Latest Anti-Gun Talking Points Seem to Have Dropped, And They’re Shockingly Stupid

Every so often, you’ll see a lot of different accounts suddenly start making identical or nearly identical posts, raising the same points that often aren’t even that impressive. This is usually a case of someone sending them to certain political influencers and then repeating them verbatim. No thought went into this on the part of the influencer, of course, but someone out there thought it was a zinger.

Over the weekend, a new one dropped, apparently, and it’s all that you could have hoped for.

And, of course, there are indications that Tristan here wasn’t the only one who got the memo.

It’s possible this whole thing is just some kind of organic growth, to be sure, but it doesn’t really matter where it originated. It’s ridiculous.

The firebombing and shooting up of Tesla dealerships are domestic terrorism, which involves political motivations, so those are inherently going to be treated differently while being investigated.

But let’s think about how we’re “protecting” Teslas.

Teslas have something called “sentry mode” that monitors the vehicle’s surroundings are records if someone approaches. That’s how we have so many videos of Teslas being keyed or otherwise vandalized.

A lot of this vandalism is probably not even investigated because it’s such a petty crime. If an identity comes up, the cops might go and ask a few questions, but this is probably not very high up on their list of priorities, particularly in cities with high crime. Frankly, I get it.

Now, let’s think about what we do with our school children.

I don’t know about Tristan or Jo, but I personally want every teacher so inclined to have a gun to help protect those kids. I want school resource officers in every school as well, just to help protect those school children.

If someone hurts a school child, they’re hunted by every law enforcement agency with relevant jurisdiction–and the others would love to hunt that party but generally can’t unless the suspect crosses into their jurisdiction.

But let’s go back to protecting schools for a moment, though. Note where I stand on that protection. Many of you agree with either part or all of what I laid out.

Do you know who doesn’t?

That’s right, people like Tristan and Jo, that’s who.

When the subject of armed teachers–hell, even the subject of metal detectors at the door–people like those two lose their minds. They fight such things tooth and nail, screaming about how it creates the wrong environment and how everything will be awful. They rage against school resource officers, screaming about the “school to prison pipeline” and oppose those left and right as well.

Pretty much everything that might actually protect school kids gets shut down by the same people.

And then they have the nerve to push this kind of talking point? It’s insulting, infuriating, and absolutely idiotic.

We know what they want. They’re trying to leverage this into justifying gun control. They think this is a dunk on gun rights.

And it’s even dumber than the talking point on its own because of that.

Keep right on talking Chuck…….

For A Party Of ‘Joy,’ Democrats Are Awfully Miserable

In the months leading up to the 2024 election, Democrats had convinced themselves that they’d settled on the perfect campaign message. Not content with simply slandering their chief political rival as a Hitler-loving Nazi to distract from their disastrous policies, they arbitrarily declared themselves the party of “joy.”

“Forget the bad economy and border invasion, we’re all about the good vibes!” — or so went your typical Kamala Harris campaign appearance.

If it wasn’t obvious already (it should’ve been), it’s clear to any casual observer that tagline was nothing more than a facade.

Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, Democrats have come down with a strong case of misery. No matter the policy or how much success it might reap for the American people, Democrats have treated nearly every action the president has taken as if it’s a world-ending crisis.

Case in point: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

On Wednesday, Harris’ weird vice presidential pick threw a hissy fit before local media, in which he dramatically bemoaned Trump’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education and return the issue to the states where it belongs. In his incoherent screed, Walz fearmongered that laying off agency employees would harm children’s learning and produce devastating consequences for America’s educators.


But the Minnesota governor’s tantrum is a microcosm of the blind rage displayed by Democrats since Trump’s comeback.

Earlier this week, a Massachusetts Democrat had a meltdown at a House subcommittee hearing after his Republican colleague correctly referred to Rep. Tim “Sarah” McBride, D-Del. — a trans-identifying man — as “Mr. McBride.” The childish display came a week after another House Democrat got kicked out of Trump’s address to Congress for repeatedly interrupting the president’s speech.

These actions don’t even include those undertaken by the party’s unhinged base, whose behavior has been equally — if not more — despicable.

Continue reading “”

Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva dead at 77. “Grijalva, D-Ariz., died of lung cancer-related issues on Thursday

Krugman is a perfect reverse economic barometer. He’s always been wrong


Smug Krugman Says Trump Won Because Low-Income Voters Lack ‘Sophisticated Views’ on Economics

So here’s the thing. If PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) is serious about combatting widespread public opinion that the tax-supported “news service” is a haven for elitist leftists (which is exactly what it is), trotting out the ever-smug economist, Paul Krugman isn’t the best way to go about showing it.

During a taped interview with PBS economics reporter Paul Solman, which the outlet aired on Thursday, Krugman was his usual pathetic, self-centered self throughout.

