boulder is about to violate it. Anyhow

So, what does that mean, in practice?

Assuming the latest draft of the ordinance is advanced on Tuesday, those in possession of what the city defines as “assault weapons” will have until the end of the year to get them grandfathered via a certificate from the police department. Bump stocks and magazines above 10-round capacity would have to be trashed, sold or otherwise removed from the city within 30 days of the law’s adoption.

Carr’s fully expecting a significant amount of non-compliance.

Depending on the person, we’re told that this has no teeth or lots of teeth. It seems that, in practice, it will be more of a feel good thing for Boulder and the gun grabbers then something that can be put into practice. Until, of course, the city council attempts to strengthen the ban with more penalties. And citizens will just go outside Boulder to purchase the firearms, and the firearms stores will simply take their businesses into surrounding cities.

Meanwhile, as Boulder goes after legally purchased property of law abiding citizens, rather than going after actual criminals, they declared themselves a sanctuary city in 2017, protecting people who are unlawfully present per federal law.

Read: Boulder, Colorado, Prepares To Pass Gun Ban »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Moving Embassy To Jerusalem Is Blow To Peace Or Something

By William Teach May 15, 2018 – 7:31 am

This is a giveaway to Israel or something

Trump’s Failure in Jerusalem
His giveaway to Israel of an American embassy is a blow to the dream of peace.

The day the United States opened its embassy in Jerusalem is a day the world has longed for, because of what it was supposed to represent: the end of a seemingly endless conflict, a blood-soaked tragedy with justice and cruelty on both sides. Israelis and Palestinians have envisioned a capital in Jerusalem, and for generations the Americans, the honest brokers in seeking peace, withheld recognition of either side’s claims, pending a treaty that through hard compromise would resolve all competing demands.

But on Monday President Trump delivered the embassy as a gift without concession or condition to the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, and as a blow to the Palestinians. The world did not witness a new dawn of peace and security for two peoples who have dreamed of both for so long. Instead, it watched as Israeli soldiers shot and killed scores of Palestinian protesters, and wounded thousands more, along Israel’s boundary with the Gaza Strip.

A couple things. First, that subhead, which appears on the Internet front page, along with things like “gift”, are idiotic, since the U.S. Congress passed a law all the way back in 1995 about moving the embassy to Jerusalem. Why would we need to demand anything for this “gift”? It was the official position of the U.S. government. You can bet if Obama did this, the Times would be jumping for joy, at least in print. Because they, like Obama and so many Leftists, despise Israel, and usually Jews, as well.

Second, peace? As long as Palestinians are backed by a U.S. government recognized terror group, Hamas, there can be no peace. And, as long as Leftists like those at the NY Times, give aid and comfort to Hamas and the violent Palestinians, there can be no peace. But, they do not want peace. They want Israel wiped off the face of the map

“Over is the time Hamas spent discussing recognizing Israel. Now Hamas will discuss when we will wipe out Israel,” Sinwar said, according to the Hamas-linked news agency Shehab.

That’s Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, in 2017.

Lastly, it’s cute how the NY Times Editorial Board attempts to blame Israel for Palestinians being violent, which forced the reaction from Israeli security forces.

And, really, what’s one move of an embassy in the grand scheme of “peace”? It wasn’t occurring prior. Palestinians do not want peace. And the NY Times backs the Palestinians, as you can see in the rest of the editorial. The Times even gives a person who claims he helped start the “protests”, for which he has no regrets, a platform to attack Israel. Ahmed Abu Ratima is a Gaza writer, activist, and big backer of The Great Return March, which is, when you dig deep, all about pushing Jews out of Israel and reclaiming the land.

If you look across the Credentialed Media, most of them are putting the blame on Trump and Israel for the deaths of the violent Palestinians. Kinda like suicide by military. So many of these American news articles look like something that Iran would put out.

