Thursday, June 30, 2016

- Found "NEAR" A Mosque

A German Swat Team found a cache of weapons "NEAR" a Mosque. That's Liberal News Speak for "In the Mosque Basement" or maybe it's "in the building adjacent and connected to" a mosque. but I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Mosque itself.

In the photo you'll see a number of fully automatic AK variants (which are all but totally illegal for civilians here in America) and several hand held recoil-less weapons. I'm not up on my mid-weight armament identification, but they look to me like a variant of the disposable RPG-27 anti-tank weapon. Tell me... do you need a background check to buy those under current law? What about if you get them at a gun show? Maybe I had better call the NYTimes editorial department and ask them.

Germany has extremely tight restrictions of civilian firearms. Much more than we do here. I don't know for certain, but cold war era anti-tank weapons are probably off limits too. And in case you don't know, just because they call it an anti-tank weapon doesn't mean it only shoots at tanks. It will shoot at schools, or ambulances, or police cars, parliamentary buildings just as effectively as an armored vehicle. And yet, no doubt with the help of the hundreds of thousands of young Muslim "refugees" that Germany has imported, they have arrived in Germany for civilian use all the same.

I'm pretty sure the NRA is opposed to those things being handed out willy nilly. So here I am. Honest, loyal, perfectly law abiding citizen who is interested only in protecting himself and others, but I need to leave my legally purchased firearms in a safe outside the city, and Muhammad Al-Kaboom (to rip one off from Kevin Williamson) can have anti-tank weapons. How's that work?

The position of the Democratic party on Muslim immigration is suicide.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

- My Life As A Gun Safety Nazi

My friends who are firearm novices tend to make fun of me for how intensely safety conscious I am. As a joke, one friend of mine, on the way to the range to meet me, called ahead and asked what kind of beer he should bring. Though most people agreed with me in principle, my response to him has gotten many laughs in our circle of friends because of it's intensity. It went something like "Woah hey!!! Are you out of your F***ing mind?!! This is NJ - they HATE guns here!!! Do not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES bring beer anywhere near this place!!!"

I'd use a bigger font to better match my voice at the time, but I think you get the idea.

When it comes to gun safety, small things are big things. The rules for safe firearms handling are actually quite easy, but none of them can be skipped. I've followed the rules religiously all my life, and I've never had an accident. I've even taken it to the point of never pointing my firearm at anything when partially disassembled. But not all of my friends have been quite so disciplined about it.

I remember one particularly instructive incident. A good friend (and frequent reader of this blog) was standing at position 7 on the skeet field ready to shoot when he lowered his gun from his shoulder to ask me a question. When he did, he left his finger on the trigger, and the twist and position of his hand depressed it. To his shock and horror the 'high house' was unexpectedly peppered with number 8 shot. Luckily the gun was pointed in a safe direction so no one was hurt, but an important lesson was definitely learned. I've shot and hunted with him many times since, and he's never made anything like that mistake again.

There is a big difference between 100% and 99% when guns are involved, and that 1% difference can kill someone. There is no room for error. You have to get it right every single time. Not most of the time. Not part of the time. All of the time. No exceptions. If you aren't the kind of person who can learn that religion without having to make a mistake first, then maybe you shouldn't spend too much time around firearms. Which brings me to this article. Not the content. John Lott is unindictable when it comes to gun rights. But the presentation.

Conservative websites have a habit of using gun photos as headers for their articles. Naturally I think this is great. I love gun porn as much as the next guy and have spent some time recently checking out Glock 30S's with RMR's mounted on them. But websites do have a habit of showing actors and models breaking the cardinal rules of firearms handling. The one linked above has a finger on a trigger, and is breaking a major rule that if repeated over time, will leave the model castrated, or worse.

I have no doubt that the gun is unloaded, checked safe, and might not even be a real gun. But none of that changes the rules. OK, it's a small issue I grant you. I doubt the photo on an NRO article is a guide for anyone on safe firearms handling. But as my buddy learned, when it comes to firearms safety there is quite literally no room for error. In the comments section of that piece there are dozens of people complaining about that photo and with good reason in my opinion. We on the right are supposed to be the grownups in the room. Let's not provide the kids any bad examples.

Call me a safety Nazi. Fine. Call me a tyrant and an asshole for making such an issue of it. Fine. But if you listen to me and the people who see this admittedly small issue just like me, then you should be around for a long time to call me all sorts of bad things. And if you don't follow the safety rules 100% of the time, that may turn out to not be the case. Better to be certain than in doubt.

Monday, June 27, 2016

- Gun Guy Problems

So I’m going through the process of getting a "residence permit” for a pistol in NYC. This is not a CCR, which in NYC is reserved for people with a lot more clout than me. It's just a range permit that lets me store my gun in the house. Of course - if things get out of hand as they are increasingly likely to do, then there are options. but for the most part all I'll be doing is going back and forth to the west side gun club, transporting it unloaded and locked and storing it at home.

The process itself starts with hiring a lawyer, and after that all you really have to do is write a bunch of mid-sized checks. It’s too complicated to bother describing in more detail. If you have the resources, the lawyer takes care of everything, and if you don’t… then you probably aren’t getting a permit. It takes a few weeks to put together the necessary documentation and then once you file, the rest of the process takes 6 months, and enough police investigation man hours to solve most homicides. Welcome to liberal paradise.

Now the fun part. The permit also comes with authorization to purchase a (single) firearm, so naturally, I’ve begun the decision making process. It will have to be registered with the police, so it's got to be a new gun that they can confiscate when they feel the urge, rather than one of my other guns imported from their legal 'out of state' location. But this is (of course) the very best of all problems for a ‘gun guy’ to solve. And since I want feedback from the regulars (who I know are terribly reluctant to chime in on something like a new gun purchase) let me tell you where I am with it.

I want a small gun suitable for concealment, but I also want my big honking 45acp. I’ve bought more than enough bulk 45acp in my lifetime to worry about the recoil not at all. This isn’t going to be a ‘relaxing day at the range gun” it will be a “legal to keep in my apartment in case of an emergency” gun. So I want stopping power. I like the small little mini 45 single stacks, which points me at a choice between a Glock 36 and an XDs 45. The XD is smaller, the ergonomics work better for me, and I have had phenomenal luck with a full sized XD9. I just love the gun.

But… I also want something else. And here is the rub. I want to mount a Mini Red Dot Scope on the gun - whichever gun it turns out to be. I fell in love with reflex scopes when I put one on my AK for kicks. I’ve also read a legitimate study where a group of law enforcement majors were given a series of shooting tests using both iron and red dot sights on pistols, and it was found they ALL shot 27% faster and with slightly better accuracy using handguns with Mini Red Dot Scopes, regardless of their shooting skill.

So let’s also talk scopes. I love the Trijicon “dual illuminated” RMR. It has no batteries, just a combination of the Fiberoptic/Tritium illumination that the ACOG uses. Some people complain that it isn’t bright enough in some circumstances with white targets and bright lights, or in low light using a flashlight. But while I’ve never shot with one, I’ve seen them many times in various lighting conditions, and I really don’t think it will be a problem for me. They are also solid enough to pound nails with and have more than proven their reliability in combat mounted atop ACOGs on M4's in the sandbox.

But I can’t find anyone who has put a scope on the XDs – only full sized XD and XDM’s. The problem seems to be that as a tiny little single stack, it’s too thin. I’m not even 100% certain you can fit one on the mini-Glock. At least I've never seen it done. And it isn't specific to the Trijicon RMR. That thing is tiny ans weighs almost nothing. The Glock meanwhile is a full inch longer than the XD but the difference is mostly barrel so it probably isn’t all that much more to conceal. And all the reviews I’ve watched put it on the same ground in all respects with the XDs 45. It comes down to personal preference when comparing the two.

Glock is also a nail pounder in terms of reliability. It’s ugly, and compared to the XD, it’s also kinda fat. But unless you guys have some other suggestions, it’s looking like the way I’m going to have to go. And thanks to the wonderfully efficient and effective respect that the New York City police have for my constitutional rights, I only have 7 months or so to decide.

- On The Abortion Ruling

I know nothing about the law, and am therefore not qualified to comment on this most recent ruling striking down Texas's abortion restrictions. But on society I can comment the same as anyone else, and you take it for what you think it's worth.

If there is a single imperative that is driving the leftist agenda - a P1 principle component so to speak - it is the determination of women to shatter all constraints on their continued sexual profligacy. The women in our society will sacrifice absolutely everything to ensure it. Anything that discourages them from sleeping with whomever they like, whenever they like, utterly without consequences either physical or moral, must be destroyed. They will happily see whole cities reduced to dust and the earth salted afterward, than submit to even the most mild constraints on their sexuality. Reason itself will be turned on it's head if necessary, in the interest of achieving that goal.

The risk of pregnancy has always been foremost among the various concerns regarding female promiscuity. Therefore, according to women, society must be twisted and turned however is necessary in order to eliminate it. That's really all the abortion debate is. It's a debate on making sure women can sleep around as much as they want, for as long as they want. That's it.

