Category: Crap For Brains

TPTB have always been scared to the point they wet themselves that the peons possess the means to eliminate them from the equation.
It became even more scarier when reliable weaponry that can either smite from a distance, or be easily carried and concealed, was developed.
We’re going to see if this still holds basically true, or if our Supreme Justices can override the goobermint’s  fear that those in power can be help to ultimate consequences.

Perhaps the Most Concerning Comment on Vanderstock

The ATF’s rules on so-called ghost guns don’t actually stop bad guys from making their own guns. Still, those rules exist.

At least, they exist until after the Supreme Court rules on Vanderstock v. Garland.

As we’ve noted previously, though, the odds don’t look good for pro-gun folks. It seems the Court had at least some interest in keeping the rules in place, which is troubling because it seems pretty clear to me that the ATF overstepped.

However, there was one comment that bothered me more than just about anything else I saw come out of the arguments.

“Drilling a hole or two, I would think, doesn’t give the same sort of reward that you get from working on your car on the weekends… My understanding is that it’s not terribly difficult for someone to do this,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

While it’s easy to ridicule the Chief Justice for this misguided statement, it’s important to consider his sources for the hyperbole, the ATF and the Biden administration.

“Drilling a hole or two” is a demonstrably dishonest take on the process, and I would have particularly enjoyed seeing a kit laid out in front of the Justices for a hands-on show of how “not terribly difficult” it is.

This would have been good for a few laughs.

Representing manufacturers and groups opposing the rule, Peter Patterson pointed out that building the kits is far more complicated than the administration has suggested, however, Patterson wisely remained grounded in his argument, staying with the facts and nature of the litigation, which had nothing to do with how easy or difficult a kit is to build, and everything to do with the ATF overstepping its authority.

Since the conclusion of the day’s oral arguments, the mainstream media has touted the Supreme Court’s disposition during the hearing as signaling a tendency towards the ATF and Biden administration’s arguments regarding lack of manufacturing difficulty and the potential for prohibited individuals to purchase kits and build them at home for criminal intent.

I will point out, however unnecessarily, that violent crime has been around long before 80% receiver kits, and violent criminals have never had an issue arming themselves, sometimes aided by our own government. Just ask Barack Obama and Eric Holder about Operation Fast and Furious.

All of that is absolutely true, of course. It’s a good deal more complicated than just drilling a couple of holes and calling it good, which is why the ATF’s argument regarding how “readily” it can be turned into a firearm is wrong and should be overturned.

But I’m bothered by Roberts’s statement about how it does give “the same sort of reward” that one might get from working on their car.

I wasn’t aware that was the legal threshold for our rights, whether or not a judge finds it satisfying.

Especially when I don’t find working on my car particularly rewarding. If I’m working on my car, it’s because something isn’t right and I can’t afford to take it to a mechanic. Since that’s what my son does for a living now, that’s rare, but that’s how it’s been in the past. For me, it was a task that needed to be accomplished, not something I found enjoyment in.

That’s kind of how hobbies work, though. Some people are really into DIY projects like renovating their bathroom. Others do it because they need the bathroom fixed and can’t afford to hire someone. The first group is the amateurs in the original sense of the word–those who do something for the love of it–while the others aren’t necessarily finding any sense of reward, necessarily.

Some people get a charge out of collecting stamps while others only buy them now to pay bills that don’t have an online presence for whatever reason.

Yet Roberts’s comment, while possibly meaningless, suggests that the justice might well consider whether they see this as a real hobby or not, and if they don’t because they, personally, don’t see anything fun in making one’s own firearms, we have a big problem.

“…’tis Devoutly to be wish’d.”

Did Kamala Just Implode Her Campaign With Another Disastrous Interview?

After reading the tea leaves, the Harris-Walz campaign discovered that it was a problem that Kamala wasn’t doing interviews, and so they basically decided to put her out there and hope for the best.

Well, it’s not going well, and I can’t help but wonder if this is why Trump’s been seeing momentum in recent polling. Frankly, I expect more movement in Trump’s direction after her latest interview on Wednesday with Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC.

Seriously, this interview showed us (again) why Kamala was not the candidate that Democrats genuinely wanted to run after Joe Biden dropped out.

Ruhle pointed out that “prices are still high,” to which Kamala responded, “Yeah, I agree with you.”

When Ruhle pressed her on how she planned to combat price gouging without resorting to price controls, which could raise concerns about her principles, Kamala sidestepped the question entirely. Instead of providing a clear answer, she declared, “I am never gonna apologize for going after companies and corporations that take advantage of the desperation of the American people.”

This response was vague and failed to address Ruhle’s legitimate concerns. Kamala cited her experience as attorney general, alleging that a few companies exploit emergencies to jack up prices, but offered no evidence to support her claims or clarify her stance. “Yes, I’m going to go after them,” she reiterated, but her lack of specificity left viewers questioning the effectiveness of her plan to reduce living costs, including housing and daily necessities.