BTW:

https://twitter.com/bungarsargon/status/996348279452504064

Read: NY Times: Moving Embassy To Jerusalem Is Blow To Peace Or Something »

Posted in Current Affairs, Dhimmitude, Israel, RoP | Comments Off on NY Times: Moving Embassy To Jerusalem Is Blow To Peace Or Something | Trackback URL

Racism Marred The Jerusalem Embassy Event Or Something

By William Teach May 14, 2018 – 3:04 pm

It’d be nice if professional writers, along with all the other people who like to throw out the racism screed (part of the reason RS McCain wrote a post about racism having 5 a’s), would take the time to actually learn what the word means

How Racism Marred The Jerusalem Embassy Celebration

For more than a century, Palestinians have tried to convince the world (wrongly, in my view) that Zionism is inherently racist. Now they have a powerful new ally: Donald Trump.

Consider the bigots that Trump has assembled to celebrate the move of America’s embassy to Jerusalem. Among the Americans in attendance were Trump’s ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, who in 2015 suggested stripping Arab Israelis who hold views Friedman considers “seditious” of their citizenship. That same year, Friedman urged that “Muslim immigrants” to the US “be required, as part of their application, to consent to complete transparency with respect to all Internet and telecommunication activity. Any activity on Facebook, Google, Twitter or other social media or communication portals, including under anonymous or alternative identities, must be available for inspection.”

Racism is “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.” Bigotry is (same source) “Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.” The use of the word “bigots” would be proper. Racism is not proper in context, because the vast majority of Jews/Israelis are the same race as Palestinians.

And it would certainly be bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination for the article writer to claim “that Zionism is inherently racist.” Question is, who’s the writer? At the article, it says it is Peter Beinart, a virulent Progressive. When I look at it in Pocket, it says Aiden Pink.

How might Friedman himself fare under such scrutiny? The Jewish Telegraphic Agency this week reported that Friedman’s charity had donated to an openly racist settler group classified as a terrorist organization by the United States government (the organization disputes the claim).

Again, an utterly horrible misuse of the word racist. And, last thing I want to hear about from a Progressive is about donations and support for terror groups (and it’s questionable about the one Friedman donated to), when Progressives back Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, CAIR, and so many others.

Then there are the Israelis. Upon arriving for the embassy celebration, the leaders of the American delegation, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, received a blessing from Sephardi Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, who in 2016 argued that non-Jews had no right to live in the land of Israel and in 2018 called black people “monkeys.”

OK, that last one is racism. And someone being an a-hole.

Regardless, this whole thing is about making up reasons for Leftist hatred of Israel and Jews. Should I include the phrase “just like Hitler did” or leave that out?

Read: Racism Marred The Jerusalem Embassy Event Or Something »

Posted in Israel, Unhinged Tools | Comments Off on Racism Marred The Jerusalem Embassy Event Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 14, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that will soon rise hundreds of fee because of Other People’s carbon footprints, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Knuckledraggin’ My Life Away, with a post on Big Brother in Britain.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Vast Majority In Ontario See Carbon Taxes As Tax Grab, Symbolic

By William Teach May 14, 2018 – 10:29 am

Which, they pretty much are

7 in 10 Ontarians think carbon taxes are just a tax grab: Ipsos poll

photo carbon-tax-sign-550px_zpsoehw9rr0.jpg

Carbon tax has been a hotly debated issue in the run-up to next month’s provincial election in Ontario, but most voters think it’s little more than a tax grab and a pointless, symbolic gesture that won’t actually do much to tackle climate change.

That’s according to a new Ipsos poll, conducted exclusively for Global News, in which 72 per cent of Ontarians said carbon taxes are just a tax grab, while 68 per cent dismissed them as a purely symbolic gesture.

The poll of 1,197 eligible voters found the sentiments to be largely prevalent across party lines — while Conservative voters (85 per cent) were most likely to label carbon taxes a tax grab, a majority of NDP (72 per cent) and Liberal (54 per cent) voters also felt the same.

So, even Canadians are starting to realize that this is a scam meant to take more money from citizens.
Carbon tax is quite simply a low-priority issue for Ontarians at the moment, according to Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Global Affairs.

25+ years of Spreading Awareness and the Cultof Climastrology is even losing people who had been believers.

Read: Vast Majority In Ontario See Carbon Taxes As Tax Grab, Symbolic »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, Uncategorized | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove