The Clock Strikes Thirteen
And the Establishment gets washed away by a preference cascade. But it was a damn close-run thing.

What happened? It’s like a spell broke. Since November’s election (re-election?) of President Donald Trump, the woke is going away, and all sorts of problems are resolving themselves. But why?

There are several reasons, but basically, it’s a preference cascade.

In law we talk about the proverbial thirteenth chime of the clock, which is not only wrong in itself, but which calls into question everything that has come before. Most of our institutions have been chiming thirteen for quite a while, and people have noticed.

But it’s not enough to notice. Soviet citizens knew their system was founded on lies, too, but the system kept them isolated, unaware that so many of their fellow citizens felt the same way, and unable to come together to act.

This technique, used by totalitarians of all sorts, is called “preference falsification,” in which people are forced to profess belief in things that they know not to be true. If the powers that be are good at it, virtually every citizen can hate them and want them out, but no one will do anything because every citizen who feels that way thinks they’re the only one, or one of a tiny number.

In his classic book, Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification, economist Timur Kuran notes how governments, and social movements, do their best to enforce this sort of ideological uniformity. People tend to hide unpopular views to avoid ostracism or punishment; they stop hiding them when they feel safe.

This can produce rapid change: In totalitarian societies like the old Soviet Union, the police and propaganda organizations do their best to enforce preference falsification. Such regimes have little legitimacy, but they spend a lot of effort making sure that citizens don’t realize the extent to which their fellow-citizens dislike the regime. This works until something breaks the spell and the discontented realize that their feelings are widely shared, at which point the collapse of the regime may seem very sudden to outside observers — or even to the citizens themselves. Kuran calls this sudden change a “preference cascade,” and I believe that’s what’s happening here.

In America, the left spent years bullying people into accepting “woke” ideas on race, gender, and politics. There’s considerable reason to believe that a majority of Americans never accepted these ideas, but between constant media repetition, and the risk of being mobbed and canceled if you disagreed with them, most people for years were afraid to stand up.

But two things put a stop to that. One was Donald Trump’s election. The other – and the two are related – was Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, now X, which is now a free-speech platform with roughly equal representation of Democrats and Republicans. Both had the effect of blowing up the lefty bubble and letting people realize that they, not the woke, were the actual majority.

Continue reading “”

It means;
1 ‘You can’t stop the signal’
2 Gun control has been dead for years, but the moron wanna-be gun grabbers haven’t yet gotten to the ‘acceptance’ stage of grief.

What Would It Mean if CEO Killer’s Suppressor Was 3D Printed?

In the early days after UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s murder, there was a lot of speculation as to what exactly the killer used. With the arrest of Luigi Magione, though, many of them have been answered. We know that Magione was in possession of a 3D-printed handgun and he had a suppressor.

However, what we’re not seeing in most of these reports is just where the suppressor came from.

I’ve reached out to the NYPD for answers, though they haven’t responded by the time this particular piece has gone live. In fairness to them, I sent that email early this morning before most decent people were awake.

What’s interesting, though, are a lot of reports that this was like a 3D-printed suppressor.

‘I can confirm it is a 3D-printed gun,’ Print Shoot Repeat, who runs the YouTube channel PSR, said. ‘What are the odds it was a 3D-printed suppressor? Well, I think kind of high honestly.’

He explained that a 3D printer suppressor is ‘super light,’ but does not allow the slide the cycle properly.

The shooter of Thompson experienced a similar issue during the murder when he shot and had to recycle the slide to take another shot.

However, another gun expert with more than 30 years of training told Dailymail.com that most guns with a suppressor will behave that way.

‘There are different causes for jamming,’ the expert, who spoke on anonymity, said.

‘Sometimes the ammunition is poor sometimes the firearm is dirty, it’s not maintained. The ammunition is a poor grade. It doesn’t matter what kind of gun it is.

So yeah, there’s debate.

What we don’t have are answers.

3D-printing a suppressor fits what we know about the killer. We know he printed the receiver for his gun–my speculation has been that he knew all the media reporting on “gun tracing” but didn’t understand what that meant, so he wanted to avoid being identified quickly or easily–and that suppressors are more tightly controlled than firearms are. It’s very likely he did print his suppressor.

That brings up all kinds of possibilities and probabilities that a lot of gun control activists aren’t going to like.

First, again, suppressors are tightly controlled. There aren’t “suppressor kits” marketed throughout the internet where you guy buy a kit, print some key parts, and you legally have a suppressor. It doesn’t work like that. One could argue that there are kits available, but they’re not marketed as such and I have yet to find one that requires a 3D-printed part to work.