Now obviously there are a number of men who will support increased female promiscuity as well - and for obvious reasons. But when women are allowed to sleep with whomever they like, they all end up choosing the same few highly attractive men. Those few men go through a great many women than they otherwise would, and the men who are somewhat less desirable to women, often end up with no one at all. So for all their support of Feminism and the female sexual prerogative, they are really only participating in the destruction of a system which was probably already best for them in the first place. And in the end, it's this female promiscuity initiative and it's long term effects on our culture, and our demographics, which will inevitably destroy the west.

Women are not the same as men. They never will be. And so long as we treat them like they are, the end will be approaching much faster than we think. You cannot speak reason to them about this - they will not have it. So unless we find a way to control them and in the process restore some semblance of monogamy as the most acceptable standard for relationships, all will eventually be lost.

- Game Of Nations

I had too much wine at dinner last night, so my thoughts are all jumbled this morning. I seem to be getting my contemporary politics confused with the Game of Thrones finale.

The way I remember it, Hillary used dragonfire to blow up Bernie Sanders and his unwashed barefoot brethren, taking out a few normal Democrats in the process. Donald Trump locked up his nomination as ‘king in the north’ and his the convention is about to be surrounded by a bunch of unthinking zombies from the other side of the wall. Meanwhile, a huge foreign army of unwashed savages is crossing the ocean all at once to try to start a war, and every eunuch and dwarf in Westeros is already on their side.

There are precious few whole men left in Westeros, only monstrous creatures with male appendages. Since the 'pride' parade took up much of the day yesterday, there were precious few in Manhattan either. And I don't know why I seem to recall Hillary chaining up Monica Lewinsky in the basement of the Whitehouse (blue dress and all) so she can be used and defiled by the creature that used to be Bill Clinton. He may not be what he used to be, but that part of him still seems to work just fine.

On the republican side, after spending the entire Obama administration ignoring the real fight of the left, the knights of National Review have refused to work with the wildlings of the Alt-right, because they believe them to be savages. Maybe some little girl can talk some sense into them, but I can’t see ‘Littlefinger’ Rich Lowry ever being happy about it. And why do I recall Arya Stark doing violent things to George Will?

I don’t know where I got the idea that Angela Merkel was making a deal with the foreign Army to help them overthrow the West, or why I keep hearing the phrase “K├Ânigin der Dornen“ in my head. I don’t even speak German. In fact, for the two stories to become one, all that’s really left is for the sand snakes to decide that their best defense is a sword ban for the general public, and for them to be subsequently raped en masse by Dothrakis at the community pool in the Watergarden.

That was obviously far too much wine for a school night.

German President, "The People are the problem!"


Oi Vey!

Below is evidence that revolutions are at times prudent.  In particular when you are ruled by men such as this:



Friday, June 24, 2016

- A Brexit Note

When they were putting together the Euro, I was working at Moore Capital, Louis Bacon’s pressure cooker for profit generation. Exceptionally smart people went in one door along with a ton of information, and piles of money and the stressed wreckage of what used to be human beings came out the other. Working about 10 feet from me at the time was my long time friend Drew Matus, now the megabrain Senior Economist at UBS. If you’ve been watching Squawk box for a while, you’ve certainly seen him. Smart cookie that Drew.

Anyway, we were doing like everyone else at the time. Working through the complexities of trading derivatives in a brand new currency, which had no actual trading history. There were no rules for it, but eventually the industry settled on a consensus of a GDP adjusted synthetic price history. But the discussions to get there caused a lot of talk about the vices and virtues of such very different cultures all working together as closely as they would be.

Of all 20 or so econo - derivatives guys who were involved in our discussion, only 2 thought the Euro was marked for death the day it was formed. Drew Matus, and myself. So I’d like to give a shout out to my former brother in arms over at UBS. We were right (of course) but as usual, we didn’t know when. We were arguing (at the time) that you couldn't get the Italians and the Germans to think about public finance the same way because of cultural differences, and without it the effort was doomed. We never saw the immigration thing coming, or that the real dichotomy would be between the Brits and Greece. Still ... we were on the mark in principle.

Brexit will add some global friction to trade, and lower GDP’s in the near term. I could see that possibly sending global rates negative, but that's an outlier and not the way to bet. Politically it will also allow both the Euro and the UK to be as stupid as they want to be without the interference of the other. How stupid is that? No idea yet. But most bottom up economic philosophies don’t function nearly as well in practice as they look like they would on paper. You just can’t enrich people from a distance, they can really only enrich themselves. But the UK will now have a chance to pump the brakes regarding Islamic immigration. Whether it will be enough to keep them from going over the cliff is anyone’s guess.

The big winner in last night’s Brexit vote was … Donald Trump. It’s now seen as possible to overturn the globalist power structure, and it wasn’t before. Even what looked like a strategic error for him until very late last night – going to the UK instead of campaigning in Ohio – has turned out to be a complete score for him when sentiment defied the polls and went for exit instead of remain. He’s either some kind of evil genius, or the luckiest man alive. I’d bet on luck.


%%%%%%%%%%UPDATE%%%%%%%%%%
What do the post deconstructionist and enlightened girls over at Slate think of the Brexit vote? According to a young lady by the name of Jordan Weissmann, they think what girls always do about change... they're afraid.





Thursday, June 23, 2016

- A Gun in 15 Minutes or Less

As we all know, to Journalists everything that goes bang is a super deadly assault weapon specifically designed for the express purpose of murdering innocent children during nap time. (What... yours didn't come with the 'nap time' adapter to make it extra deadly?) When I was a NJ resident I was able to buy an AR15, but the permit process took about 100 days. The process in NYC is even more onerous. I can't have an AR15 here at all, and even if I want to buy a shotgun (even one which is specifically designed for my perfectly innocuous hobby of shooting orange clay disks) the process is so prohibitive that I've had to hire a lawyer to get me through it, and he tells me to expect it to take a minimum of 6 months.

To those terrified of guns, this is a good thing. To those of us who are less historically illiterate, it seems a travesty. But the law is the law, and the fact that I care about the law is really the whole point.

Still, I found this just hysterical:

Following the release of a video by CBS claiming that a reporter purchased an AR-15 assault rifle in only 15 minutes, Twitter users created a new meme to ridicule the liberally biased video. The video became extremely popular among liberal media publications who quickly jumped on the story and aggregated it across multiple websites, repeating the standard leftist rhetoric in relation to gun control. Social media users, however, found the story hilarious and began tweeting their own versions.

The pics and twitter links are a riot, and are an accurate reflection of the 'facts' known by 99% of our deeply knowledgeable journalism grads. Thank god we have such a clear thinking cadre of courageous newshounds. Where would we be without their telling insights and carefully gathered facts?

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

- Feminism And "White Privelege"

This is kind of an apology to all the woman haters out there. I get it now. Women can be, and often are, completely horrible. I apologize for not being more sympathetic about it. It’s never really been an issue for me personally. But since my divorce and my engagement in the manosphere, I’ve been learning about what a curse it is to be an average guy in the American dating market. I hate to divulge my own guilelessness, but the fact is, it never occurred to me how good I had it.

I’ve described myself so many times here that I don’t see the need to bother again. It should suffice to say that in many ways I’m ‘above average’ in attractiveness to women. So much so that 2 weeks ago I got cold approached in a restaurant by two modestly attractive young girls who obviously wanted to go home with my friend and I, but until they contrived a reason to talk to me I hadn’t noticed them. It happened to me again in a shop on Sullivan Street this past weekend (this time from a very cute young girl – a solid 9). She was closer to my daughter’s age than my own, and I didn’t take her seriously.

When I look back though, it’s always been this way with me. I know this seems like shameless bragging but it isn’t. I’m just trying to give some perspective on a guy who totally unbeknownst to himself, always had things exceptionally easy in a game that for most people really isn’t so easy at all.

The truth is, I have never had to try very hard with women and even now, fairly deep into middle age, I still don’t have to. That ease and almost complete lack of rejection is what’s defined my general attitude toward women. Feminists may call me a misogynist all the time, but I don’t hate women. I adore women. And the vast majority of them have always adored me back. But having never been on the receiving end of women’s cruelty and betrayal, its left me with a very different view than most. I’ve seen that now more clearly in the stories of others, and I’m beginning to realize what it’s like for most men.

It’s also pretty deeply affected my perspective with other men. On the northwest corner of 41st street and Lexington Avenue is an excellent pizzeria where I often have lunch. It’s owned by an affable blue collar Irish American guy from Long Island, but his workers are almost exclusively Mexican. These guys are all legal residents, all speak accented English, and work like nothing you’ve ever seen. I don’t know if they like it or not, or if they aspire to greater things. But they make one hell of a pizza.

I’m not at all threatened by these men. I’m never going to compete with them for a job or with women. They would have no shot with the women I’m normally involved with. Though their individual sizes and shapes vary a bit, as a rule they are shorter and squatter than average, and much more so than me. My Anglo-Norman genetic stock looks to most women like I’m among the men who rule the world, while they look like the guys who tend to the horses. That sort of thing matter to women a great deal. But for those men who might have to compete with them for jobs or dates, I can see why they might not particularly want to import a bunch more of them. things are tough enough without any new competition.

