Bowe Needs To Go

Still no trial date in sight, but today the US Army announced their decision and charges filed re: Bowe Bergdahl;

U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will face a military court on charges of desertion and endangering fellow soldiers, the U.S. Army announced Monday.

Gen. Robert Abrams, the commander of U.S. Army Forces Command, ordered the court-martial on Monday, breaking with the U.S. military officer overseeing Bergdahl’s preliminary hearing who recommended that Bergdahl be referred to a special court-martial and face no jail time.

Abrams on Monday ordered Bergdahl’s case to a general court-martial, which means Bergdahl could face life imprisonment if convicted of “misbehavior before the enemy by endangering the safety of a command, unit or place.”

Of course the type of court martial and these particular charges were appropriate, and about damn time. Now more interminable waiting for justice, hopefully next year.

The worse charges, collaboration with the enemy, can’t be proved, lucky for him. Given his state of mind, bolstered by his emails sent home, it is perfectly conceivable that he spilled his guts regarding troop deployments, numbers, and patrol routes. But only his captures know for sure the level of his treason.

We have talked before how the military is an entirely different animal. Where a mugger or a thief in our society only has one victim, in the military, every soldier is a victim. His actions placed all his fellow soldiers at risk and some gave their lives searching for him. An effective fighting force demands cohesion and camaraderie, and these are jeopardized by even the mere appearance of special treatment due to political expediency.

Of course it was not his fault that our dopey President traded 5 Taliban generals for him, but he swore an oath, one that all other soldiers take seriously.

Naturally we are not privy to all the evidence, but we have a pretty good idea, based on eye witness sworn testimony from his fellow platoon members and supervisors, as to what happened. For my own self, I don’t think a guilty finding with time served cuts it. I want some Leavenworth time, 5 years is about right. Oh, and a dishonorable discharge with a forfeiture of all pay while being held captive.

Another Trump Rant

I mentioned the other day in a comment that The Donald is NOT leading in the latest Iowa poll, Ted Cruz is. Nothing real incendiary here though, can’t remember the last time the Iowa winner actually got the nomination, but still, Trump’s usual retort when confronted with something idiotic is ,”Well, the people love me and agree with me, look at all the polls”. And given this latest turn, how vicious do you think Trump will be towards Cruz in tomorrow’s debate?

There is a lot to like about Trump; he does not need their Judas money, he does not suffer fools easily, he understands the two most important issues (the economy and the dangers of Radical Islam), he drives liberals rabid, and his loyalties are not suspect. Do I wish he would be more circumspect, act more presidential, and understand the value and on unexpressed thought? Of course. And do I give two shits about what the MSM, the liberal elites and the GOPees think of Trump? You know the answer to that.

But this post is about his latest push;

According to The Hill, Trump said, “One of the first things I’d do in terms of executive order, if I win, will be to sign a strong, strong statement that would go out to the country, out to the world, anybody killing a police man, a police woman, a police officer, anybody killing a police officer, the death penalty is going to happen.”

I think everyone here knows where I stand on the rule of law, the need for law and order in any civilized society, and the stellar thankless work our men and women in blue do day in and day out. But this misses the mark on a number of levels, namely;

1) Since when is a police officers life worth more than another life? Isn’t that the main rub against hate crimes, that one class of people or person, their skin, is worth more and is more valuable than another’s? Yes, it is a dangerous job, but they know it going in and are trained to deal with these dangerous situations, and I might add handsomely compensated. But when a bank robber is pulled over and a gunfight ensues with the result being a dead cop, that crime is no more egregious or malevolent then back at the bank when he shot and killed a bank teller.

2) Considering that many states do not have the death penalty, voted on by the people of those states, a sweeping executive order nullifying that vote and throwing the 9th and 10 Amendments in the trash can is not really in the best interest of the people.

3) When are these guys going to learn the differences between the Executive and the Legislative branches of our federal government, which branch makes the laws and which one is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws? Given the reckless shotgun approach the current guy took, how about a moratorium on executive orders for a while.

Yeah, it foments the base, but;

Rarely can you tell whether a new Trump policy idea was gamed out beforehand or just something he came up with on the fly while in front of a mic, and this is no exception.

And this idea will be placed on the same shelf with his other goofy ideas; Build a fence and have Mexico pay for it, start a trade war with China, deport 11 million illegals already living here, and baring ALL Muslims from coming to America.

