I think my confidence that Robert Mueller has integrity and would reach a fair conclusion has been vindicated. He deserves our gratitude.
1 Like
From Motus Mentis:
Well! The Mueller report’s in, and has confirmed that this whole Russia business was nothing but a frame-up all along. Thanks so very much, news media and Democrat saboteurs (but I repeat myself) for hijacking the nation’s public affairs for two long years of round-the-clock bile, slander, and lies.
This will end nothing, of course: Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler will continue to abuse the awesome power of the State in hope of finding something — anything — they can use to hamper and attack the President. Rest assured they will use their subpoena power to browbeat and intimidate scores of American citizens as they search in desperation for a crime. Maxine Waters and her lynch mob in Congress will continue to slaver for impeachment.
There will be no apology forthcoming from the media; no contrition at all for their years of false accusations, or for creating a toxic atmosphere in Washington that made impossible any hope of diplomacy with Russia. In doing this they have caused incalculable damage to American foreign policy and to global strategic security.
Will there be punishment for those who mounted this fraud in the first place? For the people who abused the nation’s most powerful intelligence and law-enforcement agencies in the hope of overturning an election, and destroying a Presidency? For those who obtained multiple secret-court surveillance orders on false pretenses in order to spy on political opponents? For those conspirators who put their thumbs on the scale of justice to keep their own party’s candidate out of jail? Don’t hold your breath.
The insanity of the American Left will only intensify now, in their rage and frustration.
It’s going to be a long, hot, summer.
This is pretty funny, from the Babylon Bee:
NEW YORK, NY—Fox News executives have stood by their controversial decision to print the words of Donald Trump in red in all news stories and editorials posted to the company’s website.
The move, announced earlier this week, makes Fox News the first-ever “red-letter news organization,” as every word Donald Trump speaks will be printed in red as a sign of reverence. Executives believe the move will help readers spot when the inerrant words of Trump are being quoted, to help separate them from the ordinary news copy. “We hope it prepares people’s hearts and minds to receive the words of the savior,” said one Fox News representative.
“We’re not really sure what all the controversy is about,” said Fox News host Sean Hannity. “And frankly, we think it’s a little disrespectful that all these other news organizations haven’t taken this step yet. Honestly, I believe this must be Obama’s fault, somehow. CHEVROLET! AMERICA! DONALD TRUMP!”
There is no word yet on whether the company will officially begin capitalizing pronouns that refer to Trump, though an insider suggested that change would be “coming soon.”
At publishing time, CNN and MSNBC had confirmed they would continue printing the words of Obama in rainbow colors as a sign of his tolerance and love for diversity.
BTW - this was humor!
Isn’t it a mistake to lump all firearms together as “guns” and decide whether or not they should be abolished or at least limited?
Should we not differentiate between hand guns (which are used chiefly to shoot at people) and rifles (which are used chiefly to shoot at animals or birds such as deer, bears, ducks, grouse, etc)?
Handguns make self-defense easy also. That way when a bad guy - and you KNOW the bad guys will always have guns - threatens you, you don’t have to take timeout to load your black powder gun.
And AR does NOT stand for 'assault rifle’ - AR is the manufacturer ArmaLite rifle.
Let me just ask: do you think that bad guys will NOT have guns whenever and wherever they want them? Or is that just wishful thinking?
1 Like
I’m not sure human nature crisply divides between “bad guys” and good guys. And, of course, it’s possible to obtain unlawful weapons in the most restrictive or even totalitarian nations.
But my observation is that in first world democracies that take restrictions on certain weapons seriously, a greater portion of perverse people decide that they want to do their crimes without obtaining such weapons, and that in any event the proportion of those who end up having and then grievously using such weapons to purposely (or accidentally) destroy innocent lives is far less common than it is here.
So?
So…… I would value having such a democracy where despite bad guys desiring powerful weapons, legal limits actually result in having far less use of them to grievously destroy innocent lives.
