NJ Considers Raising Age To Buy Rifles And Shotguns

By William Teach May 1, 2018 – 8:04 am

Repeat after me: “Democrats are totally not looking to take away people’s Rights to purchase firearms, we just want to make it more difficult for Bad people to get firearms”

Lawmakers want to raise age to buy rifles, shotguns in N.J.

You may soon be barred from legally buying a rifle or shotgun in New Jersey until you turn 21.

The latest gun-control bill introduced by Democratic lawmakers in the New Jersey Legislature would raise the minimum age to obtain a permit to purchase either weapon in the Garden State from 18 to 21.

That would match up with current state law that requires people to be 21 to buy handguns from licensed dealers.

It’s the latest in a string of bills sponsored by Democrats make New Jersey’s already tough gun laws even tougher — an effort that has increased in the wake of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting and other massacres.

The sponsors of this measure — state Assemblymen Roy Freeman, and Andrew Zwicker, both D-Somerset — said the goal is to prevent gun violence.

“There is no easy solution to the proliferation of gun violence in this country, but there are measures we can take to help keep people safe,” Freiman said in a statement. “Bringing the rules on rifles and shotguns in line with the rules on handguns can help. If you have to be 21 to buy a handgun, the same standard should apply to rifles and shotguns.”

There’s no evidence offered that this type of restriction in any way causes issues to the criminals that use firearms in the vast majority of shootings. They try and make a link with

The lawmakers cited data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, which show 18- to 20-year-olds commit gun homicides four times more than those who are 21 or older.

“Research shows that the adolescent brain is still maturing in the teenage years, which is why teens often make decisions instinctively and without weighing the consequences,” Freiman said.

But, where’s the proof that the firearms had been purchased legally? How many of the shooters are gang bangers and/or just scumbags, mostly residing in Democrat run cities, who stole the firearms or procured them illegally in another manner? As someone in the comments notes “Is that all 18 to 20 year olds or is that 18 to 20 year old legal gun owners? Because if it’s the former and not the latter, it’s a pretty meaningless statistic.” That would be nice to know.

But, what this is is an attempt from Democrats to Do Something, regardless of whether it will create the desired outcome. When 18-20 year olds continue shooting others willy nilly, despite being banned from buying firearms, will the NJ lawmakers then….raise the purchase age to 25? And this all just shows that Democrats will institute gun bans in dinks and dunks.

Women aged 18-20 living alone/scared about being assaulted should take comfort that their ability to defend themselves is being taken away in the interest of something or other.

Read: NJ Considers Raising Age To Buy Rifles And Shotguns »

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

Surprise: Iran Lied About Their Nuclear Program

By William Teach May 1, 2018 – 7:44 am

This is shocking news, shocking. Though it is interesting how the NY Times puts it, in that “Israel says”, as opposed to tens of thousands of documents say

Israel Says Secret Files Prove Iran Lied About Nuclear Program

Revealing a huge archive of stolen Iranian nuclear plans, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accused Iran on Monday of lying for years about its efforts to build a nuclear weapon.

Days before President Trump was to decide whether to pull out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, Mr. Netanyahu presented records from a secret warehouse in Tehran, making the case that Iranian leaders had deceived the international nuclear agency when they insisted their nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. Israeli spies seized the documents in an overnight raid in January, a senior Israeli official said.

But Mr. Netanyahu did not provide any evidence that Iran had violated the nuclear agreement since it took effect in early 2016. That suggests that the Israeli prime minister — who has opposed the deal since its inception, and even went to the American Congress to try to block it — was hoping that the disclosures would bolster Mr. Trump’s resolve to scuttle the agreement on May 12.

Wow, it took 3 whole paragraphs before Ronen Bergman, David M. Halbfinger, and David E. Sanger attempted to find a way to defend the horrible deal, which removed tons of sanctions, saw Obama give Iran well over a billion dollars, and allows them to essentially create nuclear weapons starting around 2026.

After offering more political observations, and comments from Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, we finally get some details

“These files conclusively prove that Iran is brazenly lying when it said it never had a nuclear weapons program,” Mr. Netanyahu said, pointing to copies of what he said were 55,000 printed pages and 183 compact discs.

He said Israel had passed the information on to the United States, which “can vouch for its authenticity.”

Mr. Netanyahu said that Iran had intensified its efforts to hide evidence of its weapons program after signing the nuclear deal in 2015, and in 2017 moved its records to a secret location in Tehran that looked like “a dilapidated warehouse.”

If they’re doing this post-deal signing, then, that would rather make them non-compliant.