The Paris Agreement

You know, I’m getting a little tired of every do-nothing climate agreement being hailed as having saved the planet. This weekend, the media exploded about a “breakthrough” climate agreement signed in Paris; one that is going to “save the Earth” from global warming (as always, remember what George Carlin said about “saving the Earth”). You can read a good breakdown from Ronald Bailey but a good summation could me given by Michael Corleone.

The offer is nothing.

The nations have agreed, in principle, to massively cut global emissions with the goal of going carbon free later in the century. They’ve also agreed, in principle, to provide some assistance to countries negatively impacted by the effects of global warming. It goes into effect if enough nations sign on and will review those goals every five years.

But there’s no enforcement mechanism. There’s nothing binding. The deal is so flimsy that Obama’s not even going to bother sending it to Congress because it doesn’t agree to anything they need to act on (and because Congress would probably overwhelmingly reject it the same way they overwhelmingly rejected Kyoto). It’s a slightly fancier piece of paper and that’s all.

Even if the goals were enacted, the reduction in projected global warming is small, maybe one degree if the countries do everything they say they are going to do. That’s actually less than the reduction in projected global warming that’s resulted from better science: improved models and better analysis of temperature trends that have dropped the projected global warming in this century by several degrees.

If you judge an agreement by its goals — which seems to be the only way the Left ever judges anything — the Paris Agreement is fantastic. But if you judge it by what it actually does, the Paris Agreement is nothing. All it really does is emphasize the dirty little secret of the global warming debate: We don’t have a solution to the problem of global warming.

Oh, there are things we can do to buy time. Better energy efficiency. Using alternative energy as practicable, especially nuclear. Cutting down on industrial methane emissions. Switching to less carbon-intense fuels, like natural gas. Making our energy grid more efficient and responsive. These can slow the process of global warming, possibly for decades. I’ve written previously on how to buy time on global warming without wrecking the economy here and here.

But the simple fact is that we will not solve this problem until we have an energy source that is as reliable, as efficient, as portable and as powerful as fossil fuels. That might be a more advanced nuclear fission. It might be nuclear fusion. It might be sunlight captured in space and beamed down the Earth. It might be efficient energy storage (and no, filling a warehouse with lithium batteries is not efficient energy storage). But we are at least a couple of decades away from being able to go “carbon free”.

When that technology is developed, we won’t need grand international agreements to force everyone to use it. The market will eat that right up. And that brings us to the final dirty secret of global warming: these meetings and these treaties aren’t about saving the Earth. They’re about consolidating power. They’re about lavishing money on special interests. They’re about, for many counties, wealth transfers from rich countries to poor ones (a major sticking point in the negotiations was just how much rich countries should “compensate” poor countries for environmental damage; most environmental damage right now is caused by … poor countries). They’re about having fancy expensive meetings in exotic locales where were world leaders can set nobel goals decades away that they will never have to worry about. They then pat themselves on the back and bask in the worship of the media and environmentalists despite having accomplished fuck all.

A Scalia Smear

The Supreme Court, earlier this week, heard arguments in a case of whether affirmative action should be allowed in Texas Law schools. You may have heard about this because the entire Left Wing exploded into outrage over Scalia’s alleged racism:

Demonstrating once again that his reputation for cheap demagoguery has been well-earned, Senator Harry Reid this morning took a wild shot at Justice Antonin Scalia. “It is deeply disturbing,” Reid suggested, “to hear a Supreme Court justice endorse racist ideas from the bench of the nation’s highest court.”

What did Scalia say, precisely?

“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less­ advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well,” he said. “One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas.”

That’s it. Scalia didn’t even advance the theory that admitting blacks to schools they are underqualified for only makes them struggle. He threw it out there as a discussion point to hear what the lawyers thought about it. You wouldn’t know this from the screaming headlines (the New York Daily News, which has completed its descent into pure Left Wing hysteria, had a screaming headline branding Scalia a racist).

Now there are reason to think that this theory is wrong. Recent studies have shown that black students admitted on affirmative action catch up quickly and have graduation rates similar to white students. However, others have argued that it keeps black students out of the more difficult subjects like science, where catching up is particularly difficult. This theory — not Scalia’s, but a common theory — is not far out of the mainstream at all. It’s been mentioned in prior SCOTUS decisions on this matter.

But this is a bit more dangerous than calling Scalia a racist. Alex Griswold

First of all, it’s worth noting that oral arguments are not an avenue for justices to share their views on the case at hand; it’s an opportunity to suss out any holes in the arguments of both parties. To that end, justices often advance arguments and theories they do not necessarily hold. Take for example Chief Justice John Roberts‘ extremely harsh questioning of government lawyers in NFIB v. Burwell, even though he eventually voted to uphold the individual mandate anyways.