1 Like
And that’s how it is here in Australia and soon to become in New Zealand, where they are now following our gun buy-back scheme to reduce firearms and outlaw semiautomatics and the like. People can still access firing ranges for personal pleasure and farmers and hunters can still hunt for game or clear pests — BUT you don’t NEED assault weapons to do that; want that… join the army.
1 Like
I think you need training courses…if you are going to allow guns. When I was in graduate school in psychology…one of the graduate students (in another discipline), worked for the US marshals service. He said that they should provide gang members, with shooting lessons. This way, they can shoot each other - rather than innocent bystanders.
Of course, if you take shooting lessons…you should also include, some harmonica lessons!
I understand where Dave is coming from. Like in the story of Esther, when the Jews defended themselves. They got the bad guys.
As sick as this may sound, I rejoice when someone is stopped by a bullet having the intention to destroy innocent lives. My being rejoices that the person who had no regard for human life was beat at his own game. This concept that a person who is using deadly force on Innocents should be brought in alive and protected is completely absurd. There might be some grey areas but generally a murderer should be killed on site. Someone who takes a hostage should be killed on site. Basically anyone willing to kill an innocent has already given up their right to live!
But that us just one scenario. A lot of gun deaths are accidental, or judgement mistakes out of fear… In this way, less guns mean less of these types deaths, but likely that would shift other types of deaths higher. It is true the criminals are a bit more scared to pull a gun in an open holster or concealed and carry state. If you are trying to commit a crime and want to live, you certainly want a state that bans citizens from defending themselves.
1 Like
I prefer the American system which assumes that the state or individuals should not have the right to summarily execute perceived offenders without the right of a deliberative process concerning guilt without reasonable doubt decided by a jury of his peers.
Here are other considerations as well, that seem contrary to Bob’s assertions. How to judge?
Many factors affect various nation’s data. But McMaken’s first cited 2015 article does not even challenge that results in the U.S. are far worse than in the usually cited prosperous nations. But when data challenge one’s views, he here raises the familiar rejoinder, that such stats may not be reliably collected or compared.
My own perception is that such discounting of such widely discussed stats tends to correlate with partisan views that find the data contrary to ones’ political beliefs.
After all this, my original thinking hasn’t changed much.
- I think that judicious gun control can be a good.
- Wholesale confiscation of citizen’s firearms is never good.
- Schools need armed guards or teachers or both.
- More guns in the hands of responsible citizens make for a safer environment.
Why presume that the increase in homicide was due to restrictions on the use of handguns? Are there not other factors that might better account for that increase? Indeed, is there not a similar increase in United States over the same time period?
I’m not presuming anything. In any case, I gave four things that I think are beyond reasonable criticism, or a least justifiable. I don’t see what all the big fuss is about - judicious control of who has access (and the default is: all citizens, until proven irresponsible somehow), common sense armed deterrence in schools or anywhere else it is felt needed; more guns in the hands of responsible citizens in public places.
I say: take the guns from criminals and gang members. Then the honest citizens will have nothing to fear. Of course, that’s impossible, but to then ease our conscience by instead taking guns from the law-abiding is just nonsense.
I thought the article made good sense overall.
What data justifies to you putting this belief beyond “reasonable criticism”?
E.g. As one who over time has spent years in Canada (a land that shares much of America’s European cultural formation), the proportion of good citizens there with guns in their hands is less than here. But it’s not clear to me that it then has a less “safe environment” than we do. Sure, other factors may explain America’s greater vulnerability to violence, but such a comparison with an especially analogous nation surely leaves room to wonder if your faith in our approach is borne out by the most relevant data.
I think it is borne out by relevant data.
Are you against judicious gun control? Or are you for government confiscation of guns from the citizenry? Do you think we could take guns from gang members and criminals?
I cannot see exactly where you stand on those questions.
I also don’t see where my 4 points are so troublesome for you.
I did a search for the populations of countries that are more ‘enlightened’ than us. Countries of 5 million people - I don’t consider that a fair comparison at all. Even France, Germany - combined are less than half our population. That is something to be considered as well.
Dave: I think it is borne out by relevant data.