American intelligence agencies concluded in 2007 that Iran suspended the active portion of the bomb effort after the beginning of the Iraq war, in 2003, and Mr. Netanyahu confirmed that in his presentation. But he said that other elements of what Iran had called “Project Amad” went ahead, directed by Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, an Iranian scientist.

The documents he showed were not the first to leak out of the Iranian archives, or to document Mr. Fakhrizadeh’s role.

A decade ago, in early 2008, the chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency gathered diplomats from around the world to a meeting at the agency’s Vienna headquarters and showed them images from a similar trove, including sketches of bomb designs and memos and budget documents from Mr. Fakhrizadeh’s project. That presentation included sketches of a “spherical device” that could be detonated using high explosives, similar to plans Mr. Netanyahu showed on Monday.

And that’s the way the article goes: Iran being shown to be in non-compliance, and attempt by the NY Times to defend Iran. They’re rather soft on telling us about the 55,000 pages of documents, images, and videos on almost 183 CDs indicating that Project Amad has continued to operate out of a secret location in Tehran, mentioning Project Amad, the whole point, just once.

As Ed Morrissey notes

Netanyahu offers four conclusions from the sample he revealed in his presentation:

  • Iran lied about never having a nuclear weapons program
  • After the deal, Iran preserved their research and have expanded it
  • Iran lied to the IAEA and violated the terms of the nuclear deal
  • The nuclear deal is based on lies.

Here’s a conclusion that Netanyahu is too diplomatic to state out loud: The people who signed onto this deal are saps. It also points out the fecklessness in leaving the ballistic missile program outside of the original deal.

“Saps” is being way too kind. In the summer of 2015, “John Kerry, then secretary of state, assured reporters that American intelligence agencies had “absolute knowledge”about Iran’s past efforts to build a nuclear weapon.” All the people in Obama’s admin, along with Obama himself, told us that Iran was super cooperative, and that this deal was awesome. The Iran deal was essentially Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement, and it’s all based on lies.

Read: Surprise: Iran Lied About Their Nuclear Program »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs, Iran | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Seem Pretty Upset That Companies Being Sued Would Dare Fight Back

By William Teach April 30, 2018 – 5:04 pm

Inside Climate News’ David Hasemeyer seems pretty upset that The Law allows entities to actually defend themselves and fight back

In Cities v. Fossil Fuels, Exxon’s Allies Want the Accusers Investigated

The elbowing for advantage between ExxonMobil and the California cities and counties suing the oil giant for billions of dollars in climate change damages has spread to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Exxon alleged in a Texas court earlier this year that in selling municipal bonds, the local governments may have withheld critical information from buyers about their vulnerability to sea level rise. That would cast a poor light on the cities’ claims that Exxon knew about climate risks but ignored them in its own financial disclosures.

Now two industry-friendly groups are turning the tables and asking the SEC to investigate the cities and counties for possible fraud. The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers complained to the SEC’s Public Finance Abuse Unit of a breach of federal disclosure laws.

The two conservative trade groups have been attacking the credibility of the cities and counties for months though blistering blog posts and social media assaults. CEI blogger and senior fellow Marlo Lewis, Jr. wrote in a post titled “ExxonMobil Strikes Back” about the bond argument: “The  California officials are either falsely alarming the public or scamming their bondholders. As my colleague, attorney Christopher Horner might say if he were conducting the deposition, ‘Which time were you lying?'”

OK, so, I’m going to accuse Inside Climate News of (insert horrible thing here) and sue. According to the screed, they can’t fight back. That works, right?

What the Warmist jurisdictions want to do is hide their activities while trying to shakedown the fossil fuels companies. I still say that Exxon and the others should simply refuse to sell their products to the governments suing them.

Read: Warmists Seem Pretty Upset That Companies Being Sued Would Dare Fight Back »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 30, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible, resource sucking dog causing a horrible 1.5F increase in temps, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Evil Blogger Lady, with a post on cultural appropriation, prom edition.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Trace Gas To Cause Colder Winters And Hotter Summers In Ireland

By William Teach April 30, 2018 – 11:38 am

In other words, they’re attempting to explain away why winters, which they had proclaimed would get warmer, aren’t

Ireland could face ‘far colder winters and much warmer summers’

Ireland and Britain could experience a sudden switch to “extreme seasonality” – in the form of far colder winters and much warmer summers – as a result of global warming, scientists from NUI Galway and the University of Maine say.

Such weather changes occurred in the North Atlantic region at the end of previous ice ages, and confirmed the Earth is capable of high-magnitude changes in temperature and rainfall, which can occur within a human’s lifespan.

The prediction follows their evaluation of what happened in Scotland when it was last covered by an ice cap, and challenges previous perceptions of such events.