Incidentally, the former New York Time columnist has been on a years’-long crusade to find a social media app that would take down Elon Musk’s X (formerly, Twitter), and has insisted for years that President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election win over Democrat Hillary Clinton was “rigged.”

Solman kicked off the festivities.

For just short of 25 years, Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman was a New York Times columnist. He began the column in the Clinton years. Krugman left The Times just before Donald Trump was inaugurated. I asked him what has changed in 25 years.

Krugman said that back in the day, he was “extremely optimistic.” But today? (emphasis, mine)

When I began writing the column, people were extremely optimistic. I was hired basically to talk about all the good news and maybe funny stuff that was happening in this glorious late 1990s economic boom. And it’s been a very troubled world since then.

[…]

Most voters have very little idea of policy. I mean, you look at the polling, ask people, do you approve of Obamacare, and it’s still pretty negative. And you ask, do you approve of the Affordable Care Act, and it’s very positive. So that’s telling you something about what voters understand about policy.

I’m unaware that most voters see the Affordable Care Act very positively, but let’s move on—with Krugman continuing to, let’s call it, “twist the truth”:

Continue reading “”

“Imagine filing lawsuit against Glock, getting five paragraphs in, and admitting you fundamentally don’t understand how the gun even works.”

Imagine filing lawsuit against Glock, getting five paragraphs in, and admitting you fundamentally don’t understand how the gun even works.

Holding down the trigger bar will cause a dead trigger – not fire the gun repeatedly. Embarrassing.

Image

Fundamental misunderstanding continues. The G18 achieves auto fire differently than a G17 with a switch does. The trigger bar isn’t “held down” in either case, though.

If holding down the trigger bar is all that was required, you wouldn’t need a switch at all.Image

The G46 has the same dastardly trigger bar that works in the same dastardly way. Making a switch for a G46 wouldn’t be fundamentally different than making one for a G17. But don’t worry, New Jersey says the G46 is cool.Image
Image
This is so unbelievably dumb. Mind numbingly so.Image
Me whenever I don’t know how springs work. Me when I’m the master of Glock knowing. Me when I’m a lawyer getting paid to lawsuit and I just make stuff up.Image
If “remaining lowered” is all that it took, why don’t Glocks go full auto if you assemble them without the trigger bar at all? Permanently lowered if it isn’t installed. Shutting the slide should rip the whole mag, right?Image

Ketanji Brown Jackson Vs. Sonia Sotomayor: Who’s Dumber?

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a pivotal case addressing state restrictions on controversial medical interventions, including puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors with gender confusion. At the heart of the case is a Tennessee law banning these procedures for children, with the court’s decision likely to have far-reaching consequences. Will our country protect children from these barbaric and irreversible procedures or not?

As I previously reported, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson humiliated herself when she bizarrely tried to equate banning transgender procedures for minors with prohibiting interracial marriage. She began with a convoluted statement: “Being drawn by the statute that was sort of like the starting point, the question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races and it wasn’t necessarily invidious or whatever.”

It got worse from there.

“But you know, as I read … the case here, the court starts off by saying that Virginia is now one of 16 states which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications.” While it was clear that she intended to invoke historical racial discrimination, the connection to the case at hand was tenuous at best.

The real stretch came when she concluded, “And when you look at the structure of that law, it looks in terms of you can’t do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics. It’s sort of the same thing.”

The suggestion that anyone could somehow liken laws protecting minors from irreversible and harmful gender procedures to bans on interracial marriage is downright absurd. Jackson’s argument hinged on a confusing assertion that both types of laws were based on “inconsistency” with one’s “characteristics,” a comparison that is frankly laughable and dumb.

But she wasn’t the only left-wing justice on the court to make a dumb argument.

While speaking before the court, Tennessee’s Solicitor General asked, “How many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits?”

And that’s when Justice Sonia Sotomayor promptly jumped in.

“I’m sorry, Counselor,” she said, interrupting him. “Every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin, there is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that’s going to suffer a harm.”

That’s right. Sotomayor, the so-called “wise Latina,” compared cutting off the healthy breasts and genitals of minors to taking aspirin.
Which justice made the dumber argument? Jackson bizarrely compared Tennessee’s ban on gender procedures for minors to bans on interracial marriage, claiming that both involve “inconsistency” with inherent characteristics. The analogy was a spectacular failure as protecting minors from irreversible harm has nothing to do with racial discrimination.

Meanwhile, Sotomayor trivialized the issue by likening the risks of permanent, life-altering surgeries on minors to those of taking aspirin. This flippant dismissal of the severe, irreversible consequences of such procedures demonstrates a shocking lack of seriousness.

Both arguments are embarrassingly absurd, making it difficult to determine which is more moronic. One thing is for sure: both are an embarrassment to the court.