Arguing before the Supreme Court is a notoriously nerve-wracking experience, since justices try to find arguments and lines of attack attorneys would never consider. In this case, the transcript make it clear that Scalia was asking a question about a theory put forward by others, not himself:

Scalia, in particular, has a tendency to play devil’s advocate. During the flag burning case, he asked if burning the flag could be banned by being considered fighting words. But he eventually decided with the majority to strike down the flag burning laws.

Charles Cooke, linked above, brings this home:

If we are to have a functioning justice system, we cannot hold lawyers personally responsible for the unpleasant parts of their designated roles. When a defense attorney successfully demonstrates that the prosecution’s case is too weak for a conviction, he is not betraying a preference for murder or rape or grievous bodily harm, he is ensuring that his client gets a fair shake. When a corporate counselor illustrates that a given statute is so badly written that it cannot be used to secure guilt, he is not endorsing whatever misconduct yielded the case in the first instance but upholding the rule of law. And when a Supreme Court justice pushes those before him to respond to the countervailing briefs — or offers whatever devil’s advocacy occurs to him on the spot — he is not pitching his own ideas but mediating a dispute. The day that we fail to understand this will be the day we give in to barbarism.

All too often these days we conflate principles with outcomes. Thus, to defend the free-speech rights of neo-Nazis is to be accused of endorsing their words. Thus, to protect the right to keep and bear arms is to be charged with complicity in its abuse. Thus, to oppose further government surveillance is to be lumped in with terrorists and hackers. During the 2013 Texas gubernatorial race, the Republican nominee offered the uncontroversial observation that, as attorney general, he was obliged to defend laws he personally opposed, and that this would have been the case during the 1960s, too. For this accurate appraisal of his professional responsibilities, his opponent labeled him a foe of interracial marriage. If this approach to government were to become quotidian, we would soon find ourselves living in a country ruled by men and not by law.

Raising points of law and discussion is Justice Scalia’s job. And … apparently … taking cheap shots at him is now the Democrat’s job.

This is how the left thinks healthcare and the country should be run

Unless you have experience with the VA shit, you are left to a reluctant media for information of how bad things have gotten there. Queue the WaPo piece that tries to defend a statement by the moron now running the VA saying how “You can’t fire your way to excellence“. From the article:

A Veterans Affairs official on Wednesday defended the department’s decision to demote but not fire two senior executives who collected $400,000 in a relocation scheme, and pushed back sharply against lawmakers for pressing for punishment rather than accountability for the VA workforce.

“In my many years in the private sector, I’ve never encountered an organization where leadership was measured by how many people you fired,” Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson told the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

“You can’t fire your way to excellence.”

What a crock of fucking shit. Unfortunately, these failures and this sort of horribly stupid thinking are a clear and natural consequence of the left’s dominance of the bureaucratic machine. For those that are ignorant of the facts, the VA is managed the same way the left thinks healthcare in general, and for that matter, the country as a whole, should be managed: without any accountability except for those that betray the system. Amongst the long list of criminal behavior – Google VA scandals and avoid the usual lefty LSM stooges trying to provide the crooks in charge cover – and you will find that the people at the VA are putting vets on long waiting lists hoping that a good percentage of them die before they can get any treatment, amongst a long list of unbelievably horrible things. Worse yet is the fact that anyone that dares question or point out these scandals – both externally, but especially the internal whistleblowers – are getting derided and outright punished for daring to point out how bad things are. The collectivist machine’s worst enemy is those that point out how broken it is, and they save the worst of their ire for those that do this.

The fact of the matter is that you can too “fire your way to excellence”, especially when you are firing people engaged in criminal activity and fleecing the US tax payer and the vets under their care. I worked at GE a long time ago, and I remember Jack Welsh doing just that back then. He instituted a program that quickly and efficiently pointed out the dead weight and the people abusing the system while adding no value, and while he was there doing this, GE as a company thrived. I also saw people that were engaging in illegal activity – and I surmise the people that this idiot Gibson feels shouldn’t be fired were doing just that – not only were fired, but had charges filed against them. Can you imagine people working at private healthcare entities doing the shit that VA employees are doing, being protected by their employer from consequences by only getting what amounts to a slap on the wrist, and the crooks in government not making political hay about it and demanding scalps? This doesn’t happen in unionized government entities more so and not just because these places are dens of ineptitude and mediocrity, but because the people involved practically always can expose skeletons that would cause the net to widen and often snare those higher up for similar illegal activity and callous behavior.

