Vedder Holsters Daily Digest: More of Mike’s Money, Pelosi’s Desperation and UnScientific American

1. that scalise comment is a real lollapalosi. she needs a suppressor more than i do.

   • *wince*

2. “Absolutely shameless . . . Pelosi Invokes Scalise Shooting to Blast Bill Deregulating Silencers”

   That’s why I was so happy to see Scalise back on the floor of the House earlier today.

   I can’t wait to hear what he will have to say during the debate for the SHARE act.

   Hopefully, he will direct a few comments towards Pelosi on gun control.

   And when 50-state reciprocity gets up for debate, he will likely have some choice words as to what would have happened if his security wasn’t there. So many of the players there that morning were disarmed thanks to DC’s bullshit on concealed carry.

   An on-scene eyewitness of the need for national carry. The Leftists are gonna *hate* that one.

   What wonderful timing for his return! 🙂

   • EDIT – Check out this quote from ‘Princess Nancy Pelosi’ about the ‘SHARE Act’ at 1:40 into the clip :

     “Again, they always name things, and you can always just turn it upside down. So, we’ll fight it, but, you know, they’ll have the votes and the President seems to be on that path.”

     H’mm. Conservatives name things and just turn it upside down…

     Like the ‘Affordable Care Act’?

     Florida’s insurance rates are going up *40 percent* next year.

     I’m just not seeing the ‘affordable’ there, Nancy…

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=108&v=34QxEoY7gzE

3. HUGE BREAKING NEWS!!! D.C. CIRCUIT DECLINES EN BANC REVIEW OF DECISION ENJOINING D.C.’S “MAY ISSUE” LAW:

   https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-order-blocks-enforcement-of-dcs-strict-gun-control-law/2017/09/28/04734362-a482-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.de59c3ec6e5f

   A permanent injunction barring D.C. from enforcing ts may issue law will issue in one week, and D.C. will automatically become a “shall issue” jurisdiction. Presumably the City will seek a stay and file for cert. with the Supreme Court.

   • “A permanent injunction barring D.C. from enforcing ts may issue law will issue in one week, and D.C. will automatically become a “shall issue” jurisdiction.”

     For the next act, watch the fancy foot-work as the District police do anything and *everything* to drag that process out as long as they possibly can.

     I think I hear a sound in the distance, getting louder and louder. Progressive heads are popping like a giant kettle of popcorn.

     “Presumably the City will seek a stay and file for cert. with the Supreme Court.”

     They may get the stay, but the conservatives on SCOTUS will likely deny cert. until Kennedy or a Leftist vacates the bench.

     This is going to be so, so much *FUN* to watch as it goes down.

     I just may have a permanent *snicker* on my face for the next three years…

     • I believe (and I could be wrong) that when two circuit courts have differing outcomes on the same legal issue that the Supreme Court MUST hear it. The 9th Circuit over Cali said May Issue is fine, the D.C. Court says it’s not fine, the S.C. MUST take a stand.

       • You are wrong in that the SC is required to here a case where there is a circuit split. Circuits aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution.

         Also, there was a circuit split when the court denied cert in Peruta. I believe the 7th Circuit ruled in favor of shall-issue in Moore v Madigan (2013). I haven’t read the case.

   • Did not see that coming.

     • Especially that *none* of them voted for en banc. Not just short of a vote – votes, an utter lack of them.

       Is DC adding something to the water?

       Or do they just see the inevitability of a future hard conservative majority SCOTUS?

       The question I have is, will this impact votes (Yae or Nay) in the House for SHARE now and 50 state carry in the next few months?

       EDIT – Some of the comments in the WaPo article are *priceless*…

   • Mark N. – About videos in Firefox not playing – My Firefox has been acting weird with videos on occasion, try right-clicking on the video and selecting ‘Play’…

4. Six veteran Georgia professors are seeking….

   So, did any of them ever serve? Of course not! That would be well beneath any of them. They would be happy to spit on any actual veterans they might encounter. Perhaps a better description of them would be “Six tenured liberal whiney professors.”