The scientists evaluated the most recent abrupt climate event know as the “Younger Dryas stadial” which occurred between 12,900 and 11,600 years ago prior to the onset of our current warm Holocene climate 11,000 years ago.

Stadials are periods when the climate is colder than normal and the Younger Dryas stadial is frequently cited as an example of what might happen as a result of global warming caused by human activity.

Everything else is about saying “hey, this has all happened before, and it was natural. But, this time it’s all because other people drive fossil fueled vehicles.

Read: Trace Gas To Cause Colder Winters And Hotter Summers In Ireland »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Trace Gas To Cause Colder Winters And Hotter Summers In Ireland | Trackback URL

Guy Who Calls Himself A Gun Nut Offers Gun Nuts Guide To Gun Control

By William Teach April 30, 2018 – 7:46 am

An interesting, and long, long take on the issue by Jon Stokes

A Gun Nut’s Guide to Gun Control That Works

I am a gun industry insider, a lifelong gun owner and a vocal advocate for Second Amendment rights. I am a Texan and an American patriot who hauls my family to church every Sunday in a diesel pickup truck, where I sit in the pew and listen to the Word with a 9mm pistol tucked inside the waistband of my fanciest jeans.

Isn’t this the part where the author inserts the inevitable “but”—as in, “I’m a firm Second Amendment advocate, but … ”? Well I’ve got no “buts” for you, because I don’t need them. I believe there is a way to increase both our individual gun rights and our collective safety, if we can only get gun controllers to quit bitterly clinging to outmoded feature bans and gun registries, and convince gun rights advocates that “liberty” isn’t just about “what’s in my gun safe” but also about being able to exercise one’s full spectrum of Second Amendment rights in every part of this great nation.

The idea is simple but powerful: a federally issued license for simple possession of all semi-automatic firearms. This license would allow us to carefully vet civilian access to semi-automatic weapons, while overriding state-specific weapon bans and eliminating some of the federal paperwork that ties specific firearms to specific owners.

I offer this idea not only because I actually want to live in a world where it, or something like it, is the law of the land, but also because I and my fellow gun nuts are worried that a storm is coming that will sweep away a substantial portion of our gun rights without really making the country safer in return. We’re not even five months into a midterm election year, and 2018 has seen a string of high-profile incidents that have darkened the public’s view of civilian gun ownership: February’s massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, followed by this month’s shootings at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California, and at a Waffle House in Nashville, Tennessee. In the aftermath of these killings, we’re hearing proposals for anti-gun measures that we thought were widely considered out of bounds in the gun control debate, like a ban on all semi-automatic firearms, a repeal of the Second Amendment, or even an outright ban on the private ownership of guns. Some of us think this will all blow over, as it always does. And maybe it will. But this time definitely feels different.

Mr. Stokes knows gun rights supporters will object, but makes a reasonable, rational case for his idea. I won’t take away all his thunder, the entire article should be read in full. But, let’s see part of his plan

A federal license for all semi-automatic firearms would rest on two simple and well-defined concepts, one technical and one legal:

1) A “semi-automatic” firearm is one that fires a single round for each pull of the trigger, automatically reloading in between each shot until the ammo is depleted.

2) “Possession” is a legal concept from the drug war that implies that a person has a contraband item “on or about one’s person,” or has “control” over the item, perhaps by having it in a motor vehicle or in a home.

Because both of these things—“possession” and “semi-automatic weapons”—are easy to define, they’re easy to regulate.

Combine these two concepts with a thorough but reasonable vetting process, and you have the makings of a straightforward, effective system for keeping the most lethal class of weapons out of the hands of bad actors, while simultaneously lifting the burden of arbitrary weapon bans and federal red tape from law-abiding gun owners.

One big thing I have a problem with here is making this about semi-automatic firearms (which he sort of touches on later). If it’s going to be done, it should be on all firearms in an attempt to keep them out of criminal hands. Second, Mr. Stokes notes that once licensed, one can pretty much buy a gun at any time. He does note that the details need to be worked out, and, in my opinion, one of those details is how the permit gets revoked when it should get revoked. If your permit was fine for years, then you had a domestic violence restraining order initiated, what happens next? In a proper world, you’d have the permit revoked immediately by a judge, and be required to turn in all firearms temporarily.

Stokes also takes on the notion of giving all this information to government. Well, they already have it. So does Google, Facebook, and so many other private sites. The IRS, SS admin, etc, have tons of info on you. People give it up voluntarily. They write it all over the ‘net. Many big time gun supporters are putting their purchased firearms on their blogs.