I suspect that these criminals were not fired because leadership was likely worried about what they could divulge on the way out. Hence the need to posture about how criminal behavior that would have resulted in the heavy hand of government coming down on anyone involved in the private sector isn’t really criminal behavior that requires firing. That’s the fundamental change Obama promised and delivered for us.

Corrupt, incompetent, stupid, and evil liars, will just keep lying

At least some in the media are still pointing out how big of despicable entity Hilary Clinton is, but the majority of the DNC sycophants seem to be doing their best to ignore this umpteenth indication of how morally bankrupt, psychologically corrupt, and just down right despicable this woman is. Hillary, in an propaganda piece staged with her top media disciple, emphatically denied that she lied:

Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire: Hillary Clinton still insists she didn’t tell the grieving families of the Benghazi victims that an anti-Islam video was to blame.

Yet family members say she said just that, three days after the attack, at the Sept. 14, 2012, ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base.

George Stephanopoulos asked her Sunday if she’d told the victims it was about the film. Clinton gave a flat “no.”

She added: “I said very clearly there had been a terrorist group, uh, that had taken responsibility on Facebook, um . . .”

At least four family members disagree.

Tyrone Woods’ father said he hugged Clinton and shook her hand. Then “she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son . . . She said ‘the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son.’ ”

Sean Smith’s mother said Hillary is “absolutely lying . . . She said it was because of the video.” Smith’s uncle backs her up.

This woman, like practically every fucking leftist, is a fucking ghoul. Just like Obama , whom can’t wait to dance on the corpses of victims of insane killers or terrorists – including the corpses of children – and use those left grieving after every tragedy to push the left’s agenda to shit all over the second amendment and to disarm the populous so the left can do evil the shit it really wants to do without fear of serious reprisal, Hillary has no problem lying to victims of tragedy either. And then she also has the balls to compound on the lies by publically calling these people liars for pointing out she lied.

Glen Doherty’s sister agreed: “When I think back now to that day and what she knew, it shows me a lot about her character that she would choose in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue.”

“What she knew” refers to Clinton’s words to daughter Chelsea the night of the assault and the next day to Egypt’s prime minister, which made it plain the secretary of state knew full well that a terror group had long planned the attack.

The lie’s even in her words at the Sept. 14 ceremony: “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

Just why the administration united around this lie is another editorial. The disgrace here is Clinton’s refusal to admit her role — even pushing the fib to “comfort” the bereaved.

This administration, and the then Secretary of State, Clinton, lie. That’s what they do best. They won the election in 2008 telling lies. They then proceeded to fuck us all over to the tune of over $1 trillion for a proculous package that helped nobody but the connected few, big democrat donors, and the campaign coffers of democrats. That was followed by government bailouts of entities too-big to fail to the tune of another $1 trillion dollars, which included amongst so many insane things screwing over everyone to pay back their union buddies or doubling down on the tax payer money pissed away keeping too-big-to-fail special interests that donate to democrats alive, all while acting though and blaming the previous guy for a crisis of their making.

But they didn’t stop there, oh no. They then straddled the American people with the most horrible piece of legislation ever passed – Obamacare – which required so much favor buying from party members, since they could only pass this horrendous “we must pass it first so you can see what is in it “ bill by any other means but a straight party line vote, that will cost us trillions as it destroys the most competent and effective healthcare system on this planet in record time (fuck you leftists that pretend the measure of a good healthcare system depends on it being peddled as being free, because only idiots ever thing government mismanaged bullshit passes as anything close to free).

And the list of other lies goes on and on. They have failed at everything. Fucking over the economy and lying about it, while pretending the recovery is just around the corner or has happened? Check. Pretending they were the superior statesmen and would fix everything that cowboy Boosh had done, only to then piss away victories, piss on and piss off our friends and allies, and then suck the cock of our enemies? Double check! Making a mockery of our laws and government by enforcing only the laws they like while committing crime after crime (IRS scandal, out of control DOJ, abuses of power on a scale that would make tyrants feel envy, and much more) to cover up their failures and nefarious activities? Triple check!