The woman I’m dating these days is 12 years younger than me. She was born in Oregon, but is the daughter of two Taiwanese immigrants who have 3 PHD’s between them. She works for a boutique Investment bank that specializes in M&A and she reports directly to one of the founding partners. She owns her apartment in the best part of the village (Alec Baldwin lives next door), and in terms of looks, she most closely resembles a particularly cute and Chinese version of Kelly Ripa. The site of her in her Dolce & Gabbana heels can cause traffic accidents.

She likes to joke that my lack of average-ness is my ‘white privilege’. At the sight of me people assume a high income, high IQ, and all the things that go with it. And since the dating opportunities for middle aged men greatly outshine those for women over 30, with my newly single status I’ve become the New York City equivalent of the hot cheerleader from high school. She says that’s what ‘privilege is’. People naturally assume I’m better than average, because guys that look and dress like me so often are. Women will maneuver into my line of sight, and men will treat me with courtesy and respect in case there is some circumstance where I can help their career one day.

All this is kind of funny to me, especially since I am far more trailer park than yacht club and have never had any real privilege in my life. But that stuff doesn’t show. Judging people by appearance is all the rage in New York these days, and all my appearance says is that in spite of my humble origins, I won the genetic lottery. No one saw the 100 hour weeks I put in at JPMorgan, or all the 3 AM calls I took from Billionaires assistants after working a 15 hour day. No one saw the paralyzing stress or the enormous responsibility. All they know is that I look the part. and looking the part is the whole point. It makes women find you more attractive, and "that" she says, "is the real privilege".

I don’t look down at anyone who doesn't look like me, and though I confess to being an ‘intelligence’ snob, I don’t see myself as being any better than anyone else. Of the people who do think worse of me for appearances, the only reason they assume I’m looking down at them is that they've been taught that when they look at me they're looking up. But it isn’t my fault that people who look like me have an established reputation. We built it by working hard, being polite, being generally smart, and by being creative, ambitious, and enterprising. To the degree that I deserve the accusation of "white privilege", I actually earned every bit of it.

The fact that the girl I mentioned is Asian has actually given me an interesting perspective regarding how non-white people view the concept of ‘white privilege’. White men like me are what all the white women want - and all the Asian women - and all the Latin, black, and Eskimo women. We are the ‘in demand’ gene pool among men. Take every woman in the top 1% of attractiveness for her subspecies of human, and what they want their kids to look like when they grow up is me. Cultural norms have grown up around that, but it has nothing to do with culture. It’s a genetic preference to the traits that white men have demonstrated. All that has given me an enormous advantage when dating that until very recently, I was blissfully unaware.

Average guys have a very different experience, and it explains why so much of America’s political discussion is based on envy. If I were shorter, bald, had trouble managing my weight, or was particularly unappealing physically, I’d have had none of the positive experiences with women that I have. Women are actually horrible to one another and to any man they don’t feel meets their individual standards for dating. And the percentage of men they are horrible to, seems to be increasing. Where it used to be a girl who was a 5 would only be nasty to a man of 4 or below, 5’s now insult 7’s as if they think that would be settling. 7’s insult everyone but 9’s and 10’s among men. The self-delusions of women when it comes to their own quality as a mate seem to be getting worse not better.

And we’re not talking garden variety rudeness here. Troll around the redpill reddit just a little bit and you’ll see what I mean. Women aren’t just discouraging men when approached in a bar, they are stringing them along and toying with them like cat who’s decided to ‘play’ with a mouse. Subjecting some men to weeks or months of pointless cruelty for no reason other than the inflation of their own egos. It's just inflicting harm for shit's and giggles.

You can find literally hundreds of stories of what I can only assume are more or less average guys, who have all had women be far more cruel and vicious to them than I ever really knew women could be. The way these women behave is enough to make you understand why feminists equate hurtful words with hurtful acts. It’s the way they mean it when they speak to each other and to men they are torturing. It’s their proxy for violence, and they assume it’s the same for men. It really isn’t, but they don’t see that.

I still don’t understand the concept of Men Going Their Own Way. I can’t imagine being so disconnected from the flow of human life that you would consider giving up the whole idea of engagement with 50.1% of the population, however cruel they are to you. (Especially when the biological incentives are so strong.) But I do now appreciate how difficult it is for some guys. It’s not exactly the kind of thing that can be managed by ‘manning up’ and being courageous. And I want to apologize again if I’ve ever made it seem differently.

I do think there is a lot to be said for the process of focusing on self-improvement. It’s that old Hal Moore quote: “There is no such thing as three strikes and you’re out. There is always something more you can do.” You can lose weight, change your style, become better at being charming. All those things will help you gain more success with women. You can even focus on building your career, and as we all know, there is no such thing as an ugly man to women so long as he’s rich enough. But even if they do reject you, at least you’ll then be rich.

But the real thing you all need is to help in some small way to destroy Feminism once and for all. It’s a toxic belief system unsupported by objective evidence, and is the source of most of the irrational views of women in the dating market. And if we manage to convince no one but other men, I think that might be enough because fi they have no one to torture, they’ll have no choice but accept reality. We can let the air out of the balloons of their inflated egos.

- An Open Letter To Opponents of "Gun Violence"

"An AR15 is not a weapon designed for 'killing people', it is a weapon designed for protecting people from being killed."

The police carry them. The Army carries them. And I would carry mine in many situations if the government would let me. Policemen are not blood thirst psychopaths, the Army are not blood thirsty psychopaths, and neither am I. And there are a great many people in America who are just like me.

There are blood thirsty psychopaths in the world, but I am not one of them. It would be a safer world if more people like me were armed and allowed to carry arms with them in their daily lives, anywhere in the country. If you want to keep guns away from people who would harm you for Allah, or for hatred of homosexuals, or psychopathy or anything else, that's fine. But I am not that person, so don't try to disarm me.

People like me are not fooled by your platitudes. Your real motives are obvious. You want all Americans disarmed because you're afraid of guns. You don't trust your own emotional judgement, or the good judgement of others. That's fine. I know I can't dissuade your fear so I won't try. But you need to recognize that not everyone who is a gun owner is inches from a killing spree. Stop insulting us by pretending that we are.

You say you only want to disarm the unstable, the fanatical, and the psychotic. Fine. We all know you're lying, but let's assume you're not. Then set some standards for national concealed carry. Make it a high bar. Make the fee's exorbitant, the required training excessive, and the qualifications difficult to achieve. Include psychological exams. Include live fire shooting tests. Include competition against police or soldiers, or anyone else you think is 'responsible' enough to carry a firearm. Set your bar as high as you like and make the process as unfair and demanding as you like. All these are things that I and the dreaded 'gun lobby' are willing to discuss.

But what I will not discuss is being lumped in with all the murderous fanatical Muslims, deranged social misfits, and drug dealing gang bangers who are actually committing crimes with a gun, just because I own one. I am not like them. We are not the same. Leave me the opportunity to prove that I am a better more responsible citizen than they are, and let me carry a firearm legally once I do, and I and the gun lobby will be perfectly happy to discuss more gun regulation.

But so long as you assume that all gun owners are the same as all others, there is nothing to discuss.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

- Well At Least It's Not Black

I just wanted to remind gun banners that prohibiting the sale of the dreaded AR15 mega-death super deadly assault rifle isn't going to eliminate anything. As you can see here, you can now 3D print a lower receiver, and it will function perfectly well.

3D printing has it's weaknesses. Plastic doesn't cope well with the high pressures brought on by a bullet's explosion. But as a stunning coincidence, the only part of an AR15 that is considered a 'gun' is the lower receiver, which doesn't actually have to deal with much in the way of pressure. All it does is feed the cartridges into the chamber which is made of steel and perfectly suitable for the purpose. All the metal parts aren't a 'gun' at all, but are only 'gun parts'. And they contain no serial numbers.

So how do you ban something that absolutely anyone can make dozens of with no more than a few hundred dollar investment? Are there laws to prevent this (or at least make it difficult)? Sure. Tons. But I don't think it's gonna stop anyone.

The genie is out of the bottle gang. There is no eliminating the AR15. Not for civilians, or criminals, or terrorists, or anyone else. And if the bad guys are going to be able to print them up as they need them, you better spread a few around with more responsible folks as well. (And if you're going to try to prohibit something that 100 million Americans want, you had better start learning a little about them.)

When fiction predicts the future.. Demolition Man

One of my favorite movies from the 1990s was 'Demolition Man'.  Given the the rather non-PC themes, I have always wondered how it got past the powers-that-be in Hollywood, instead of getting buried like what was done to 'Idiocracy'.

One of the villains is Dr. Raymond Cocteau (played by the late Nigel Hawthorne) who I am convinced is what Michael Bloomberg wanted to be, if Bloomberg managed to elevate himself to a prophet / demigod status.  Cocteau from the ashes of a societal collapse creates a feminized, nanny-state, "utopia":  No meat, no salt, no booze, and certainly no 16 oz cups of soda. 


 However, there is a plethora of estrogen-ized men, who are unable to deal with a violent felon (played by Wesley Snipes) who doesn't bother playing by societal rules. Think of Snipe's character (Simon Phoenix) as a Jihadi rampaging his way through western Europe.  The societal overlords "thaw out" from prison - statis another convict (Stallone) in the hopes that this violent "relic from the past" can deal with Phoenix.


