…is a wonderful low carbon method of travel, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on the latest GOP polls.
Read: If All You See… »
…is a wonderful low carbon method of travel, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on the latest GOP polls.
Read: If All You See… »
Nothing like paying tens of thousands for a so-called education to learn to do this
(The Blaze) University of Texas at Austin students plan to carry dildos around campus next year in protest of recent legislation that allows concealed carry permit holders to carry their firearms to public colleges’ campuses.
According to a public Facebook event page, the students will wield their sex toys on August 24, 2016 — the first day of classes. The contentious legislation signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in June is set to go into effect for the 2016 school year and allows individuals who possess a concealed carry permit to bring their firearms to campus although university presidents are able to make “reasonable†regulations.
“The State of Texas has decided that it is not at all obnoxious to allow deadly concealed weapons in classrooms, however it does have strict rules about free sexual expression, to protect your innocence,†the event description reads. “You would receive a citation for taking a dildo to class before you would get in trouble for taking a gun to class. Heaven forbid the penis.â€
What else is there to say but that these people are bat guano insane?
Read: Nutters Plan To Carry Sexy Toys On Campus To Protest Guns »
Remember when the liberal media was very upset over President Bush’s use of executive orders, calling him a unilateral executive? Good times, good times. Now, they’re all in for any possible gun control, no matter how little of a difference it will make in restricting people with ill intent from having a gun
What the president can do on gun laws
GUN CONTROL is being debated again. After the latest mass shooting in Roseburg, Ore., several Democrats in Congress renewed their push for legislation to tighten gun sale regulation and crack down on gun traffickers. Separately, the Democrat with the best shot at striking a bipartisan deal, Sen. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.), has also signaled interest in reviving his efforts. Hillary Clinton proposed reforms also: shoring up the background check system to cover gun transfers that now occur off the books, extending the time limits placed on background check investigations and barring domestic abusers from owning guns, among other things.
In a more rational Washington, these proposals would be on Congress’s agenda. So would requiring gunmakers to install “smart†technology that would allow only authorized users to shoot. If your iPhone can require your thumbprint, so could your pistol. Reality hasn’t changed, however: A GOP Congress isn’t likely to approve any gun control bill any time soon.
Any domestic abuser convicted of a felony is already barred. If you want this for those convicted of misdemeanors, the law itself would have to be changed. Or, would it? Even Think Progress notes that “restraining orders and misdemeanor abuse convictions bar gun ownership in federal background checks,” though “some 35 states don’t enforce their own laws against these major categories of abusers, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.” Oh, look, law that was passed in 1996.
Your iPhone doesn’t “require your thumbprint”: it is a feature that can be turned on and off at the will of the user. Besides, the so called smart guns are not reliant on a thumbprint, but a watch that has to be near the gun. At least now. Smartphones can be hacked. Surprisingly, by criminals. Tests show 1 in 10 shots fail. Your gun would be dependent by a battery. What happens when a women pulls the gun to defend herself and the battery is dead? Why do Democrat gun grabbers hate women? Furthermore, this dramatically increases the cost of purchasing a gun. And, what if the tech goes bad? More costly repairs or purchases. This isn’t to say we should not look into technology solutions: we should. We shouldn’t simply require things that may not work and certainly aren’t ready.
Anyhow, the Washington Post Editorial Board really wants Obama to push to close the “gun show loophole” and restrict small dealers and family members from transferring/selling guns below a certain threshold
The Post’s Greg Sargent reports that the Obama administration has been considering this sort of move but hasn’t figured out how to make it work — for example, how many guns can one sell before it becomes a “regular course of trade� Yet that’s no excuse not to try.
It would, like most of the other notions, require new law. Why not write something up and submit it to Congress? Why not convene a meeting with Congress to hammer out some measures that would pass?
Ms. Clinton’s administrative action would at best offer incremental improvement, and even that would be limited without giving ATF more resources for enforcement. But while working for broader change, the country shouldn’t turn up its nose at incremental progress.