Benghazi was just one in the many chain of acts of incompetence and downright stupidity, practically every one of them done to line the pocket of a select few on the left, so we shouldn’t be surprised how bad it was handled. Shit, Obama had an election to win – at all costs –and he had just told the American people not 2 weeks before that he had al-Qaida on the run, so there was no way these hyenas were going to admit they were lying about al-Qaida and got caught with their pants down. Another lie, especially one that would allow them to justify a move to control and censor the alternative media that was constantly undermining the job so well done by their DNC agents in the LSM that were protecting these scumbags from themselves, seemed like the logical course of action. After all, you never let a crisis go by without using it to push something otherwise unpalatable and vile if you are a collectivist.

If we lived in a country of laws and had real leaders in power, this shit wouldn’t be allowed. Instead we have criminals running the show and their lackeys in the media covering for them. So the left now has staked their claim to the WH on another Obama: an immoral narcissist liar that feels they are owed the seat and that the ungrateful and unwashed masses should feel lucky to get the chance to vote for her.

Fuck the lot of you leftists. Especially those of you pretending that the people that are real problematic are the lightweights running from the opposite party. When it comes to being crooked, vile, and evil, you leftists make the fucking devil feel like he should be taking notes. A Clinton administration would be a continuation of the same abuses, lies, and despicable and conniving behaviors that have been the hallmark of the Obama administration, so I can see why the left thinks she is owed this job.

The No Fly Fraud, The Donald and the Death of Civil Liberties

In this corner, we present the Democratic Party. Fresh off of Obama’s lackluster Oval Office speech, they are pushing to ban people on the federal no-fly list from buying guns. Never mind that the list is arbitrary and secretive. Never mind that it’s difficult to find out why you’re on the list and almost impossible to get off of it. Never mind that there are several hundred thousand people on the list, including the odd PhD Candidate and the occasional 4-year old. Never mind that this would deprive people of a basic civil liberty without due process. Never mind that terrorists will simply get their guns illegally. There’s an election coming up. Time to sow some panic!

And in this corner, we have the Republican frontrunner. Fresh off making false claims that he saw video of thousands of American Muslims celebrating 9/11, calling for Muslims to be registered and saying that some mosques should be closed, today he said that we should just stop letting Muslims come into the country. He clarified later that this would include US citizens currently abroad although he didn’t clarify if this meant military personnel. In support of this, he cited a bunch of unscientific online polls from anti-Islamic groups. Never mind that we’ve had a total of 40 people killed on American soil by anything remotely Islamic in the last five years (against five million American Muslims and 70,000 total murders in that time). Never mind that it would be unconstitutional. Never mind that there would be no practical way to do it without forcing everyone to declare their religion to the government. Never mind that his campaign is drifting further and further into something that can only be called fascism. There’s panic to sow!

So one party wants to take away civil liberties based on secret lists. The other wants to bar people from the country based on their religion.

And people wonder why I vote libertarian.

Destroyer In Chief

Yes, he is happy, to the detriment of the entire world; OK, the terrorist countries thinks he is dope.

Genghis Khan could not have done a better job, or the climate frauds, a one man wrecking crew.

H/T: Moonbattery

The NYT Gets Hysterical

For the first time in 95 years, the New York Times has run a front page editorial. The subject? Guns and how we need to get rid of them. And it is a distillation of the moral panic we are having over guns right now.

The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

So many problems squeezed into one paragraph. First, it is not the job of elected leaders to “keep us safe”. Or at least, it’s not their only job. Their jobs is also to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. It’s also to exercise restraint when the public is hysterical and hence clamorous to be lead to safety by hobgoblins who dance in the blood of the slain. We responded hysterically to World War I with the Espionage and Sedition Acts (without a front page editorial from the NYT). We responded to Pearl Harbor with a hysterical internment (without a front page editorial from the NYT). We responded to 9/11 with a hysterical Patriot Act (without a front page editorial from the NYT). Must we respond hysterically now?

And the idea that politicians oppose gun control because of money and power from the firearms industry is disgusting. According to the NYT and their allies, gun control opponents are perfectly willing to countenance the slaughter of thousands if it means a few thousand dollars in their campaign war chest. And what about the tens of millions of Americans who oppose gun control? What about the conservative and libertarian writers who oppose gun control? And frankly, what about the NRA, which has millions of members and a higher approval rating than Hillary Clinton? Where’s our bribes?

As I said the other day:

Saying that your opponents are fine with killing is the reaction of an insane person, not “the paper of record”.

I’m tired of hearing this crap that the only reason we don’t get gun control is because of NRA bribes. It’s possible to oppose gun control on principal or because it is not popular with the American public or your particular constituency. Bernie Sanders, to his credit, tried to make this point in the Democratic debate. It basically ended his candidacy.