My favorite word salad of the evening was Kamala showing off what she learned from her Word-of-the-Day calendar. Check it out:

Some of the work is gonna be through what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance to state local governments around transit dollars and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing and looking holistically at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people.

In case you weren’t keeping track, that was three uses of the word “holistic” in about 15 seconds.

When asked about how she’s going pay for her plans, Kamala simply choked.

“Expanding that child tax credit, or you mentioned housing before, giving that extra money for a first home. If you can’t raise corporate taxes or if GOP takes control of the Senate, where do you get the money to do that? Do you still go forward with those plans and borrow?” Ruhle asked.

“Well, but we’re gonna have to raise corporate taxes,” Kamala replied. “And we’re gonna have to raise—we’re gonna have to make sure that the biggest corporations and billionaires pay their fair share. That’s just it. It’s about paying their fair share.”

In true Kamala style, that wasn’t an answer to the question. Instead, we got meaningless talking points and a hope that she’ll have a willing Congress that will enact her agenda. She clearly had no idea how to answer the question. In fact, her answer was so bad that Ruhle herself panned it after the interview aired.

“She doesn’t answer the question around—if the GOP is controlling the Senate if she can’t raise corporate taxes, where is she going to get the money from?” Ruhle said. “You know to expand the child tax credit and do all the things she wants to do. And she says, ‘We just have to do it.’ And that’s great and that’s a campaign promise, but-but-but the issue is, if it means we’re just gonna borrow again, then what we’re doing is we’re just never addressing the deficit.”

It’s amazing to think that the Harris-Walz campaign thinks her doing these interviews is a net-positive compared to the radio silence we were getting before. She’s not helping herself with these interviews at all, and when Ruhle couldn’t even deny that she wasn’t answering the questions, that’s just… bad..

Rapid Fire Republic
the one thing we must admit is impressive is the social conditioning they’ve been indoctrinated with. They’ve gone from being people to being remote control husks with a series of pre-programmed emotional responses set on a myriad of hair triggers. Effectively turning them into an emotionally unstable hive-mind that can be activated like a drone army. Their rationality, critical thinking, consideration, logic, and even humanity have been replaced with auto-responses of extremist anger and condemnation for anything that dares poke their bubble.

I can’t say whether or not this Miguel De La Torre is a Christian or not, as that is the purview of God. But, I can say that he’s stuck in the dark ages where the superstition that a thing, an inanimate object has moral agency and somehow has the power to exert influence over a human mind and is what we actually reject.  This mental malady supposedly died out during the renaissance, but apparently has lingered on in the minds of the ignorant or those with a covert political agenda.

Christian Website Writer Claims Guns Cause Sin of Shooting People

Guns don’t cause crime.

I think if most people are being honest, they’ll acknowledge this fact. It might not change their views on gun control, granted, as they’ll likely rationalize it as being really about disarming the criminals or something of that sort, but they’ll acknowledge that guns aren’t causing anything. They’ll just say it’s making the issue worse.

Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is probably someone who should reside in a padded room because it sounds like inanimate objects are talking to them or something.

Normally, though, I tend to not get that worked up by anyone making the claim that guns are the problem no matter how they frame it. I disagree and will often write about my disagreement, but it’s hard to be outraged at something you actively seek out every day.

I tell you that so you understand that when I say that this made me livid, you’ll understand how rare that is.

I won’t repeat the statistics showing that the number of mass shootings in the U.S. in one year exceeds the total of all countries combined for multiple years. Facts make no difference when combating the Second Amendment ideology.

We choose not to change because we confuse our savagery with civilization. We choose not to change because we reject Christianity and other love-based faith traditions.

A foundational principle of Christianity is to put the needs of others before the self. In the first letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul writes, “Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall” (8:13, NIV).

The right to consume this gun culture is not only causing others to sin by killing the innocent but advancing the opposing message to life found in the gospel–death.

We reject Christianity and other “love-based faith traditions,” do we?

Well…let me just say that there are certain words I’m not allowed to use on this site. They’re the same words you can’t use on network TV, and for pretty much the same reasons.

Right about now, I want to use all of them.

I reject Christianity because I won’t give up my guns?

Then explain Luke 22:36:

Then He said to them, ‘But now, he who has a money belt is to take it along, and also his provision bag, and he who has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one”

That was Christ telling the Disciples to arm themselves.

I’ll admit not everyone shares my understanding of this passage, but that doesn’t negate its existence.

Further, let’s talk about his comments on Paul, followed by his claim, “The right to consume this gun culture is not only causing others to sin by killing the innocent,,,” for a moment.

Now, Paul is talking about a specific situation that, in my understanding, is hypothetical. If something I do causes others to sin, I should stop doing that thing. Yet the author claims guns are causing people to kill folks.

That’s ridiculous.