This "utopia" was presented in a farcical manner.  However, given the current trajectory our society is headed, I started to wonder if this movie was in fact predicting the future.  Lo and behold, searching out the movie clips on Youtube I found this video from 'Darwinian Thought'.  Turns out I am not alone in wondering if this movie was in fact a warning of what portends for the future, instead of just being a big budget action / comedy.

 

Check it Darwinian's video if you have the time.  Better yet, check out the movie if you haven't seen it....

- Going Back In The Closet

This is the last time I’ll write about my friend Bryan. I’ve mentioned him before, but for reasons he’s made clear, he’d prefer I not draw any attention to him now. I don’t sell out my friends, so with his advance permission and unless he changes his mind, this is the last time I’ll mention him.

Bryan and I have been friends since college. We had a long stretch when we were out of touch but after my divorce I got curious and sentimental about lost connections. So I tracked him down and discovered that he was living in LA. We reconnected when I was out there on business, had a raucous time at Chateau Marmont with a few of the Cleveland Browns, and since then, have been right back where we were when we lost touch.

Bryan works on the periphery of the entertainment business. He’s also black. He’s also Gay. He’s unembarrassed about his homosexuality and is definitely ‘out’, but he has adopted none of the effeminate mannerisms that constitute the stereotypical jokes about homosexuals. To all outward appearances you’d expect him to have a pampered wife and kids in Beverly Hills someplace. He’s an exceptionally fit man in early middle age, who dresses impeccably, and through his outward appearance seems like any other successful ‘business type’ that populates LA.

With this exception, he’s asked me not to mention him anymore because he’s made a decision to go back in the closet. LA and the entertainment industry have no problem with homosexuals, in fact Bryan has made it plain to me that the ‘gay mafia’ has actually helped his career. But they have a big problem with people who deviate from their version of ‘conventional political wisdom’. And Bryan is prepared to leave the reservation so to speak.

You see, my old friend is buying a gun. And he’s planning on voting for Donald Trump.

We spent some time on the phone the other day where I explained that he’ll probably have a great deal of trouble getting a carry permit in LA. He assured me that with his connections that wouldn’t be the case. We talked about guns and the big and powerful vs. small and concealable paradigm. We talked about ‘magazine size’ and the necessity of practice. While I explained the difference between a 9mm and 45acp, he made jokes about how ‘bigger is always better’. He sounded on the phone like he was taking notes, and has gotten back to me since about my impressions of a few specific models that he handled at a gun store. So far he likes the Springfield XDS, but until he shoots a few guns he isn’t ready to decide.

The ironic thing is, under most circumstances I’d be very concerned about someone I know who is buying their first gun. I’m a bit of a safety nut, and I’d feel much better if he were close enough for me to participate in his training and see how he’s progressing. But the fact is, I’m not that worried about Bryan. He’s a methodical and careful man. It defines him. He’s a freshly pressed shirt of a guy. No sloppiness or carelessness. He drinks very little, does no drugs, and is far more worried about his career than any of the little vanities that permeate LA culture. His two year old Mercedes S550 still has that new car smell, and so does he.

And that’s why he’s going back in the closet. The Orlando shooting has done what I've never been able to do and changed his mind about a lot of things. He thinks the left has embraced Islam over of the gay community, and that they have no intention of doing what’s necessary to protect him. In a culture war that's turning into a 'hot war' he sees one of our major political parties as having decided to be a non-combatant. He feels unprotected by the left so he’s deciding to protect himself. And part of that will be voting for Trump.

He has no illusions about Trump. He shares my concerns about Trump’s economic illiteracy, and what he calls his ‘reprehensible bigotry’. But he says that he has no intention of being part of the group that's "going to be the first one fed to the crocodile.” That’s what he thinks the left is doing. He believes the left will appease Islam by selling out America’s homosexuals.

But he can’t share this with his friends and coworkers. He can sleep with all the men he likes, but if he is carrying a gun and voting Republican? He’s afraid it will damage the career he’s spent a lifetime building, and is just now reaping the benefits of. So my openly gay friend is going back in the closet, and this is the last time I’ll write about him. It’s a different closet maybe, but one that’s based on the same kind of intolerance that the left says they despise. More than a little irony there. Especially since he thinks his new gun will be the lessor of the objections.

Monday, June 20, 2016

- Equalism and the Second Amendment

This is a principled liberal argument, but it still makes the kind of error that liberals always seem to make:

Advocates of gun control frequently cite the much lower levels of gun violence in other developed nations — such as Canada and the UK — in support of the measures they promote. However, these very low levels of gun violence have not been achieved by gun control but — by domestic disarmament.

OK... you want to repeal the second amendment and confiscate all the privately held firearms in the US. Fine. I admire your honesty. Now let's see you do it. Lets see you confiscate 300 million firearms from 100 million people who don't want you to. Let's see you use a pro second amendment Army to disarm a pro second amendment populace through constitutionally 'flexible' means. Very likely the only people who will end up in prison, is you.

That isn't precisely what's being proposed here though. The actual proposals in the linked piece are the usual assortment of unconstitutional BS that always comes from liberals. Suspend due process, allow nuisance lawsuits to drive manufacturers out of business, don't ban guns just the ammo you fire from them (as if the NRA and the courts would be stupid enough to let that slip by). Fine. Best of luck. I hope you are prepared for the response you'll see when legal efforts at disarmament fall flat on their face. Barak Obama has been the greatest gun salesman in human history. Just imagine what will happen when Hillary goes even further than he did while remaining within the law.

While I'm pleased in general to see liberals finally embrace public honesty about their long term goals with regard to the second amendment, (even if they are driven to it only by desperation) I think they need to do just a bit more soul searching before a real 'honest discussion' about gun violence can take place. They need to acknowledge that their equalist view of the world will never survive inevitable contact with any real effort to eliminate gun violence.

A law abiding man (of any race or religion) who is a competitive sport shooter or hunter, is not the same as a 16 year old Chicago gang banger (of any race or religion). Their use of guns is not the same. Their goals in acquiring them, or their means of acquisition is not the same. And the political right and the NRA will NEVER allow them to be treated the same. Not only would it be ineffective to pass a law that only the law abiding will adhere to, it would be fundamentally unjust to punish the innocent as an effort to constrain the guilty.

So if you liberals want to pass any kind of law to diminish real gun violence, it's time to face the hard facts. Gun crime is not an equal opportunity offender. The results of any effective gun legislation will not have an equal effect on all genders, and racial subgroups. Since young black men commit more gun crime as a percentage of the population than whites or Asians, and much much more than women, you need to embrace that fact before you propose a law. You need to be reconciled to it, and forget about disparate impact implications.

Let me be clear here. I do not advocate for a racially or ethnically targeted gun control law. Though that might be more effective, it would in my opinion be fundamentally unjust and very likely unconstitutional. Better would be to target a law which when applied to all races and ethnic groups equally, produced unequal results. Not everyone who owns a gun is a criminal. This is a simple fact, and you'll need to stop denying it before the discussion can begin.

Under our system, the law must treat black men the same as white, poor men the same as rich, and Muslim men the same as Christians or atheists. I think we agree on this. But just because a law doesn't specifically target one group or another doesn't mean it can't have a differing impact on one group or another. If you're ready to admit this, then I think we can talk about doing something real about gun violence.

%%%%%%%%%%UPDATE%%%%%%%%%%

I do want to say one more thing about this, but it's more a reflection of my frustration than anything else. If you liberals are being honest with yourselves, then you know that you are not going to 'get rid of guns'. It's not going to happen. The people who are pro gun rights will never be influenced by a law. It's all just so much talk to America's gun owners. They possess individual power in the form of a gun, and they are not giving it up no matter what laws you pass. Even if you did it all, all the hard political things, all within the limit of the law, you will only ever get a portion of the guns. The rest will still be out there.

So please... stop with the emotional arguments. We are totally unpersuaded by them. If you want to persuade us, you're going to need to use facts. You've already said every awful thing you can come up with about us and we don't care. You've called us racist misogynist Nazis and we don't care. You haven't just compared us to Hitler and called us criminals who giggle at the blood of innocents, you have accused us of actually being Hitler reincarnated. We don't care. We will never be persuaded by any of it. You will never shame us out of our position.

There is no expert we respect on this. Expertise won't persuade us unless it's backed up with facts, and then it will be the facts that persuade us, not the expert. You cannot preach our position away, or lecture it away unless you are prepared to talk about FACTS! And I don't mean your advocacy research where the stats are tortured into submission to support your preconceived point. No more treating 17 year old gang bangers as 'children' or pretending a gun ban will eliminate suicide. You've already tried every play in the book, and we see it all coming.

But if you do actually, really, genuinely come to us with defensible objectively defined facts, I promise we'll listen. We'll take you seriously. Just please... no more of this mommy dribble. It's all been done. It isn't going to work on us. Ever.

Friday, June 17, 2016

- Behold! An Actual Liberal Unicorn

As some of you know, I read Slate every day. Some would say that this is because I have a deep masochistic streak and don't mind the twisted logic and pseudo-reasoning that comes with any liberal site, but that's not exactly true. Liberals haven't come up with a new idea since Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, and you don't have to be a genius to predict their arguments on any issue. I can virtually always anticipate the cherry picked delusion du jour, whatever the topic of discussion is. Mostly I do it because I think it's fun to pick on the.

