In addition to conditions like narcissim, psychopathy, delusional disorder and sadism, the killers share “a burning need for recognition in the form of fame or infamy, and anger that this recognition, this entitlement has been denied to him.”
[ … ]
“Armed individuals and out-of uniform LEOs have a reasonably good track record for stopping mass shooting attempts …”
Very well. But I’m of the school of thought that says these “conditions” are spiritual ailments, and that they are a function of the spiritual condition of America.
And I’m of the school of thought that says the it’s not only a reasonably good track record, but the only such remedy that can be applied quickly.
I also second the comment by one reader who says he’s glad Hardy is on our side. Me too.
This is a pregnant bit of video and requires some unpacking to do it justice. Many things were said, and left unsaid.
I will not ally myself with Antifa, for they run contrary to everything I believe, want to change America for the worse, and want to use firearms to thwart my liberties. I will not arm my enemy or teach him to fight.
I also will not, for example, support unlimited immigration since I know that in the main, Latinos and Hispanics vote progressive and favor draconian gun controls. I will not change my mind because of “the sky is falling” panic attacks about possibly losing my rights if I don’t make friends with those who would oppose me. Peace at any cost isn’t peace, it’s just temporary cessation of conflict, and the necessity of compromise means you lost.
As for the LGBT community, if I meet a member of that community who persuades me that she or he will never vote or work in any way, shape or form, to thwart my rights – and that includes the right not to bake them a cake – I won’t oppose their RKBA. But I don’t join clubs. I’m not entirely sure what Larry means when he implies that I should welcome someone into my community. My community is where I live, and those with whom I run.
I am not fearful over my potential loss of rights. My rights come from God, and God alone. The Almighty has issued the decrees from which flow the right and duty of self defense, defense of home and hearth, and the amelioration of tyranny. Loss of recognition of the second amendment, to which I’ve repeatedly referred as a covenant with blessings for obedience and curses for breakage, doesn’t mean I lose a right. It means war has been declared and sides are forming.
I will always attempt to persuade those who do not see things my way to change their minds. There is one of the reasons I write. In that persuasion, I will include the RKBA, personal morality, philosophy, and theology. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I will not compromise the very elements of my world and life view which I believe undergird and give foundation to the RKBA. In other words, siding with an ostensibly opposing community because they might be able to be persuaded on one element, only to jettison that agreement when times get tough because it fundamentally differs from the balance of their world view, isn’t wise or effective. I see all of life as connected, a function of our noetic structure that includes judgments on the truth value of propositions, theories of knowledge, beliefs in the foundations of social order, how we determine right and wrong, and ultimacy.
Only the Christian world and life view can birth, support and sustain liberty on a long term basis. American is where it is now, collapsing under the weight of the trivial, obscene and ridiculous, because of this truth. Trying to agree on the RKBA when the foundation is falling is like throwing a cup of water on a structure that has almost burned to the ground.
Finally, Larry’s analogy is utter nonsense. It doesn’t surprise me at all that the old guard NRA believed that civilians shouldn’t be unholstering pistols under any condition. That Ken Hackathorn tried to introduce the NRA to IPSC and the NRA refused only demonstrates my points. The NRA refused to acknowledge God-given rights. God will not bless them long term. They will eventually go down in history as brief a footnote. Mr. Vickers has his analogy exactly backwards.
I shouldn’t change my world and life view or compromise with people who would eventually undermine my liberties. We’re not like the NRA in his analogy, we’re like Hackathorn. The IPSC won, as will we. God is on our side, and I’m not worried. I will not be found among the hand-wringers, clinging to whatever little morsel of agreement I can get wherever I can find it.
The Ohio Supreme Court has proposed rule changes that would disarm and force those subject to a civil protection order to surrender firearms, ammunition, and concealed handgun license to law enforcement. This seizure would take place even if there is no “sufficient nexus,” specifically evidence that a firearm was threatened to be used, used, or brandished.