By “incremental”, they mean this will barely be a drop in the bucket, if it makes any difference at all. It is the appearance of Doing Something, rather than actually doing something. And this mostly effects those not intent on using the guns for crime. How about some ideas that would effect the criminals?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Washington Post Totally Enthused For Incremental Executive Action On Gun Control »
There’s a reason Jonah Goldberg referred to Progressivism as “nice fascism”: you will be forced to comply. For your own good. And Warmists are primarily Progressives
(UK Telegraph) Â We might think that a semi-secret, international conference of top judges, held in the highest courtroom in Britain, to propose that it should be made illegal for anyone to question the scientific evidence for man-made global warming, was odd enough to be worthy of front-page coverage.
Last week I mentioned that the Prince of Wales had sent a message to this conference calling for the UN’s forthcoming climate meeting in Paris to agree on “a Magna Carta for the Earthâ€. But only a series of startling posts by a sharp-eyed Canadian blogger, Donna Laframboise (onNofrakkingconsensus), have alerted us to what a bizarre event this judicial gathering turned out to be (the organisers even refused to give her the names of those who attended). (snip)
The purpose of this strange get-together was outlined in a keynote speech (visible on YouTube) by Philippe Sands, a QC from Cherie Blair’s Matrix Chambers and professor of law at University College, London. Since it is now unlikely that the world will agree in Paris to a legally binding treaty to limit the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees C from pre-industrial levels, his theme was that it is now time for the courts to step in, to enforce this as worldwide law. (snip)
“The most important thing the courts could do,†he said, was to hold a top-level “finding of factâ€, to settle these “scientific disputes†once and for all: so that it could then be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed “science†again. Furthermore, he went on, once “the scientific evidence†thus has the force of binding international law, it could be used to compel all governments to make “the emissions reductions that are neededâ€, including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.
No one should be surprised by this in the least, being the logical extension of the whole “the science is settled” screeching from members of the Cult of Climastrology (who they themselves refused to practice what they preach). Warmists demand that the only science to be taught in schools is one sided, being more akin to indoctrination than scientific inquiry. They refuse to follow the Scientific Model. They band together and assail any scientist who refuses to bow to the CoC. They yammer on about getting the US Department of Justice to file RICO (Rackateer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, originally designed to prosecute the Mafia) charges against non-believers. They call for jail and death for Skeptics. Simply outlawing Skepticism is fully and wholly believable, and something that Warmists very much want to do.
Read: Cult Of Climastrology Wouldn’t Look To Actually Ban “Climate Denial”, Would They? »
…is a world scorching from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on Obama’s BFF Iran threatening Israel again.
It’s skating week!
Read: If All You See… »

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous day in America, there’s a little bit of that fall nip in the air. And the Giants will be smacking around the 49ers tonight. This pinup is by Emile Noordeloos, with a wee bit of help.
What’s happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15
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. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.
Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »
Nothing will stop the gun haters from propagating their ideas which do not work, and will only effect the law abiding citizens
Most gun owners support restrictions. Why aren’t their voices heard?
Once again, their voices are missing from the debate.
Gun owners who favor tighter restrictions on firearms say they are in the same position after the mass shooting in Oregon as they have been following other rampages — shut out of the argument.
The pattern, they say, is frustrating and familiar: The what-should-be-done discussion pits anti-gun groups against the National Rifle Association and its allies, who are adamantly opposed to any new restrictions on weapons.
Gun owners who occupy the middle ground complain that they are rarely sought out or heard, yet polls show that the majority of gun owners support universal background checks and other controversial limits. President Obama is reportedly considering using his executive authority to impose new Âbackground-check requirements for high-volume dealers in private sales — and many gun owners may support that.
This is all about being a hit piece on the NRA and those who aren’t for increasing the background checks. Note: I’m not a member of the NRA. I’ve never felt the need. I don’t agree with everything they do. But, they do work hard to protect our Constitutional right from what the gun grabbers want to do
Surveys by Johns Hopkins and the Pew Research Center show that about 85Â percent of gun owners favor universal background checks, an idea fiercely opposed by the gun lobby. Gun owners also strongly support a federal database of gun sales, prohibiting ownership for those convicted of domestic violence and barring people with mental illness from buying guns.