So imagine my shock and amazement when I went to Slate today and read the following breathtaking quote from Slate Senior Editor Rachael Larimore:

We live in a divided society where people cocoon with like-minded allies, and we’ve stopped listening to the other side. The NRA is powerful. We get distracted and move on to the next shiny thing. But one important point: The mainstream media lobbies hard for gun control, but it is very, very bad at gun journalism. It might be impossible ever to bridge the divide between the gun-control and gun-rights movements. But it’s impossible to start a dialogue when you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

That's a liberal journalist talking. Not Kevin Williamson, or John Derbyshire, or Milo Yianopoulos. It's a liberal reporter at a liberal website, admitting something that I didn't think was possible for Liberals. It's a rare moment of honest self reflection from an industry that I never thought had it in it.

The piece itself is a clear eyed critique of liberal journalists all too obvious ignorance and condescension when it comes to guns. This is stunning and spectacular admission, even more so considering it's source. It may not exactly be pro-gun, but it's astounding enough just to see a liberal admit that their universal advocacy for gun control might not be done in the most effective way. I long ago stopped believing that it's possible to have a rational conversation with liberal anti-gun advocates. but I think it may be possible, with someone like Rachael Larimore.

I would strongly urge readers to read the piece and then pop off a note to Ms. Larimore over at Slate and thank her for stating what we already knew, but is so stunning for someone at Slate to admit. It's a refreshing bit of actual journalism, from an industry that is otherwise completely homogeneous in it's awfulness and bias. We shouldn't just dump on liberals when they don't think, but thank them as well when they actually do.

Thanks Rachael. Nice Job.

- Liberal Men vs. Actual Men

That paragon of American masculinity Gersh Kuntzman, speaks up about the reaction to his AR15 slander:

...if masculinity is defined by the power to commit violence on a wide scale, I proudly choose femininity.

He's a pansy, there is no doubt. And he knows it. It just hasn't occurred to him that as an Omega man surrounded on all sides by other Omega men, that there are men who see things differently than he has. This is what it looks like when reality slaps a liberal in the face after a lifetime of self indulgent delusion.

Journalists self select for risk aversion and fragile egos. It's one of the few professions in modern America where a person can get by without ever having any real risk of failure. In the meantime you're handed a huge megaphone for persuading people that you're important and an 'expert' in everything. Old Gersh knows that he doesn't know anything about guns, and he expected that no one else did either. But for some mysterious reason he thinks he knows something about being a man. I see no evidence of that either.

The simple fact is that possessing the emotional wherewithal to cope with violence is one of the defining differences between men and women. We are bigger, stronger, and less emotional than women. Our testosterone gives us a natural inclination toward risk taking that is necessary for the survival of our species. We are not slaves to our fears, but masters of them.

This is not to dismiss or demean women who have a great many other skills that most men are simply incapable of. But when faced with an existentially violent threat, a woman's instinct is to cower at the back of the cave, and a man's instinct is to confront the threat and vanquish it.

Women have the perfect excuse for thinking like women and it's normal and natural that they do so. Gersh has no such excuse. He's not a woman. He can't bear children, or nurture them to adult hood. He has only chosen to think like women because for such a poor specimen of manhood like him, it was a potential way for him to get close to women, and maybe cheat his way into some breeding rights. He is an Omega man. A man who is useless as a man, so rather than try, he's chosen instead to adopt the behavior and decision making, of a woman.

In the wake of the Orlando shooting, we're seeing this difference between actual women and the men who think like them more and more. I don't know if you've ever taken a woman to the range, but they always enjoy it. I would refer you to Frithguild's Christmas message from a few years ago, or John Derbyshire's lovely (if somewhat flighty) daughter Nellie shooting skeet. They usually enjoy it immensely. I've never met a woman who didn't. If properly handled, it's a safe (if somewhat loud) environment filled with interesting activities and entertainments. Which is what most modern girls actually want.

And as a result, women are usually persuadable when it comes to issues of gun rights - particularly married women. Women want their men to be able to protect them. They crave that protection. And when you demonstrate for them that you are capable of managing that kind of potential violence well, they come right around. They feel more comfortable with the process, think more of you for it. when a woman says she doesn't want you to have a gun, she's saying she doesn't trust your masculinity. Demonstrate that she can, and you will be rewarded for it.

But women like Gersh do not come around on gun rights. He isn't saying that he doesn't trust you, he's saying that he doesn't want you to be any more masculine than him. To him, realistically coping with the potential threat of violence is viewing the world from the perspective that he's already utterly rejected. The only way a man who has chosen to act like a woman can salve his eternally frail ego is to convince himself that even thinking of acting like a man is the wrong way for a man to act. A man MUST chose the feminine way as far as he's concerned. Anything else would be 'too barbaric'.

Well let's talk actual barbarians for a sec. (Cue 'Immigrant song' by Led Zeppelin) In the year 1172, my family were Anglo-Norman mercenaries in service to the then King of England, Henry II. They were little more than tough guys with horses and swords, and when Henry invaded Ireland, they went with him. Ireland was truly barbaric then, but that event began their long climb up into the civilized world. My ancestor Jocelyn De-Angulo got an Irish barony for his trouble. But he didn't get it for his barbarism, he got it for his judicious and carefully applied use of violence. He got it because the violence of which he was capable, was applied in the service of expanding civilization.

In a world like that, a woman like Gersh would be utterly useless. Gersh knows this, and on some level he's ashamed of it. Which is why it's so important to him that he be in a position to define what a man is. But what a man is doesn't change. A man still needs to be prepared to use violence when necessary, in the service of something better. Gersh would rather we all be slaves to the barbarians on our doorstep, than to stand up like men and face violence with violence in the service of our civilization.

These days, the barbarians are at our doorstep. And we need more men, not ugly useless women like Gersh Kuntzman. We need responsible, thoughtful, strong men. Men who aren't afraid. Men who are capable. Men who can stare into the face of an enemy who wants him dead, and use force to suppress him. The women who run our government won't ever do it. They are like Gersh. And Obama would be just as useless as woman like Gersh is now, or has ever been.

Gersh Kuntzman isn't a man. He's a whiny, petulant little girl who thinks the only issue worth truly fighting for (he actually means arguing for... not actually fighting) is the importance of men acting like women. Obama is the same kind fo woman arguing for exactly the same thing. But that way disaster lies for all of us.

I think the best thing that could happen to Gersh would be for his perspective to change. I think a useful way to make that happen would be for any man who see's him to give him a gentle slap. Not too hard. It shouldn't take much. He shouldn't be slapped hard enough to actually injure him in any way. It should be just hard enough to make him cry. Just hard enough to make him ashamed. Like Vito Corleone did for Johnny Fontaine.

Gersh Kuntzman should be deeply ashamed that he's dedicated his life to a principle that will embolden our enemies, threaten our lives, and make us all seem just as weak as he is. And if he has to get his face slapped a few times to remind him, any man who does so should take comfort in knowing that it will be a small amount of violence in the service of a greater good.

%%%%% The Paragraphs above describes a hypothetical situation where a little girl named Gersh is taught how to act like a man, and not an actual recommendation of violence.%%%%%

Thursday, June 16, 2016

- The Cheapest AR15 Available

This is a link to the cheapest AR15 available. It can be had for $49.99.

It's the only part of the dreaded AR15 that you'll ever have to worry about, since it's the only 'gun' part in the gun. Sure, you'll have to buy a few other items like a 'fully automatic barrel' or a 'high velocity magazine'. And some kind of 'barrel shroud', 'large capacity clip' or a 'shoulder thingy that goes up' (to quote legendary anti-gun congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy) might also need to be purchased. But those are just gun parts, and will never be banned. They aren't even on the list.

There are instructions for assembling AN ar15 from a stripped lower, all over the internet. Any child can do it. And the people who sell the parts kits will be happy to help you ensure that you get all the pieces you need. If you buy a 4 pack, you can get them even cheaper. In no time you can be just as dangerous to the general public as the other nearly 9 million people who bought these guns since the start of the Obama administration. (Which for the record, is 'not dangerous at all'.)

- Since We're STILL Discussing Gun Bans

An oldie but a goody.

Acolytes of Gersh Kuntzman go shooting

The Gersh Kuntzman piece made me remember this little video from years back:




Edit:  Fast forward to 0:53 for the fun part.  The Youtube video embed didn't work 100%, so the video isn't starting where I wanted it to.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

- The Terrorist WatchList & Gun Rights

I'm prepared to sanction removing second amendment rights of anyone put on the Terrorist Watchlist, so long as we get rid of a few other rights as well. Let's start with the 1st,4th,5th,6th,8th amendments. To be clear they enumerate the following rights that will then be denied anyone on the terrorist watchlist:

1. No free speech, assembly, press, or petitioning government for grievance rights.
4. No prohibition of search and seizure or requirement of probable cause.
5. No due process, self-incrimination protections.
6. No speedy trial, right to counsel, or right to confront accusers.
7. No protection from excessive fines or bail.