The Supreme Court drafts proposed rule changes. The proposed rule changes are put out for public comment.
To comment and demand that these proposed changes not be enacted, email objections to: diana.ramos-reardon@sc.ohio.gov Include your full name and mailing address in any comments submitted by e-mail.
The legislature wasn’t doing what the court wanted them to do, so they stepped in and make themselves the only sovereign potentate, the most high god. Able to calm the seas and change the winds.
Of course, there is always an answer for tyrants like this, and it involves oak trees and hemp rope.
Curiously, the go-to guy AP went to for ATF input was retired agent Bernard Zapor, who made the profitability of smuggling guns south of the border sound lucrative enough to make AP’s case for them. The guy knows something about gun smuggling—he was in charge of the St. Paul Field Division when “Operation Fearless” resulted in an agent’s guns and a machine gun being stolen.
I highly doubt that this would have been their only choice. I suspect that there are current ATF agents who want to see this as a pretext for the disarming of Americans. After all, most of the AT F employees who were with that abominable organization during the Holder years are still there.
The spirits of Obama and Holder speak from the grave through the current statists among the FedGov.
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on Thursday said that high court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, who Stevens once lauded in one of his books, does not belong on the Supreme Court.
Speaking to a crowd of retirees in Boca Raton, Stevens, 98, said Kavanaugh’s performance during a recent Senate confirmation hearing suggested that he lacks the temperament for the job.
That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.
Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.
I collect, cull and communicate the data. You’re smart enough to decide. On a positive note, it’s nice to hear that mankind is no longer affected by his sinful nature and his only intentions are good, all of the time.
Sensing controversy, Gov. Phil Scott privately asked Vermont lawmakers to drop a limit on the size of gun magazines from a package of firearms regulations that was about to pass the Legislature this spring.
“I advocated for them to consider taking that out because I knew that it was going to be a hot-button issue for many,” Scott said in a recent interview. “But I wasn’t persuasive enough for them to take it out. We’ll live with that.”
[ … ]
Scott has distanced himself from the magazine ban during his re-election campaign, saying in one Republican debate that the restriction “wasn’t my idea.”
Scott now says he has no plans to seek a repeal of the magazine ban if he wins re-election.
“I think we’ve had enough of the gun discussion at this point in time,” Scott said.
Ah, I see. You wanted to get in bed with the controllers. But you now regret it because you’re afraid you might lose power and don’t really have any scruples at all and believe nothing. Therefore you regret the decision. But not enough.
So let’s just forget all about it.
We’ve discussed guns enough. Bless your heart. Is that how you think this works?
The U.S. District Court, in a ruling handed down late Friday, said New Jersey’s law doesn’t “prevent ownership of any type of gun and does not restrict the quantity of ammunition a gun owner may possess.” Rather, it “merely restricts the quantity of bullets a magazine may hold.”
The decision continues: “To illustrate, a citizen who owns a gun, 30 rounds of ammunition, and two 15-round magazines prior to the (new law’s) enactment will be permitted to retain his gun, ammunition, and three 10-round magazines.”
Be thankful, peasants. Love your bondage, ye scum. You can still have your 30 rounds. So says the black robes.
And anyone who thinks that the priesthood will be their salvation is a fool.
Proxy service firms Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis are calling for American Outdoor Brands (NASDAQ: AOBC) investors to follow the lead of those at Sturm, Ruger (NYSE: RGR) and force management to draft a report stating that management is monitoring acts of gun violence in the country and the risks they represent to the company.
American Outdoor Brands — the former Smith & Wesson — is hosting its annual meeting on Sept. 25, and a number of activist healthcare and religious groups have jointly submitted a shareholder question for approval. Earlier this year, a similar effort succeeded at Ruger.
The ballot question asks the company to do three things:
Monitor violent events in which Smith & Wesson products are used.
Prove the gunmaker is working to produce safer firearms and related products.
Assess the risks to the gunmaker’s reputation and financial well-being from gun violence in the U.S.