Most law abiding gun owners are fine with background checks. I certainly am. Those I know with guns are. We’re certainly for prohibiting ownership to domestic abusers and those with mental illness that makes them a danger. But, let’s consider why the NRA and other gun lobbies oppose the “universal background checks” idea
Gun control supporters initially opposed NICS. However, once they recognized that NICS was inevitable, they began advocating steps aimed at incrementally transforming it into a national registry of guns. At first, they wanted background checks required on all private (i.e., non-licensee) sales, trades and gifts of handguns. Then they wanted background checks on private transfers of all firearms at gun shows. Now, they demand background checks on all private transfers of all firearms, regardless of location, and they want the FBI to retain, for an indefinite period, records on people who pass NICS checks to acquire firearms.
NRA opposes expanding background check systems at the federal or state level. Studies by the federal government show that people sent to state prison because of gun crimes typically get guns through theft, on the black market, or from family members or friends, and nearly half of illegally trafficked firearms originate with straw purchasers—people who can pass background checks, who buy guns for criminals on the sly. No amount of background checks can stop these criminals.
NRA also opposes gun registration. Expanding background check systems and allowing records to be kept on people who pass background checks to acquire guns would be steps toward transforming NICS into the national gun registry that gun control supporters have wanted for more than a hundred years.
As we can see, the anti-gunnites have incrementally pushed for more and more, and want this registry, which is government keeping track of private ownership of guns. As the recent IRS issue shows, not too mention all the hackings of federal government agencies, we can’t trust our information in government hands.
Second, increasing this won’t actually do anything for those engaged in wrong-doing with guns. Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, also stated that the system is not working, since the roughly 250,000 prohibited people have never been prosecuted for attempting to purchase a firearm. The NRA used to support universal background checks, meaning everyone who purchases, regardless of where, but, the system is broken. Illegal purchases/attempted purchases are not prosecuted. Mental health information is very often not entered in the system.
BTW, why no mention that 64% want more armed security in schools, a notion gun grabbers are very much against? Same survey.
Though there is less support for banning high-powered assault rifles — about 49 percent of gun owners would, vs. 64 percent of non-gun owners, according to Pew — gun control advocates are emboldened that a near majority is out of lockstep with the gun lobby.
Except, these “high-powered assault rifles” are anything but. One can purchase much more powerful rifles. The .223 isn’t exactly the most powerful bullet out there. And all they mean is “scary looking weapon”.
Really, though, the fallacy of the survey is shown in that 58% favor banning semi-automatic weapons. That just shows that most do not understand what different types of guns are. Semi-auto means pull the trigger, one bullet exits the barrel, and one bullet moves from the magazine into firing position. But, the gun will not fire again till the trigger is pulled. Heck, we could almost say a revolver is semi-automatic. Do the gun grabbers want only guns which fire the same as they did during the War for Independence?
This is all stale rhetoric, which won’t take guns out of the hands of bad actors. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, yet, they continue to see high levels of gun-play and murders. Same with D.C., Baltimore, Detroit, and other Democratic Party run cities. Lets look for ways to get the guns out of their hands, while significantly increasing penalties for those who use weapons for crime. How about re-instituting hard time? How about chain-gangs out working on roads? Let’s stop restricting those who want guns for self-defense and can pass a background check, and start going after the bad actors.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Washington Post: Why Don’t People Listen To Gun Owners Who Support Restrictions? »
I wonder why (via Paul Homewood)
Two clean energy firms go bust within hours ‘because of Tory U-turn on energy policy’
Two of the UK’s leading clean energy companies have gone into administration on the same day, blaming the Government’s U-turn on energy policy.
Nearly 1,000 staff were laid off in Leicester yesterday as home insulation and solar panel provider, Mark Group, fell into administration.
Within hours Climate Energy, which describes itself as “the UK’s largest provider of energy efficiency solutions†had also closed down, announcing the news on their website.
Mark Group blamed the closure on the government’s recent turnaround on energy policy including the removal of subsidies to renewables.
Huh. So, as Paul Homewood points out “Take away the subsidies and see what happens.” We aren’t talking tax breaks, we’re talking direct government monetary input
Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
Air America, liberals version of talk radio, couldn’t survive without direct and massive input of rich liberals money. They couldn’t survive otherwise. Their advertising revenue was minuscule. The same applies to a goodly chunk of these “green energy” companies, which cannot survive without government, ie, taxpayer, money.
…is a world turning to desert because Someone Else refused to go carbon neutral, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Protein Wisdom, with a post on tacos being culturally offensive.
Read: If All You See… »