So long as we suspend these rights along with second amendment rights, I'm OK with it. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to start putting my list together. What list you ask? My list of people who I heard praising Allah and pledging the destruction of America. For starters it will include:

1. The NYTimes/WashPost/NY Daily News Editorial Boards.
2. The Producers of NBC/CBS/CNN/ABC/MSNBC News programs.
3. The Chuck Schumer disclosed donors list.
4. Lena Dunham.
5. The Executive Members of the AFL-CIO board.
6. Andrew Ross Sorkin.
7. Bono.
8. John Oliver.
9. The members of BLM.
10. Anyone else who's politics I don't particularly care for. (Alec Baldwin lives next door to my girlfriend, so he might make the list eventually too).

If we're going to do away with rule of law and due process, let's not hold back with just guns. Let's go whole hog. I'll be calling the FBI and telling them that I heard each and every one of these people talking to a bunch of angry young Arab looking guys, and heard them specifically say "OK Muhammad, I'll distract the guards and you plant the explosives in the checked baggage. That should teach those imperialist bastards!"

If it only works for Lena Dunham, then it will all be worth it.

- Gersh Kuntzman: Laughinstock

This has been getting some laughs in my sewing circle:

New York Daily News writer Gersh Kuntzman fired an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle for the first time at a gun range in Philadelphia — and he left absolutely terrified.

“The recoil bruised my shoulder,” he added. “The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable."

I have video on my phone of my 13 year old niece shooting my AR15. 10 shots in 2 seconds, and she came up with a massive cheese eating grin. It was also fired by my 11 year old nephew (who at the time wasn't strong enough to lift a shotgun) with the same reaction.

So this leader of men - this hero of the 4th estate, couldn't handle something that was easily accomplished by a 13 year old girl. OK... the girl was my blood kin and daughter to the toughest man I know, so she probably has a bit more intestinal fortitude than average. But seriously... PTSD? From a day at the range? I can only imagine the reaction of my buddy Karl who's bump firing of my AK47 (a considerably larger round with considerably more recoil) was probably the happiest I've ever seen a human at the range.

What's even more shocking however is that this guy thinks he's the rational voice of America. But he lives in a bubble with walls so thick, that he thinks he can say, truthfully or not, that the tiny little bullet of the AR15 which was specifically designed to minimize recoil, was traumatizing enough to send him to therapy. In his world, that's a completely believable statement. Or at least he thought so yesterday.

He should try firing my Moisin Nagant with its beach ball sized muzzle flash and recoil so stiff that even I put a pad on mine to fire it. (the fact that it was a communist rifle will no doubt make him feel better) Or he should try a 338 hunting rifle which is the MINIMUM in Alaska for Bear hunting, or a 375 which is the minimum round for hunting in most of Africa. Either of those would probably leave him in a state of catatonia or rushing off the gender reassignment clinic.

This is who is reporting the news to us. These little girls who live their whole lives behind the wire and are incapable of even the smallest act of personal fortitude. He doesn't even qualify as a woman. Women are naturally fearful compared to men but many of them will do what they can within their limitations when cornered. But this pansy was born a man. Though obviously that's a very generous use of the term.

I don't have insults big enough for this turd. This self congratulatory little parasite. In a quotable sentence, I think Gersh Kuntzman is a useless, helpless, diapered little coward who doesn't even have the manhood to practice defending himself. In his commitment to yellow journalism he's made himself a laughingstock to the 290 million Americans that all know what a group of weak kneed pansies live in New York City. The act of safely practicing an act of self defense leaves him quivering in his underoos. Pajama boy can probably kick his omega ass.

If we're all like this cowardly little child, then the Muslims deserve to enslave us. Lucky for us they will probably kill the journalists first.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

- A Response to CAIR

I have a short response to CAIR's argument that we should not demonize the Muslim community for the acts of a few members, and it's simply this:

Go fuck yourselves.

I find your arrogance infuriating. I'm watching the bodies stack up In Paris, Brussels, London, Ft Hood, and now Orlando , and you still have the gall to claim that yours is a peaceful religion? You had better explain that to the faithful because they are obviously not listening. And in spite of what women like Obama tell us to believe, you are no longer fooling anyone.

Those weren't homosexuals that were killed in Orlando, they were Americans. The fact that you don't like their choices doesn't stand as a valid reason to see them dead. Under our way of life, they are answerable for their actions only to god. You don't get a say in whether they are right or wrong. You don't get to tell them how to live. No one does.

There are a lot of things wrong with America and we have many problems. But they're our problems and will be handled our way. You know what else we have in this country? 100 million armed men. So before you think about forcing them to convert you'd do well to remember that when we think of hearts and minds, it's because those are the best places to aim when shooting back.

- A Girl Like Jamelle Bouie

The last time Jamelle Bouie tweeted one of my pieces, it was taken very badly. He was arguing that some perspective in the gun debate are too extreme to be included in our discussion, and I was arguing that they are precisely the voices that we want to hear. The position in question was an extreme one, there’s no doubt about that. And I wasn’t advocating for it. I was simply arguing that it needed to be heard because it would scare liberals, and thereby instruct them on how extreme their own position is viewed by others. A look at the comments will show you that it clearly wasn’t taken that way.

The title of this piece is a little intentionally dishonest on my part, mostly because it’s fun to rattle liberal cages. In truth I find Mr. Bouie’s piece today surprisingly honest. So honest in fact that I think it can be very instructive is describing how liberals always seem to be missing the point, and how if they’re lying, they are lying to themselves.

First, the honest part:

Our collective understanding of our politics is saturated in myth. We believe that we are rational (we are not), that we decide on issues not on personality (we do not), that we aren’t rigid partisans to the core (for the most part, we are), and that politicians represent the public at large. The last idea looms large. It is routine, for politicians on both sides, to decry “special interests” as an imposition on the business of government. The proper politician, the honest one, speaks and acts only for “the people,” broadly (and vaguely) defined.

I find this a stunning admission from a liberal both in what it says and what it doesn’t. In fact, so long as you assume that he is speaking only to liberals, it’s factually correct in every way. Liberals are not rationally (quite the opposite) and they are rigid partisans because their deep and abiding ego investment in their positions demand it. Jamelle’s only real mistake is one that conservatives are equally guilty of, and that is that he assumes that everyone makes decisions just exactly the way that he does.

If you’re a conservative and you think Jamelle is a liar, you’re guilt of the same sin he is. He isn’t a liar really, not in the sense that conservatives think of lying. He’s simply processing information and making decisions in the way that all liberals do – like a girl. He’s a man who lets his intuition and emotion dictate his entire philosophy. He doesn’t’ consider both cost and benefit like a conservative. And he doesn’t worry about unintended consequences. The goal of his position is to make him feel good about himself at least as much as it is to achieve some political goal. It’s about his insecurity, his fear, and his and to signal his virtue by letting people know that ‘he cares’.

His views on gun control would accomplish all those goals. It would also make things worse for 100 million or so law abiding Americans in particular, and all Americans in generals. But those results are secondary. With liberals they always are. All their policy proposals are about how they feel about themselves.

He also does that thing so common with women like him, he carefully cherry picks the relevant information necessary to support his view. For instance he believes that since polling has shown a generalized support for universal background checks, this can be presented as an unambiguous social good.

Is this lying? I don’t think so. The polls have shown that. But most people don’t understand guns or gun laws. They don’t know how hard it is to get a gun already and believe that universal background checks might have some effect on that. They haven’t examined the data and don’t realize that universal background checks are almost certainly not going to have any effect on the illegal violence they're trying to prevent. And liberals like him aren’t interested in using the analytic portion of their brains to figure that out. They want an easy solution that will only impose costs on someone else.

He also does a little misdirection, another tactic typical of liberal women. But I don’t think it’s intentional. I think it’s simply the place that emotive mental processes lead a young lady like him who is looking for solutions. As far as he’s concerned this unabashed social good of "less guns" is being obstructed, and he’s trying to figure out why. But you know how girls are. He’s mistaking the question of ‘why’ with the question of ‘how’.

Yes, our system is largely built around special interests, and Jamelle is as likely to be happy about that when the interests are his own as he is unhappy about it when they aren’t. But that’s the process we have in place. When the government tries to be so intrusive into the lives of the little people, the Congressman and Senators need a way to concentrate the information necessary to make a decisions. The way we do that is through lobbyists and other interests. It’s how, not why.

But he’s generally right about why. The reason we don’t see any more needlessly expensive gun laws is because "we the people" don’t really want any. The 'special interests' are just how we communicate that information to our elected reps. Liberals aren’t as organized and expressive about their position on guns as the NRA is because they don’t really think it’s as important. They don't know all that much about guns, and the less they know, the more devoted they are to gun control. It's about fear for them. Fear of something they have little or no understanding of. But that sort of generalized angst doesn't motivate people the same way that the right is motivated on this issue. To the NRA and people like me, this is a fight for our lives and an effort to continue to be legally allowed to defend ourselves from harm. The left thinks it’s all about politics and how 'uncomfortable' they are.

Anyway, Jamelle isn’t a bad girl. I think he’s trying very hard to think things through. I don’t believe he’s being intentionally dishonest. I just think he’s doing what all girls of the left do. He’s confusing how he feels with logic and reason. He’s using his female intuition to make decisions, when he should really be going to the trouble of using the analytic part of his brain. But since the analytic part of his brain might give him answers that his ego doesn’t want him to hear, he’s doing the simple thing instead. And in the process he’s making the same mistakes that all the other girls are.