Here’s another problem, as put forth by Cameron Smith

“I’ll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands.” The slogan popularized by National Rifle Association (NRA) bumper stickers has been a rallying cry for gun owners over the last several decades. It reflects the sentiment that too many politicians don’t respect the individual right to gun ownership ensconced in the Constitution. The challenge for most of gun owners is that amending gun policies isn’t usually a give-and-take issue. It’s often a take-and-take scenario facing even those of us willing to discuss policy reforms in good faith.

In this, if we give the gun grabbers a permit system, they’ll use it too find a way to grab more guns, to deny more people, and to push for more and more regulations. They just won’t stop.

Read: Guy Who Calls Himself A Gun Nut Offers Gun Nuts Guide To Gun Control »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: The Trump Admin Is Traumatizing Illegal Alien Kids Or Something

By William Teach April 30, 2018 – 7:00 am

The Washington Post Editorial Board is in High Moonbat Dudgeon, with the requisite failure to make a delineation between illegal aliens and lawful migrants

The Trump administration is traumatizing children to scare migrants away

INFANTS, TODDLERS, tweens, teens — Trump administration officials are less interested in the age of an unauthorized child migrant than they are in removing the child from his or her parents as a means of deterring illegal border-crossers. That plan, first floated by White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly last year when he was homeland security secretary, was widely regarded as so callous and such a radical departure from historical practice that it was unthinkable for any U.S. government.

If only.

In fact, not only has the idea of systematically separating undocumented children and parents gained currency among top officials determined to turn the tide on illegal entry, it’s already happening with increasing frequency. The Department of Homeland Security insists it has not adopted the practice as a matter of official policy — despite White House pressure to do so — but administration officials acknowledge that hundreds of children, including scores younger than 4, have been taken from their parents in the past few months.

By now it’s clear that there are few red lines President Trump is unwilling to cross in his crusade to rid the United States of undocumented immigrants. For Mr. Trump, having washed his hands of the “dreamers” — young migrants, most in their 20s, raised and educated in the United States after being brought here as children — it’s hardly a moral leap to inflict lasting psychological damage on younger children by taking them from their parents if it will further his goal of combating illegal immigration.

Well, finally, a mention of illegal immigration. At the end of the day, this is about Law, not feelings. As the old saying goes, are we a nation of Law or a nation of Men? We have laws. We must enforce them, without prejudice, to all. The only people who are in the wrong here are the parents who chose to enter the nation illegally or overstayed their visas. They put their children in this position. If you get caught speeding, it’s not the cops fault for catching you. It’s not the jurisdictions fault for having telling their officers to not let you speed. It’s your fault. You get a ticket. A civic violation. The penalty for being unlawfully present in the U.S. is deportation.

And children are temporarily removed from their parents all the time, often with no warrant, just the say so of government workers. And parents are separated from their kids all the time when the parent(s) go to jail for violating the law. There’s a simple solution: don’t break the established laws. Don’t be in the U.S. illegally. They all know it’s illegal.

And let me note one thing I haven’t noted in a while: this is all the fault of the illegals. I had a convo the other day on this, and why Conservatives were so heartless on the subject. Besides it being about the rule of law, illegals pooped in their own bed. There are so many who are demanding we legalize them. Demand, not ask nicely. They get out in the streets to demonstrate, hold sit ins, invade offices. All while denigrating the very people they should be enticing to help them out. They hold signs being rude to Americans, call us names. They run around flying the flags of their nation of origin. They talk badly about America. They’re belligerent. They’re the ones here in contradiction of law. One would think they’d be walking up, hat in hand, asking “please”. If people are jerks to you and demand some sort of action, are you going to do it? If your child throws a fit and demands a cookie, do you give them one?

Illegals might have gotten some sympathy backing in the early 2000’s when this became a big issue again, but, they had to be jerks. Not all. But, more than enough.

The United States has a legitimate interest in deterring illegal border-crossing. It is within its rights to detain and deport individuals and families who fail to make a persuasive case for asylum. But to splinter families and traumatize children in the name of frightening away migrants, many of whom may have a legitimate asylum claim, is not just heartless. It is beyond the pale for a civilized country.

It’s hard to take that seriously, because if Trump was not doing this, keeping the families together, the WPEB would be calling this heartless. In their world, the only thing not heartless is simply giving citizenship, with full voting rights, to all illegals, and all who simply show up at the border.

Read: Washington Post: The Trump Admin Is Traumatizing Illegal Alien Kids Or Something »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 29, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible, evil, temperature spiking bottle of water*, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Weasel Zippers, with a post on why Kalifornia can’t have nice things.

