Not Coming For Your Guns: Boulder Passes Anti-Gun Ordinance, Essentially Bans All Semi-Automatic Rifles From City

By William Teach May 17, 2018 – 8:05 am

I mentioned the other day that the City of Boulder, Colorado, was looking to do this, and now they have passed it, and we can see the final legislation, and it’s worse than the news articles realize

(Fox News) The Boulder City Council unanimously passed a sweeping gun control ordinance Tuesday night banning “assault weapons” and bump stocks, even as a pro-Second Amendment group threatened to retaliate by suing individual councilmembers.

In a surprising turn, one Colorado councilwoman admitted that she disagreed with the ordinance “in many ways,” saying it would invite a flood of litigation — despite voting for it.

The city defines assault weapons as “semi-automatic firearms designed with military features to allow rapid spray firing for the quick and efficient killing of humans.”

Included in the definition are “all semiautomatic action rifles with a detachable magazine with a capacity of twenty-one or more rounds,” as well as “semiautomatic shotguns with a folding stock or a magazine capacity of more than six rounds or both.”

There’s actually a bit of uncertainty over that, which comes from the city’s own document (that link in excerpt). The agenda portion at the beginning makes that claim, which would essentially ban virtually all semi-automatic rifles, because while only some come with magazines that have a 21 round or higher count, you can get a 21+ round magazine for most.That non-scary Pioneer above would be banned.

Also on page 10 we read (D) Any firearm which has been modified to be operable as an assault weapon as defined herein. That would wack any handgun which has the capacity to accept an extended magazine with a 21+ round magazine. I could get one for my little Walther P22. Hence, illegal.

The question here is, did the actual ordinance not do what they say it did? Looking on page 14 of the document, in the actual ordinance, much of the language looks like it was struck, including on magazines. We see A pistol grip or thumbhole stockll semiautomatic action rifles with a detachable magazine with a capacity of twenty-one or more rounds. Does that mean the magazine talking point is not in effect? Perhaps the city council will respond to the email I sent them on the subject.

Anyhow

Those possessing assault weapons already can keep them under the law, but owning bump stocks and high-capacity magazines will be become illegal in July. Certain law enforcement and military personnel are exempted from the ordinance.

As to the possession part, um, kinda no. On page 18 we see that people have 4 choices: remove the weapon from the city, render it inoperable, surrender the to the city police, or register it with the city police. If registered, it would require another background check, the weapon must be kept secured at all times (will the police come and check?), and can only be on property owned or controlled by the firearm owner, or at a firing range. I guess taking it out hunting is not allowed anymore. Hmph. Talking point killed.

Oh, and you cannot keep it in the glove compartment of your vehicle while transporting, it must be in an approved safe. The fact that they mention the glove compartment means either they’re idiots  on firearms or they are actually attempting to ban handguns as we see from the document on page 10.

During the public comment period for the legislation, the nonprofit Mountain States Legal Foundation promised to sue the city for “violations of the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments,” as well as the Colorado Constitution, Fox’s KDVR-TV reported.

There are going to be a lot of lawsuits. But, hey, remember, the gun grabbers don’t actually want to grab guns from law abiding citizens or something.

Read: Not Coming For Your Guns: Boulder Passes Anti-Gun Ordinance, Essentially Bans All Semi-Automatic Rifles From City »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: A Rising Standard Of Living Means More Use Of AC Which Causes More ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach May 16, 2018 – 3:45 pm

Warmists are very upset that Other People would use air conditioning, especially those icky “minorities”

Global Warming: Air Conditioners Are Bad For The Climate

It’s a real vicious circle. The hotter it gets, the more air conditioners we use… and the more air conditioners we use, the hotter it gets. Because yes, air conditioners refresh us but they also contribute, paradoxically, to the climatic disturbance of the planet. These devices consume a lot of electricity. The latter is today mainly generated by gas or coal-fired power plants and these emit greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

A report published Tuesday, May 15, 2018 by the International Energy Agency, ensures that unless a radical change of trajectory is implemented, carbon dioxide emissions related to air conditioning should almost double between 2016 and 2050. By comparison it’s like adding Africa’s CO2 emissions, about one billion tonnes of CO2 a year, to the CO2 emissions of the rest of the planet. And in cities, the warming effect of air conditioners is all the more felt. Indeed, each device rejects in the street the heat it has produced to cool the interior of a room.