So that brings us to the idea that the whole thing was 3D printed.

No laws on the books allow just anyone to print themselves a suppressor.

“Yeah, but the files are all over the internet, most likely.”

Sure. However, there’s a problem with that argument. See, while possession of those files might not be illegal, having them on the internet likely is.

The gun files you can find on the internet are generally only there because the State Department has decided that they don’t violate the International Traffic in Arms Regulations or ITAR. That basically says that weapons and weapons technology can’t be exported without federal approval. That includes technical data.

On Monday, a State Department spokesperson confirmed to Bearing Arms that the U.S. Munitions List in Category I does, in fact, include suppressors and the technical data required to make them.

In other words, those files shouldn’t lawfully be on the internet in the first place.

While the State Department wouldn’t comment on any potential investigation, this still blows all the “we should ban ‘ghost guns'” rhetoric out of the water.

In no way are suppressors lawfully produced, and yet Magione allegedly produced one. If such a tightly controlled item can be produced from tightly controlled information, then just how does anyone really think they can stop guns from being made?

Yes, Magione reportedly used a kit, but we’ve covered the FGC-9, which doesn’t require any kits, just parts from the hardware store.

The truth of the matter is that just the possibility that Thompson’s killer used a 3D-printed suppressor illustrates that gun control isn’t a winning strategy. You’re never going to keep things out of the hands of people who want them badly enough. They’ll find a way.

While everyone is going nuts about the gun itself, the suppressor is the bigger issue, which is why no one wants to talk about it.

“If I’m gonna be lost in space for that long, I need a talking robot. And maybe June Lockhart or Marta Kristen.”

Stranded Boeing Starliner astronauts face new delay in return to Earth from ISS.

Dec. 17 (UPI) — Two Boeing Starliner astronauts, stranded at the International Space Station in June after what was supposed to be a weeklong test flight, are facing a new delay in their return trip to Earth, NASA revealed Tuesday.

Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore had been scheduled to return on a SpaceX Dragon flight in February, after they were forced to abandon Starliner due to helium leaks and thruster issues. The pair will now return to Earth no earlier than late March, 10 months after they originally launched, as they wait for their replacements to arrive at the ISS.

“NASA’s SpaceX Crew-10 now is targeting no earlier than late March 2025 to launch four crew members to the space station,” NASA wrote Tuesday in a post on X.

“The change gives NASA and SpaceX time to complete processing on a new Dragon spacecraft for the mission, set to arrive in early January.”

Continue reading “”

… ‘the people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained, and established by ‘the people of the U.S.’ The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms ….
– Supreme Court of the U.S., U.S. v. Uerdugo-Uriquidez (1990).

NBC Falsely Claims Magazine Disconnects Increase Safety

Around 11 people are killed each year because their handguns lacked a magazine disconnect, according to a massive 4,600-word special report by NBC News, which was released Friday.

The story’s title tells you all you need to know about the content: “A simple device could help curb accidental gun deaths, but most firearms don’t have it.”

“Since 2000, at least 277 people have been killed in gun accidents in which the shooter believed the weapon was unloaded because the magazine had been dislodged or removed, an NBC News investigation found. That total – based on federal data collected from states, as well as media reports, lawsuits and public records – is likely a significant undercount since many states only recently began reporting their data, and information on the cases may be incomplete. NBC News found 41 cases that weren’t captured in the data,” the story claims.

Most of the story focuses on those allegedly killed by a handgun that was improperly used – pointed at an innocent person and the trigger pulled.

Continue reading “”

Brooklyn DA Declines to Prosecute Bus Driver in Self-Defense Case

The Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office has decided not to pursue charges against Ian Bascombe, a 58-year-old MTA bus driver, following a violent altercation aboard a Brooklyn bus, Dec. 13. This decision comes in the wake of the recent acquittal of Daniel Penny, a former Marine, in a widely publicized subway choking case that should’ve never been brought to trial, but proved even New York City juries can recognize people have a right to defend themselves.

Bascombe was initially arrested on charges of assault and weapon possession after stabbing Quentin Branch, 33, in the head and leg during the altercation. Branch, who was taken to the hospital in stable condition, also faces charges of assault and harassment stemming from the incident.

Oren Yaniv, a spokesperson for the Brooklyn DA’s office, confirmed Sunday that Bascombe’s case would not be prosecuted. While the DA’s office did not explicitly cite the Penny case as a factor in its decision, Penny’s acquittal is undoubtedly on the front of the minds of every New York prosecuting attorney. They know if they bring such charges, their case will be far from easily winnable.