Epilogue:

RFNJ rule number 1 is “How we decide is who we are.” Of course I know Jamelle was born a man, but since he thinks like a little girl, I’m going to call him one. In these gender fluid times, I think it would be horribly misogynist of him to object.

- What We Already Know

Donald Trump has suspended the Washington Post's press privileges over a wildly dishonest headline. Think what you want about the future Trump administration - I certainly have my own seriously held reservations about it. But he has demonstrated once again that there is unambiguous social good that is coming from his campaign.

When the post responded with their usual pablum about a "free and independent press" my very first thought was: "What the hell does the Washington Post know about it?" For decades they have been publishing deeply slanted opinion pieces as front page news, apparently under the belief that we Americans are too stupid to know when we're being lied to. Their daily circulation numbers beg to differ.

I couldn't be happier to see a politician actually impose a cost on the Washington Post. That's not because I have a political agenda, but because I believe in incentives. The post lied, and now the post knows there is a cost to lying. And all the other Post wannabe's who imagine themselves launching into the spotlight by reframing the debate a little, will take a lesson from it too.

It isn't Donald Trump that's denying Americans a "free and Independent press" it's the shamelessly slanted Washington Post and their fellow travelers that have done so. The first amendment isn't a deeply held principle to them, it's a cover they hide behind when they get caught. They're doing so again, but Trump is calling them on it anyway. This is a good thing for all Americans of all political stripes, who are tired beyond description of being lied to.

In Trump's position, I'd be saying "I can't tell you what to say, but if you're going to lie about me, I'm not going to make it any easier for you." This is exactly what the shallow manipulative 'mean girls' of the Washington post need to hear. And it's also what we all already know.

Monday, June 13, 2016

Quick thoughts on the Orlando Islamic Terror attack....

I am trying to figure out how one man managed to cover all the exits in a club and shoot over 100 people.  It wasn't like he walked in to the club like the Terminator carrying a mini-gun that magically never runs out of ammo.

Were many of the injuries and casualties from people being trampled?
Were the exits blocked?


Then there is this post of Facebook making the rounds....


Instead of answers, I suspect the MSM will do its best to push this story down the memory hole.


**UPDATE**


Some answers as to why people couldn't escape.  It appears "Hodor" was at the club that night.  He held the door shut to trap the shooter.  Instead he trapped a lot of people who were trying to escape.





 I am also reading reports that the police might have accidentally shot people.  This would explain the reports of people claiming that "there were multiple shooters".


- The Orlando Shooter and Me

The Orlando shooter and I have much in common. He had an AR15 and a handgun. I have an AR15 and several handguns. I also have an AK47, a half dozen shotguns and several other rifles of explicitly military design – most dating back to WW2.

He bought his guns legally. I bought my guns legally. He bought hundreds of rounds of ammunition. I have more likely thousands of rounds (I haven’t taken the time to check) as well as a machine for making my own ammunition from legally available components. He has had hundreds of hours of training. I have hundreds of hours of training. He passed a background check, and various other more vigorous criminal and background checks for his professional licensing. I have done the same.

By the logic of the left where it's the gun that's the problem, if I had been there with my guns when the Orlando shooter decided to begin killing night club goers, even more than 50 people would have been found dead, and even more wounded. If the gun is the problem after all, then surely more guns would be more problem.

But this is incorrect. Unfortunately, we’ll never know for certain what the actual number would have been had someone like me been there with more guns and ammunition. I say unfortunately because unless I had been unlucky enough to be the first person killed, then there would have certainly been fewer victims than there were, because one of the very first people killed would have been the shooter himself. That wouldn't stop all the killings, but it would have stopped most of them. The people who were at risk in that 'gun free zone' would have been much safer with me (or someone like me) present and armed, than they were without me.

The reason is that though the Orlando shooter and I have many things in common, there are many differences too. And contrary to the beliefs of the left, those differences are far more important than the things we have in common. For instance, by all accounts available to me so far, he seemed to be a mildly unstable Muslim who despised homosexuality, while I am an mostly Alt-Right, libertarian Leaning Republican who couldn’t be less interested in anyone's sex life other than my own. The shooter was horrified by two men he saw kissing in public. I on the other hand call homosexuals among my oldest and most trusted friends.

But even more important that the major difference between our views on homosexuality, is our differing views on politics and religion. The shooter, if press reports can be believed, was closely aligned with ISIS who advocates using the violence advocated by their religion to effect political goals. Killing homosexuals (for their own good) is central to the teaching of Islam. And on this point, the Orlando shooter and I wildly disagree. I am a somewhat fallen Roman Catholic who believes that except as a moral guidepost, religion should be left out of politics all together. I respect the sanctity of all human life, and that goes for absolutely everyone. The left thinks that's irrelevant in the face of the fact that we both own guns.

I’m given some small comfort by the fact in spite of the best efforts of liberal journalists everywhere, this has not gone totally unnoticed by America’s gay community. My old friend Brian who is a gay man living in LA, texted me last night asking me what gun he should buy as his first for self-protection. For decades, Brian has always been anti-gun in pretty much the same way that I am anti-homosexuality. We’ve talked about guns now and then and though he has never had any interest in firearms, he has never seen disarming people like me as the path to safety that the New York Times editorial board does.

We’ve talked about kissing boys too, and though I have never had any interest in being a homosexual, I’ve never seen any reason to limit what other people do with their spare time, especially when it has so little effect on me. My personal feelings on homosexuality haven’t been changed at all (nor are the likely to be) but Brian’s view on guns has now been changed dramatically.

I told him via text that I had several useful suggestions but that we’d have to discuss it today. (The right tool for the right job etc.) I also plan on referring him to the pink pistols, an NRA associated group which promotes safe and legal firearms ownership and is specifically geared toward the gay community. (There is no branch currently in LA but I think that’s likely to change, and there are several in California.) The main reason I’ll do this is that if he’s going to be carrying a firearm, he’s going to need help and lots and lots of practice. But he’s a very intelligent and careful man. I’m quite certain he’ll see the wisdom of it.

I also plan to tell him that unless he’s prepared to break the law to defend himself (unlikely given his character but possible), he had better do like I plan to and hold his nose while voting for Trump. Hillary has made civilian disarmament a central part of her platform, and that will apply to the gay community too. I don’t know if he’ll find it persuasive, but I’ll tell him all the same. He’s my friend. And I would be only slightly happier seeing him spend decades in prison for violating a firearms ban than I would about him lying dead on the floor of some night club somewhere.

The Democrats want to pretend that Islam isn’t a problem, and will greatly increase their number in America. They also feel that we need to disarm America’s law abiding civilians. Trump wants a temporary ban on Islamic immigration and Federal concealed carry reciprocity. Trump’s take will have responsible Americans defending themselves, while the Democrat plan has the gay community (especially despised by Islam) disarmed along with everyone else, and acting as the expendable front lines of an American public who must wait for police to ‘respond’ to their murder by Muslims.

If you’re gay and interested in survival, this is an easy choice.

Monday, June 6, 2016

- President Dwayne E. M. D. H. Camacho For Clinton

When Trump first began rising in the polls, my thoughts were of future President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho from the movie Idiocracy. It's a B movie but I recommend it because it's 'got what plants crave'.

Turns out the screenwriters of that movie are so horrified by the prospect of a Trump Presidency that they're going to be making anti-Trump ads with the actor who played that role, Terry Crews:

Terry Crews plays the role of President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, and his character has drawn some uncomfortable comparisons to presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump. So much so, that Idiocracy writers Etan Cohen and Mike Judge are teaming up to write a series of anti-Trump ads starring Crews as Camacho.

Since Hollywood screen writers are not the deep thinkers that they believe they are, I will make a prediction now, in advance of those ads. I predict that they will blow up in their faces and actually increase Trump support. Idiocracy was based on the idea that smart people were outbred by stupid people after all natural obstacles to being stupid were removed by liberal policies, and Feminism caused intelligent women to wait until their 50's to begin to consider having children. That connection will be easily made by intelligent, rational thinking people. But that's not why these ads will fail. They will fail because that's not how we (the American electorate) decide things anymore.

These days we make decisions based on our intuition (deeply affected by how we feel) and our insecurity about the future. The emotional image of a future President Camacho can't say anything about Trump, good or bad, that ever will convince people that chucking out our suicidal policies in deference to a 'hail Mary pass' like Trump, is anything but a great idea.

That's my call.

- Thinking (about) Fast And Slow AI

I suspect you might not have had time to read "Thinking Fast and Slow" so I offer the above video. In it, the author is describing the basic principles of the book. The book is still worth the time I think, but this should give you the flavor of things and make it clear how valuable it would be to make the time to read the book itself. (I'm talking to you Derb... if you haven't read this book yet I'll happily send you a copy because much insight into the nature of man will no doubt come from your comments on it).

My life, in some respects, has been an effort in the replacement of intuitive decision making with analytic decision making in a business setting. In 1990 during a visit to the floor of the New York Stock exchange, I had our "local" (the guy doing the trading on the floor for JPMorgan) tell me that no computer would ever be able to do his job because it was far too complicated. I knew that was nonsense at the time, and history has vindicated me. Today, 100% of all the jobs on the New York Stock exchange floor, that the man described as 'far too complicated' are bieng done by computers, and the place is basically a museum.