Guns are a tool, but the actions are still the willful acts of people. Guns cause nothing on their own because they’re incapable of causing anything on their own. All they could potentially cause is displacing air. As such, this claim that guns are sinful because they cause people to sin is asinine.

I don’t pretend to be the best Christian out there, but I’m genuinely troubled by the onslaught of anti-gun Christians running around trying to pretend they’re the true believers, ignoring anything to the contrary, and now seemingly claim that guns, by their very existence, make people kill.

They’re guns, not cursed objects capable of exerting a will all their own on the possessor.

Meanwhile, people like the writer are those who seek to pervert God’s word to fulfill their own earthly agenda. Talk about sinful.

So what else is new?

Harris Might Own A Gun, But She Doesn’t Represent Gun Owners

Vice President Kamala Harris shocked a lot of people when she said she owned a gun during the debate last week.

Well, in the most technical sense, sure.

However, that doesn’t absolve her from her many anti-gun sins, so to speak.

ABC News debate moderator Linsey Davis referenced the vice president’s flip-flopping on mandatory gun buybacks, which amount to confiscation, during one question that was more about changing policy positions generally than it was about the Second Amendment specifically.

Near the end of the debate, Davis asked, “You wanted mandatory buybacks for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don’t,” Davis said before asking Harris why so many of her policy positions had changed, according to The Reload.

Vice President Harris didn’t address the question and was only forced to respond later to a criticism by former President Donald Trump warning voters that if elected, the vice president would have “a plan to confiscate everyone’s gun.” She jumped in with a comment that caught viewers’ attention.

“And then this business about taking everyone’s guns away, Tim Walz and I are both gun owners,” Vice President Harris stated. “We’re not taking anyone’s guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.”

The vice president’s remark about being a gun owner drew attention. She practically never mentions being a gun owner in all her calls for more gun control and the only reference before is a glancing mention in a 2019 CNN interview. Not surprisingly, Second Amendment supporters were skeptical of her statement.

“So now Harris owns a gun? Ha, I’d love to know what kind/caliber and how often she trains with it,” competitive shooter, GunsOut TV founder and CNN commentator Shermichael Singleton posted on X.

Now, the truth is that there were previous reports of Harris owning a gun. As a former prosecutor in a city like San Francisco, it’s not overly surprising that she’d have a gun. A lot of prosecutors do, and for what should be pretty obvious reasons. It’s not like there isn’t some potential of such people to be targets, after all.

But there are gun owners and gun owners.

See, no nation has a complete and total gun ban. There’s always a way for some people to have a firearm and Kamala Harris is one of those people who will be able to get a gun no matter what the laws are.

What she’s advocating for are laws that will inhibit regular people, the actual gun owners, from having them. Both she and her running mate might own guns, but they’d gladly see us relegated to revolvers and pump-action shotguns for protecting our family while the criminals are running around with semi-autos and those converted to full-auto.

As for her response to Trump, she might not be taking everyone’s guns, but she most definitely wants to take some of them from us. I don’t care what she says, I’m not buying that suddenly she figures a mandatory buyback is a bad idea. At best, she knows it’s never going to happen so she won’t push for it anymore. It’ll come back the moment she thinks she can get away with it and we all know it.

I think the best way to view it is that Kamala Harris isn’t really a gun owner so much as someone who owns a gun.

The latter group figure they’re the exception, that they can be trusted with one but aren’t so sure about everyone else, so they should be restricted. The former recognizes that in order to protect their right to keep and bear arms, everyone else’s needs to be protected as well.

There’s no world I can imagine where anyone remotely like the Kamala Harris we’ve all seen would fall into that camp.

Federal Judge Upholds Gun Ban: What This Means for the 2nd Amendment

In a recent case out of Hawaii, a U.S. District Court has upheld a federal gun ban, denying a motion to dismiss the indictment of Christopher Chan, who was charged with unlawfully possessing a machine gun and a short-barreled rifle. Judge Derek Watson, appointed by President Obama, ruled that these types of firearms are not protected under the Second Amendment. While the court’s decision isn’t surprising, given the political landscape in Hawaii, it raises critical issues about how the Second Amendment is being interpreted today.

The Case: U.S. v. Christopher Chan

The case stems from an incident where Christopher Chan was found in possession of a short-barreled rifle and a machine gun. These are firearms that, under the National Firearms Act (NFA), must be registered, and in this case, they weren’t. Chan’s legal team argued that the charges violated his Second Amendment rights, asserting that these firearms are “arms” protected by the Constitution. They also challenged the Commerce Clause, arguing that Congress didn’t have the authority to regulate the possession of these firearms.

However, Judge Watson’s decision struck down both arguments, claiming that neither the short-barreled rifle nor the machine gun falls within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection. This ruling is significant because it highlights the ongoing tension between federal gun laws and the constitutional right to bear arms.

Continue reading “”