Today’s liberalism shares a heritage with yesterday’s communism. One of the principle things it has inherited is the belief that their ideas are intrinsically scientifically right and that if anyone opposes them, it is because they have been deluded by a shadowy conspiracy of counter-revolutionaries. For the commies, it was bourgeois. For the liberals, it’s the NRA.

We’re only two paragraphs in and the NYT already needs to get a damned grip.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.

Now we get the distraction on assault weapons. Assault weapons are a tiny tiny portion of violence in the country. And “assault weapon” itself is mostly a marketing term used by gun manufacturers. There really is not much of a difference between a handgun and an “assault weapon”. In fact, most assault weapons are of lower caliber and lower power than a revolver or handgun. Even our government admits that the 90’s assault weapons ban — which mainly banned guns that looked scary — had no impact on gun violence.

The assault weapons ban is a touchstone for what the real issue is: a culture war. The gun grabbers don’t like assault weapons. Wanting to ban them is about signaling, not reducing violence.

And what’s the point? Is the point that these terrorists might have killed a few less people if they’d had rifles and handguns? Or restorted to bombs instead? Is that really what we’re talking about here?

After conceding that gun laws may not stop criminals, that the Constitutional challenges are formidable and that terrorists in France obtained weapons without a problem, they say this:

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.

You will never find a moral perfect statement of: “We must do something! This is something! Let’s do it!”

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

The “clear and effective way” last time was to go through a catalog and pick out weapons that looked scary. And note that last part: gun confiscation. Hanging out there all pink and naked.

I’ll close with a few bullet points that the NYT did not mention:

  • Gun violence is down. Way down. 50% off its 1993 peak. And if you’re not in an inner city war zone, violence is at level similar to countries that have way stricter gun control. Violence has fallen even faster than it did in Australia after they passed their restrictive gun laws in the wake of Port Arthur. During this dramatic drop in crime, millions of carry permits have been issued and about a hundred million guns purchased.
  • The problem of gun violence is primarily in inner cities, not among rural and suburban gun collectors. This is why assault weapons are such a tiny part of overall gun violence.
  • The contention that more guns equals more violence is only true if you cherry-pick. The contention that Connecticut’s gun laws massively reduced gun violence is only true if you cherry pick. The contention that mass shootings are way up is only true if you cherry pick. The contention that there have been 350 mass shootings this year is only true if you muddy the definition of mass shooting beyond all recognition. Both the CDC and the NRC conceded, in their studies, that the case that gun control will reduce violence is weak, at beast.
  • Given that, the contention that our politicians could unquestionably stop this violence by passing a law is ridiculous. I’m sorry. This is a matter of debate. This is a matter of disagreement. This is not a matter of just pressing the gun control button and having a less violent society emerge.
  • By phrasing it the way they do — as if it were not even debatable than gun control would massively reduce violence — the gun grabbers unwittingly reveal what this: a religion. They believe that gun control will work because they believe government can do anything if it just decides to. And the millions of Americans who oppose gun control are thus heretics.
  • The tale of gun violence is not told in mass shootings. It’s told in the every day violence in our inner cities and the suicides of many fellow Americans. But addressing that is much more complicated. It probably means ending the War on Drugs. It means addressing the cultural decay and the devaluation of human life. It means fixing our broken education, law enforcement and economic systems. Much easier to grab someone’s AK-47 and call it a day, I guess.
  • Did we mention that these were terrorists? Of all the incidents to pick to lose their minds over, the NYT picked this one.

Oh well. Sorry about the rant, but the NYT has basically distilled the hysteria of the last few days and I needed to vent and put all the responses in one place. I hate having to do this every time some maniac decides to kill. You can read a cooler reactions from Jonah Goldberg or Reason or check out the Twitter feed of the indispensable Charles Cooke for more. I’m sure Hot Air and others will have a reply up soon.

One closing thought. The NYT’s front page editorial (and the NY Daily News increasingly deranged covers) are a sign of a movement that is angry because they are not convincing anyone. Every time a tragedy happens, they leap to the microphones, computers and desks to say that now is the time to enact “sensible” gun control and the American public … ignores them.

So is the final straw? Is this the moment when American will “turn their back on gun violence” and repudiate the NRA and finally enact the gun control the liberals wants?

Well, the last time the NYT ran a front page editorial was to lament that nomination of Warren Harding for President.

He won the election by one of the biggest popular vote margins in American history.