It’s ladies in the military week.

*as always, please recycle.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach April 29, 2018 – 8:40 am

Patriotic Pinup Gil Elvgren

Happy Sunday! Another gorgeous day in America. The Sun is shining, the hummingbirds are racing around, summer is almost here. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What’s happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Jo Nova notes when humans are the happiest
  2. 357 Magnum heads to the gun free nation of China for knife attacks
  3. Bizzy Blog has a partial list (56) of things the Left stands for
  4. Blazing Cat Fur notes who actual vandalized a Jewish cemetery, which was blamed on Trump supporters
  5. By Other Means covers Blue State refugees
  6. DaTechGuy’s Blog says England is out of time
  7. Diogenes’ Middle Finger covers the slow burn cultural revolution
  8. Geller Report notes the Islamization of the EU Human Rights Court
  9. Jihad Watch has information on Muslim cop who shot unarmed woman
  10. Legal Insurrection features those Gaza “protests”
  11. Moonbattery discusses a guy identifying as a squirrel winning an election
  12. Patterico’s Pontifications covers the Red State firings
  13. Political Clown Parade has the Trump Derangement Translator
  14. Powerline notes the trials of Joy Reid
  15. And last, but not least, Raised On Hoecakes features a Conservative coming out

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

North Korea’s Price To Give Up Nuclear Weapons? A Promise To Not Invade

By William Teach April 29, 2018 – 7:17 am

If this is all Kim Jong-un wants, along with one other thing, it’s a bargain

Kim Says He’ll Give Up Weapons if U.S. Promises Not to Invade

North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, told President Moon Jae-in of South Korea when they met that he would abandon his nuclear weapons if the United States would agree to formally end the Korean War and promise that it would not invade his country, a South Korean government spokesman said Sunday.

In a faith-building gesture ahead of a summit meeting with President Trump, Mr. Kim also said he would invite experts and journalists from South Korea and the United States to watch the shutdown next month of his country’s only known underground nuclear test site.

The comments by Mr. Kim were made on Friday when the leaders of the two Koreas met at Panmunjom, a village on their shared border, the spokesman, Yoon Young-chan, said on Sunday, providing additional details of the meeting.

“I know the Americans are inherently disposed against us, but when they talk with us, they will see that I am not the kind of person who would shoot nuclear weapons to the south, over the Pacific or at the United States,” Mr. Kim told Mr. Moon, according to Mr. Yoon’s account of the meeting.

Actually, he is the kind of guy who might do that. We should never lose fact of him being a brutal, murderous, violent, repressive, torturous dictator running a country along those lines. This country which barely has electricity and food has a massive army, with quite a bit of regular, chemical, and biological weapons, most of which are aimed at South Korea and Japan with all their short and medium range artillery and rockets. The capital of South Korea, Seoul, has a population of over 10 million. Add in the millions who live around Seoul and in places like Inchon and the rest of the northern part of S. Korea, all within 40 miles of the DMZ, an easy range for missiles and artillery, and you could have a significant death toll within the first hours, much less days.

So, really, promising not to invade is no big deal. If we were going to hit North Korea, it would be through a massive strike hitting NK’s nuclear facilities as well as their forces that can attack South Korea and Japan via cruise missile strikes and the use of stealth bombers. It wouldn’t be a pinpoint strike on a few places. And there would still be a concern that NK would get off some missiles which could easily kill tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, quickly.

We wouldn’t be invading with ground troops, at least to start. So a pledge to not invade for NK giving up all their nuclear weapons and associated research and facilities? OK.

And, any promise from Trump could be ended if North Korea failed to live up to their end of the bargain. Declaring an end to the Korean war? OK. It can always restart if North Korea wants to get frisky.

Mr. Kim even vowed to readjust his country’s clock to match the time zone in South Korea.

In 2015, North Korea created its own time zone — “Pyongyang time” — and set its clocks 30 minutes behind those of South Korea, Japan and other neighbors. That has since created confusion among officials from both Koreas when they tried to schedule their meetings, such as the summit meeting on Friday.

“When I was sitting in the waiting room, I saw two clocks on the wall, one of the Seoul time and the other of the Pyongyang time, and I felt bad about it,” Mr. Kim was quoted as telling Mr. Moon. “Why don’t we reunify our clocks first?”

The big question is “how serious is Kim?” Is this simply a game being played by him, as he and his father have done many, many times? Or, can something big happen? And, could that be turned into North Korea becoming a better nation? Only time will tell.

Read: North Korea’s Price To Give Up Nuclear Weapons? A Promise To Not Invade »

Posted in Current Affairs | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove