Notes from the Resistance
“It may be funny to you motherf—er, but it’s not funny to me”: Texas gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke snapped at a man during a town hall on Wednesday who started laughing as O’Rourke discussed the gun used in the deadly Uvalde mass shooting. [More]
He was laughing at the bald-faced disprovable lies, not that Beto’s idiot supporters who cheered him on have the wits to realize that’s what he was doing.
Speaking of which, have I mentioned these idiots lately?
[Via bondmen]
“So, yes, I understand the Second Amendment. I understand, you know, bearing arms, but we also need to make sure that we can ensure that folks feel safe in their communities.” [More]
Feelings. Nothing more than feelings.
Seeing as how the ones doing the killings aren’t eligible to take advantage of the open carry law, I don’t suppose there are any, you know, individual choices your congregants could make that would have more of an effect…?
And that’s a pretty big “but” you’ve got there, pastor.
[Via Steve T]
Demonizing gun owners who believe in the founders’ intent of the Second Amendment is nothing new for our government. I’ve been following such attempts for years. [More]
“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”
As lawmakers debated how to place new restrictions on firearms, many Americans opted to show their support for the Second Amendment by purchasing a new gun. [More]
I wouldn’t automatically make that motivation assumption.
[Via bondmen]
The State of Minnesota also filed its own motion for summary judgment, which … went on to say … that “18-20 year old women are also not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.” [More]
I once wrote a speculative article (way pre-Heller) I can’t find now that basically made the case that the only women mentioned in U.S. Code are “female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” My intent was to set up a staged lawsuit with a (friendly) FFL refusing to sell a gun to a (friendly) woman and having it overturned on equal protection grounds.
I wonder if the statute now needs to be amended to add the words “self-identified”…
[Via Jess]
The most high-profile effort has come from Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who has emerged as one of the most prominent critics of what he describes as the corrupting influence of dark money on the court. He has proposed a bill that would treat amicus filers more like lobbyists, subjecting them to registration and financial reporting. [More]
While Sheldon gets to influence as a perk.
That’s pretty rich, considering the indignation is being stirred up by a Bloomberg Machine beneficiary. You know, the same machine that has for years been quietly setting up infrastructure in the states (that means with the media keeping mum) to make legal challenges to infringements necessary…
[Via Remarks]
“Whether or not the Rifle used in the Attack was, in fact, modified to fire in a fully automatic fashion, its ready susceptibility to such modification rendered it a ‘machinegun’ as sold, prohibiting its sale to the general public,” the complaint alleges. [More]
That’s why some of us were so adamant against the doors the Trump “bump stock” ban would open. And why I have no patience with point-missing bloviators and their “stupid piece of plastic isn’t a hill worth dying on” ignorance…
[Via Jess]
Received via email:
Hey David,
I recently heard your spot on AAR regarding selective service requirements for transgender people, and I just wanted to give you my experience, hopefully it’ll make some sense.
I’m a proud American, a gun owner, and I vote for Republicans relatively often. However, I happen to also be a transgender American. I don’t want to go into deep detail about how I came to realize this, but I’ll put it this way – I fought it for a long time, and I desperately wanted to just be “normal”. However, after seeing many therapists, I have completed my
social and medical transition from female to male. This involved many therapists and psychiatrists, hormone therapy, and surgical intervention.After these steps were completed, I changed my legal sex with the government. At that time, I was required to register with selective service. The requirement is based on your legal sex, which is very difficult to change (for good reason, every blue haired liberal won’t go through all the doctors I did without getting a good sense of whether they’re really transgender or just going through a phase). People who are born male, if they have not legally transitioned by 18, are required to register, as are any adult in the age range who legally transitions from female to male.
It’s worth noting that if a draft ever came, I’d be happy to serve my country, and I have a draft card just like every other man my age.
I hope any of that makes sense. I don’t expect you or Mark to accept me for who I am, and I listen to the show anyway. I hope hearing from me helps you
understand a little better how legal transition works (and that there are transgender people who are a lot like you). I’d appreciate if you left my name out of any further discussion or writing you may have on the topic, just for my safety.Thanks for hearing me out,
[Name withheld by request.)
Here’s the article Mark and I discussed last Wednesday. And here’s my response:
Hello _____,
Back in the 90s, I co-wrote the first Inclusion Statement on a gun site that I am aware of. I’m sure Mark agrees with that.
I also wrote an article defending Nikki Stallard that is unfortunately no longer available.
I’d have to find time to listen to my segment with Mark because I’m pretty sure I couched it to clarify I was not commenting on transgenderism per se but on the legal issues surrounding Selective Service law. In re your experience with “legal sex,” it is helpful to know that but I would still need to determine what the law actually has to say and if it has even caught up with things. Case in point, they changed the 4473 to say “Male” Female” and “Non-Binary.” If someone born male put down “Female” would they be vulnerable to felony charges? Not being a lawyer I don’t know and suspect it would be new and unsettled with very little to reference.
In terms of the issue of LBGQT and all that, I believe in live and let live and not making anyone whose life is already hard enough any harder on them. That said, I reject demands that I embrace and laud someone for making that choice, and reserve the right to speak out against what I perceive to be deliberately outrageous advancement of a radical agenda. That, I speak out against. And that’s the best I can give you.
Regards,
David Codrea
The Dubious and Doomed ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban That the House Approved Today May Cost Democrats This Fall – Recent polling suggests that Americans are starting to recognize that such laws make no sense. [More]
I wish I could share the enthusiasm but I think all it would take is one gun-free zone exploitation the magnitude of Beslan and you’d see a whole different set of survey results, not to mention a panicked Republican red wave-blowing scramble to get out of the water.
Now is no time to relax like the overconfident hare. Press on in earnest like the tortoise.
[Via bondmen]
GOP Rep. Boebert: ‘Gun Rights Are Women’s Rights’ [More]
I’d say they’re human rights, but I have clearly never been raped…
[Via bondmen]
Despite that long history and the popularity of the Pittman-Robertson Act among hunters, anglers, conservationists and the firearm industry, Clyde and other sponsors have painted the tax as an assault on the Second Amendment. [More]
It absolutely is.
Pay for your own “sporting purposes,” Fudds.
See how you like us being the ones throwing you under the bus for a change.
[Via bondmen]
The level of GOP opposition indicates the bill is unlikely to advance in the evenly split Senate, where it would require the support of at least 10 Republicans to defeat a guaranteed filibuster. It’s also not clear if the measure has the support of all 50 Senate Democrats. [More]
Forgive me for wondering what kind of new incident would be enough to make it happen.
[Via Jess]
Celebrity YouTuber cites Supreme Court gun ruling in bid to dismiss machine gun charges [More]
I’m not seeing how the most effective arguments can be considered with zero mentions of “militia.” That makes me wonder about the Second Amendment law track record the attorneys have achieved.
Don’t get me wrong: I think “shall not be infringed” and “every terrible implement of the soldier” should be all you need to win, but I wouldn’t take that into court unless I had a lot more behind it.
I’d like to see some qualified voices weigh in on the viability of the motion and the risks of establishing any precedents that could complicate future efforts if it fails.
[Via Antigone]
Democrats delay votes on police, gun control legislation Package included bills on a new assault weapons ban, to reinstate some civil liability for gun-makers and on grants for police [More]
That means there are Democrats afraid to vote for it because it won’t play in their home districts. I need to find out who those are. There could be a real left-against-left exploitable weakness here.
[Via Jess]
“The last thing I’m going to do is take a free tri-tip sandwich from a right-wing extremist group,” said one resident, who asked not to be named because she feared provoking “armed and dangerous” people. [More]
Right– because if they knew they’d come kill you, you stupid goose.
Ignorance begets bigotry begets fear begets hate begets violence.
Knowledge begets rationally understanding how to defend yourself against all that.
[Via An Hour of Wolves]
Our Entire Civilization Is Structured Around Keeping Us From Realizing We Can Do This [More]
Gosh, do you think that might have something to do with tyrants incessantly pushing citizen disarmament?
I don’t know why they think they have to, seeing as how they have nukes and everything…
I know: Let’s ask Jamie Raskin!
[Via bondmen]
So, when gun-control advocates claim that mass shootings represent a special case that the Founders never knew about or could have predicted, they’re wrong. Right now, they’re using the nation’s anger and fear over mass shootings to push for a raft of new gun-rights restrictions. But those laws will probably violate the Constitution, for reasons the Supreme Court has made crystal clear. [More]
It’s interesting how those who want to erase the Founders from the collective memory are always presuming to tell us what they understood.
[Via bondmen]
Too bad most politicians don’t get this. [More]
Actually, I think most probably do.
[Via An Hour of Wolves]