In a report issued by ISS, the corporate governance outfit endorsed the proposal as a way to prove American Outdoor Brands’ board of directors is keeping the long-term risks of gun violence in mind.
Reuters reported that ISS concluded, “There is reason to believe that smart gun technology could be employed to make guns safer in the U.S. and that any engineering problems could be overcome if there was a market for the product.” So-called smart guns use technology to make sure the weapon is in the hands of its owner before it fires.
[ … ]
Sturm, Ruger CEO Chris Killoy accepted the vote by investors, saying, “shareholders have spoken,” but he also went on to point out, “What the proposal does not and cannot do is to force us to change our business, which is lawful and constitutionally protected.”
While American Outdoor Brands undoubtedly feels the same way, it’s possible it will have a very different result than Sturm, Ruger did.
First, Ruger’s meeting was held at a hotel and an activist representative appeared and made an appeal to shareholders; American Outdoor’s meeting is an online-only event. (It’s the second year the gunmaker has conducted the annual meeting this way.) And as noted above, institutional investors own a smaller proportion of American Outdoor stock, making it a little more difficult to compile enough votes in favor. The meeting is also further removed from the Parkland school shooting, while Ruger’s event was more contemporaneous with it and emotions were more raw.
As I’ve said before, if you open your stock to investors (go public) and you’re subject to the political whims of money-people, you’d better make sure your employees own a majority of the stock and can reject things like this.
I see both Ruger and Smith & Wesson as vulnerable.
A man with a concealed carry gun license stepped from his car on Thursday and shot the suspected shooter of a Cicero police officer.
Good for him.
Had the good Samaritan not joined the gun battle, the Cicero cop might not be alive today, and the accused shooter might have gotten away.
We remain unconvinced, all the same, that concealed carry is good for Chicago or Illinois. There is no convincing evidence — just the occasional anecdote — that permitting people to walk around with concealed guns deters crime. There is credible evidence, on the contrary, that concealed carry leads in the long run to more crime.
Hang your argument on a single anecdote, and you can defend almost anything.
Yea, I’m sure this was the only instance in the history of the world in which anyone was ever saved by someone else carrying a gun. And I’m sure no one ever saved his or her own life by doing that. In fact, I don’t even know why cops carry guns.
Good Lord. Do they hire second graders to write these editorials?
MIDDLETON, Wis. (AP) — A heavily armed man opened fire on his co-workers at a Wisconsin software company Wednesday, seriously wounding three people before being fatally shot by police as employees ran from the building or hid inside, according to investigators.
Middleton Police Chief Chuck Foulke said officers shot the man within eight minutes of receiving calls about an active shooter at WTS Paradigm. Foulke said the man was armed with a semi-automatic pistol and extra ammunition, and fired at officers before he was shot.
Foulke said three people were seriously injured during the attack, while a fourth person was grazed by a bullet.
“I think a lot less people were injured or killed because police officers went in and neutralized the shooter,” Foulke said.
The police chief said the motivation behind the attack was unclear and investigators didn’t yet know whether the gunman targeted his victims. He didn’t release the suspect’s name but said he was an employee of WTS Paradigm and lived in nearby Madison.
Foulke said the investigation was ongoing but noted: “We have reason to believe the suspect was heavily armed with a lot of extra ammunition, a lot of extra magazines.”
Judy Lahmers, a business analyst at WTS Paradigm, said she was working at her desk when she heard what sounded “like somebody was dropping boards on the ground, really loud.” Lahmers said she ran out of the building and hid behind a car.
She said the building’s glass entrance door was shattered.
“I’m not looking back, I’m running as fast as I can. You just wonder, ‘Do you hide or do you run?'” she told The Associated Press.
Yes, a lot less people were killed or injured because the cops got there. Not because poor victims are asking the question, “Do you hide or do you run?” Rather than saying, “Remember, unholster, proper grip technique, ensure round is chambered, find perp, present, get good sight picture, discharge.”
7 years, 7 months ago