The vicious circle is reinforced by the continuous rise in the standard of living in the world. Starting with China, India and Indonesia, three countries that will contribute half of the global rise in electricity consumption for air conditioning.

These developing countries are bearing the brunt of climate change. In the coming decades, billions of new devices will be installed around the world. In China and India, these goods will soon become as valuable as a refrigerator. In India, currently only 4% of households are equipped with air conditioning. But everything suggests that demand will explode in the next ten years. In Brazil, Thailand or Indonesia, when a household’s income goes up, it’s often one of the first purchases. Rapid urbanization, particularly in India, is further accelerating the phenomenon. Because urban machinery, not just air conditioning, creates heat, a heat that is in turn absorbed by concrete.

You’ve heard this all before, but, in this case, they left out the black people in Africa, who are usually on the hit list to limit their development. Interestingly, you never read about Warmists in the 1st world willing to give up their own AC, nor that they’ve actually done so. We see the Seattle Times, with a reprint of a NY Times article, trotting out the same lines

But there is growing concern that as other countries adopt America’s love of air conditioners, the electricity used to power them will overburden electrical grids and increase planet-warming emissions. (snip)

As incomes in those countries rise, however, more people are installing air conditioners in their homes. The energy agency predicted much of the growth in air conditioning will occur in India, China and Indonesia.

So, they’re upset that those icky “minorities” might obtain the same standard of living and have the same type of great lifestyle as Warmists. Rather racist, eh?

Read: Bummer: A Rising Standard Of Living Means More Use Of AC Which Causes More ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 16, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible road used for fossil fueled vehicles which put out plant killing carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Free North Carolina, with a post on some myths ahead of the silly teacher’s marches here in NC.

Hump Day! As always, you can discuss whatever you want in these posts.

Read: If All You See… »

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

California Totally Keeping The Faith On ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach May 16, 2018 – 10:20 am

I’m not sure if The Seattle Times’ Froma Harrop, or whomever wrote the headline, considered that it positions the whole anthropogenic climate change movement for what it is: pseudo religious. A cult

California keeps the faith on climate

Many on the right insist that California’s tough environmental rules are strangling its businesses. Evidence to the contrary emerged last week in news that California has just zoomed past Britain to become the world’s fifth-biggest economy. California must be doing something right.

One of the things is vigorously confronting the perils of global warming. The Trump administration, married to fossil-fuel interests, has gone AWOL in dealing with this threat to both the environment and global stability. Under Gov. Jerry Brown, California has assumed the leadership role, helping other states and other countries bypass Washington, D.C.

Before going on, let us note that many conservatives were outspoken environmentalists decades ago. President Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. Check out a compelling recent essay in The American Conservative: “Time for Conservatives to Break the Anti-Environmentalist Mold.”

But, ‘climate change’ and the environment are really 2 separate issues. And, you’ll generally find that conservatives tend to be more ecologically/environmentally friendly than leftists/Warmists.

California’s “decarbonization” program has created a booming green-energy economy. The solar industry alone supports 250,000 jobs in the state. The push away from fossil fuels is also putting more money in people’s pockets.

For example, California just approved a requirement that nearly all new homes come equipped with solar panels in 2020. The rule will add about $9,500 to the cost of construction, but the state’s homebuilders are for it.

Said economy is based on government whim, not economics or consumer demand. And it helps contribute to California having one of the highest costs of home ownership in the nation, as well as vast homelessness. Furthermore, there’s zero evidence provided that homebuilders are for it. Previous articles show that they actually do not support it.

“We have Gov. Brown of California. We have Mike Bloomberg,” French President Emmanuel Macron proclaimed. “They’ve said they’re going to stand in place of the American federal government: ‘States, cities, private-sector players — we’re going to play a role ourselves.’ ” And so they are.

But, they’re doing it by force of government, raising costs and taking away choice.

Brown, meanwhile, plans to host the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco this September. One can just imagine the hostile tweets that will emerge. But you can rest assured, it will be a two-way tweetstorm.

Nothing says “I believe” like inviting thousands of people of climate faith to take long fossil fueled trips to attend a conference which will whine about fossil fuels.

Read: California Totally Keeping The Faith On ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | Comments Off on California Totally Keeping The Faith On ‘Climate Change’ | Trackback URL

“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
Pirate's Cove