I'm a skeptic about AI. But only a mild skeptic. My skepticism is rooted in my belief that to truly understand and predict the behavior of an individual person, you not only have to know how that individual ranks on a wide variety of multi-dimensional metrics relating to personality and intelligence, but you also need to know how they 'believe' they rank as well. And people are notoriously dishonest with themselves. As a simple example, objective assessment of intelligence (with a large enough sample) is a basically normal distribution, but self assessment of intelligence ranges from extremely smart, to 'about average'. No one knows (or at least can admit) they are in the lower half of the distribution.

To an AI system, which at it's best and most complex can be said to reflect only 'analytic' reasoning, this intentional error doesn't exist. And the means for gauging self assessment across a normal distribution (to my knowledge anyway) continues to elude us. In effect it would be a test on a scale of ego imposed 'delusion', and to teach an AI to do the same would in effect be building computers that were 'insane'.

Anyway... just some of the stuff I think about these days. And if I can tease that out from this, then clearly there is much wisdom in Dr. Kahneman's work. (And if you think this reveals that I think of Liberalism as a pathological dysfunction, you would be correct.)

Friday, June 3, 2016

When Anti-Trump protestors make the case for Trump

A sign held by an anti-Trump protestor pretty much says it all:




We don't have immigrants who will assimilate and add to the general welfare of the United States... We have invaders who will gladly turn the USA into some 3rd World crap-hole, just so the invaders can 'feel at home'.


Thursday, June 2, 2016

- Thinking About Thinking

A few weeks ago I was writing a review of that (actually pretty good) movie "The Big Short" by reading the book upon which it was based in an all night binge. In my review, I said that the book's Author Michael Lewis and I had a few things in common. Now we have one more thing, he's discovered the brilliant work of David Kahneman who's groundbreaking book "Thinking Fast and Slow" occupies a place of honor on my coffee table, next to an equally dog eared copy of "Knowledge and Decisions" by Thomas Sowell.

If you want to really understand people, these two books are absolute required reading. They will teach you more about the sources and nature of human error, than any other two published works in all of human history. And if you're really courageous, you'll apply them both to the workings of your own mind, and see what falls out.

- Gun Contol: Finally Solved!!!!!

I’ve got it. I’ve finally arrived at the answer for ‘common sense gun control’. The answer should have been obvious all along. The chart above makes it all perfectly clear. What we need to do is to make sour cream illegal.

Yes, you heard me right, we need to declare ‘sour cream’, common ingredient to dips and sauces everywhere, illegal, in order to prevent gun violence. As you can clearly see from the chart above, there is a clear link between Sour Cream consumption and deaths from legal intervention of a Firearm. The exact cause of this relationship is still unclear. But I suspect it’s because of the sour cream’s ‘white privilege’. But one thing is for certain, if we eliminate the sour cream, we can possibly eliminate up to 320 deaths per year from firearms.

This is all silly of course. But no sillier than any of the other ‘common sense gun reforms’ posed by liberals. What the endlessly propose is that we eliminate the consequences of criminal acts, by passing a new law that no criminal will adhere to. We punish the innocent in the hope that it will affect the guilty.

In fact their idea is worse than that. The worst consequence of my proposal won’t do much except make potato chips a bit more boring. But liberals want to punish the most law abiding, most responsible among us, in the hope that it will somehow change the behavior of the least responsible and law abiding.

My chart, which shows a ‘statistic’ at least as useful as the kind of ridiculous nonsense that comes from the gun ban crowd, but actually comes from a website called spurious correlations, and a guy named Tyler Vigen. It’s nonsense which is supposed to be entertaining because it’s so nonsensical. But in fact it makes a pretty good point about how ‘statistics’ can be twisted to show anything you want. In order to really get at the causes of things, you need to understand the logic of how the data was looked at.

The principles of publicly arming responsible people to limit the actions of criminals is based on the principle of incentives, and that in turn is the basis for virtually all social science. If you believe you can put your hand through a hole in the wall and come back with a $100 bill, your incentive is to do so. If you think you’ll pull back nothing a bloody stump, your incentive is not to do so. Really pretty straightforward.

But the gun ban crowd’s logic of incrementally adding restrictions on the second amendment, doesn’t actually have any such incentive because criminals are already ignoring one law, and will likely ignore the new ones as well. In fact the entire argument of gun restrictionists seems to make things worse until you get to the point where you have not only eliminated the right to keep and bear arms entirely, but have also gone out and confiscated the roughly 300 million firearms that are already out there. And since you will still be able to 3D print yourself a working firearm, you’ll have to go even further than that. This is why gun owners find it dubious that gun control folks claim to respect the second amendment. It’s painfully obvious that it won’t actually help.

It will however make gun controllers feel better. Which is probably the thing they’re really after. And if things have to get much worse for everyone so that they can feel better, as far as they're all concerned that’s a small price to pay.

Personally, I think we’d all be better off banning sour cream.

- American Rage: 2016

I’m told I have a temper and can be very intimidating. That’s true as far as it goes. When I worked at Moore Capital, my boss and I would occasionally get into … disagreements… in the middle of the trading floor. These arguments were a legendary source of entertainment in that room full of over achievers, and afterward I would usually get a clap on the back or two from the senior guys who thought that kind of passion about our work was actually quite productive. On my part it was mostly immaturity, but at least it worked for me in that environment.

But long ago I realized that I must temper my anger and use it to serve my greater purpose rather than being a slave to it. These days, I almost never shout. A change in tone and a hard look is far more than enough to make people understand how serious I may be about the discussion. And in the process I’ve developed a reputation as a guy that no one wants to argue with. I was told just yesterday that it “can be very scary”.

I don’t understand the extreme passion being wrought over politics these days. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are a jackal and a vulture fighting over a carcass. Nothing they do is going to reanimate the gazelle and convince it to spring to its feet or dash once again over the veldt. So why in the world can there be such passion about it?

The stakes are no longer huge. The stakes are actually quite small. And at some point in the increasingly near future, the illusion that we can all of us get something for nothing so long as government is involved, will fall away no matter what happens with this election. When it does the hard realities of life will once again hold sway. but getting upset about it certainly isn't going to change that.

I get why liberals are so passionate. It’s because they have nothing else on their side. They wail and scream and gnash their teeth, but they are children. Their passion isn’t anything except an expression of their desire. It doesn’t mean their view is valid or ‘true’. Quite the contrary. It usually means that their passion is based on an illusion and they are terrified that it will be dispelled. Their rage is simply to hide their fear from others. But conservative have no such childish excuse.

America will not be made great again. Not by Trump, and certainly not by Clinton or Sanders. And that isn’t the fault of the Democrats or the Republicans. It’s not the fault of the beltway insiders, the establishment, the lobbyists, Wall Street fat cats, hedge fund derivatives traders or labor unions. It’s our fault. Us. We did it. All those other people are simply giving us what we want. It’s the wanting it that’s the real problem.

These days, our men aspire to be as soft as women, our women aspire to be as hard as men, and we have a whole new group of people who don’t know what they are, but you'll get a big fine if you say so out loud. People who chant ‘death to America’ are considered peaceful, while people who say ‘you should lose some weight’ are considered violent. Yes means yes, and no means no, unless someone is disappointed and then yesterday's yes can be transformed into tomorrow's no. Subjective feelings are considered the truth, and objective facts are considered lies. The whole western world has turned upside down, and there is no righting it. And while we can continue to ignore hard truths for a good long time, that doesn’t mean the hard truths are going to ignore us as well.

The simple fact is that the government has figured out a lovely shell game of spending money today for taxes collected tomorrow, and built an entire financial infrastructure designed to hide this fact from the bulk of the American people. What we have is a system which is totally unsustainable. It cannot go on forever, and because it can’t, it won’t. The only question is how bad it will be for us all when we get to that last believable lie.

Our choices in this election are between a man who is ignorant of this fact, and a woman who denies its basic truth. It’s literally a choice between a neophyte and a liar. But neither of them is prepared to do what needs to be done, because if they did, “we the people” would crucify them for it. Politics is an expression of our collective will, and what we want is to be deceived. Hillary will add a new layer of self-serving lies atop the old, and Trump will add only his own ignorance to the pile. So why in the world is there so much passion about it all?

I’ll tell you a bit of a secret that the talking heads will never bring up. None of the candidates in either party would have been able to “Make America Great Again” either. They were all powerless. It’s already gone much too far to be fixed. The only question is what condition we’ll be in when it falls apart. Will we be able to build something with the ashes, or will we be cowering in our safe spaces, rioting against the privilege of others, and demanding our ‘right’ to the benefit of labor we haven’t actually performed. Our political choice isn’t for the fate of America… that’s sealed. It’s a choice between continued and intentional self-delusion, and the haphazard ‘solutions’ that come from ignorance of the true problem.

Cultural change is the only thing we should be hoping and striving for. Politics is frankly, irrelevant to America now. To me, there is absolutely no reason left to get angry about it. On the cultural front, Hillary is very much more of the same (con Gusto!!), and Trump is at least something different. He may not help, but she will surely do damage and convince herself it's 'doing the right thing'. And if you’re the kind of person who gets angry about choices like that, then you are certainly a part of the problem.