The altercation reportedly began when Branch harassed and spat on Bascombe, escalating to physical violence. Video evidence supported Bascombe’s claim of self-defense, according to Transit Workers Union representative JP Patafio.

“This guy was just harassing and haranguing the operator and spitting in the operator’s face,” Patafio told the Gothamist. “When the operator got up, he started punching him and really going after him hard and the operator defended himself.”

Frank Annicaro, senior vice president of the New York City Transit Department of Buses and MTA Bus Company, condemned the violence, stating, “Violence on buses puts New Yorkers at risk and is not acceptable.” Bascombe has been suspended pending an internal review

Psychiatrist Says America Must ‘Dismantle the Cult of the Gun’

I’m often bemused when academics write about gun owners as if we’re some exotic species to be investigated and examined to see what makes us tick, as opposed to their friends, family members, and co-workers.

Dr. Tamir Rahman, an associate professor of psychiatry at Washington University is the latest to channel his inner Jane Goodall and unleash it on American gun owners. In a new piece at Psychology Today, Rahman says it’s time to shift our relationship with firearms.

America’s relationship with firearms has mutated into a paradox. What began as a practical right tied to hunting and self-defense has metastasized into a near-religious reverence, transforming firearms into sacred objects. For many, guns are no longer tools—they are symbols of identity, power, and defiance. While this cultural fixation has fostered community among gun owners, it has also exacerbated the nation’s inability to address the epidemic of gun violence. Reimagining this relationship is not merely an ideal—it is a necessity.

In contemporary America, guns are more than objects. They are badges of liberty, resistance, and power. This shift has been fueled by political rhetoric, cultural narratives, and media representation. For many, owning a firearm is a declaration of values, a statement that screams: “I am free. I am powerful.”

Rahman claims that in order to “address its gun violence epidemic”, the U.S. “must dismantle the cult of the gun”; reframing firearms from symbols of power to tools of responsibility. Rahman offers several suggestions on how to make that happen.

1. Empowering Parents, Educators, and Schools

Parents, educators, and schools are at the forefront of shaping how future generations perceive firearms. Instead of shunning discussions about guns, schools can foster informed and responsible attitudes by integrating firearm education into the curriculum. This approach does not advocate normalization but instead focuses on demystification and accountability.

Why not advocate normalization? After all, as sociologist and gun owner David Yamane says, gun ownership is normal and normal people own guns. Demystifying guns is important, and there’s nothing objectionable about Rahman’s call to integrate firearm education into the curriculum, so long as its not aimed at making gun ownership and responsible gun use taboo.

2. Bridging the Polarization Through Shared Values

The polarizing debate over gun ownership often pits gun rights against gun control, creating an impasse. However, addressing the extreme overvalued beliefs surrounding firearms can provide common ground. Both sides can unite around shared values: responsibility, safety, and the prevention of violence.

Can we really, though? The gun control lobby’s foundational premise is that guns are bad, fewer guns are good, and criminalizing basic aspects of our Second Amendment rights is beneficial to society.

In theory Rahman is right that both sides should be able to come together on policies and practices that don’t involve putting new gun laws on the books, but so long as gun control groups view firearms themselves as a problem that needs to be solved I don’t think there’s much common ground to be found.

Rahman is guilty of that himself. Even when he discounts the push for gun bans, he does so in a way that’s not going to draw much support from gun owners and Second Amendment advocates.

While discussions about banning firearms often arise, such measures alone are not conducive to changing America’s deeply ingrained gun culture. Prohibition risks intensifying polarization and deepening the symbolic power of firearms as emblems of resistance. Instead, the focus should shift toward reshaping attitudes through education, accountability, and responsible ownership.

Fostering a culture that values the ethical use of firearms over their glorification addresses gun violence without alienating lawful owners. This collective action acknowledges complexity, cultivating respect and responsibility to transform perspectives sustainably.

Yes, prohibition intensifies polarization and helps to turn firearms into “emblems of resistance”. Rahman, however, fails to address why that is: banning guns is an abhorrent violation of a fundamental civil right that should be resisted.

Rahman seems very invested in the idea of changing the attitudes of gun owners, but he should be equally or more concerned about changing the mindset of anti-gun activists. I’m not convinced that there’s a “cult of the gun” in the United States, but I know there’s a cult of the gun prohibitionists, and any effort to shift the American relationship with firearms has to start with those trying to eradicate that relationship altogether.

Unsurprisingly……..