5. Mark Herring is an utter disgrace to the AG’s office of Virginia. Like Eric Holder, he simply refuses to defend and enforce laws he doesn’t like. Janet Reno is a model of principled consistency next to him. And we get him for another four years? Over an actual descendant of the original John Adams (as opposed to the minimalist composer)?

   I’m not holding out too much hope that Gillespie will pull it off. He’s a moderate GOP candidate, so a lot of Trumpers will stay home. For Lt. Gov, Jill Vogel has attended VCDL meetings and received recognition from Van Cleave, so she has my support. But she’s polling way behind Justin Fairfax. First woman governor or second black governor in four years. That’s what it comes down to.

   (And yes, Virginia has “a la carte” voting for the three statewide offices. Mix and match!)

6. What is it with Bloomberg and his seething hate for the 2A? Did something happen to him at an early age? Why can’t he spend his billions on cancer research, solar power, private space flight or malaria eradication like respectable billionaires? What drives him to go after RTKBA in every single state in the union?

   • It’s a “legacy” thing that, in his mind, sets him apart from all the other philanthropists. Some do museums, some do medical research, some do education. He does gun control. As a true believer, he thinks he is saving millions of lives, and therefore his quest is as important as the other worthy causes you mention.

     • Hes an elitist and a megalomaniac. He doesnt want us little people to be able to protect ourselves while he has an army of armed security.

       • ^^^ This about sums it up. Just add his Napoleon complex.

   • He’s against rights in general, q.v. his penchant for warrantless suspicionless search.

7. “…lose their temper, or exercise poor judgment, or misinterpret a situation, or have a few drinks…”

   I do all those things nearly every day. Sometimes I do more than one at the same time. In fact, I’m certain that I’ve misinterpreted my wife, lost my temper because of it, exercised poor judgement in my verbal response and done so while having a few drinks and… armed.

   I have yet to shoot my wife, or anyone else, because of any of it. In fact, truth be told I have yet to even unholster my gun because of any of those things.

   • The desired narrative is that anyone with a gun at hand can potentially get upset and start shooting. Look! Here’s a case of 2 drivers (out of some 100 or whatever million gun owners) where that happened! Clearly, if they didn’t have guns in their homes, those two lives lost in a road rage incident would have been saved. If it saves even one life, isn’t it worth it?

     This makes sense to someone, somewhere, although “Scientific American” would seem a misnomer for any such person.

   • Precisely.

     “and if they’re carrying guns when they do, bad things can ensue.”

     Yes they *can* but they don’t – not very often.

     There are 350 million or more guns in the hands of 125 million or more gun owners in this country and of the 10,000 or so who lose their lives to gunshots each year only a couple of thousand were not previously engaged in felonious activity.

     That’s 10^3 divided by 10^8 – not a big number.

   • It’s not about making sense. It’s not even about telling you and me what to do.
     It’s about the fact that if they can make gun owning go away, they can make a motivated voting block that is controlled by the other team go away and can further consolidate power. It’s no different than gerrymandering, buying votes with pork barrel projects etc. They can pander to a chunk of their base and try to eliminate a block of opposing voters.

8. The ATF has traced more guns than ever!..and…and…so what? The real big question goes unanswered: how many guns were traced to the guy who used it in a crime? I mean really, if the gun was manufactured in the US, it says so right on the gun, and the serial number (if it is new enough to have one) reveals the name of the manufacturer (Doh!) and date of manufacture–information which the ATF already has in its files, since it is the agency that assigns serial numbers in the first place. The manufacturer can tell to whom it shipped the gun, and then that entity (FFL) has, again if the gun is new enough, a record of the person to whom the gun was first sold. But if the gun was resold one or more times in a person to person transfer, or if it was stolen, the trail goes cold, and nothing but nothing is learned.

   This sounds to me more like the agency is tooting its own horn rather than accomplishing anything worthwhile. the purpose of tracing is to solve crimes, right? Nothing else matters–but the ATF doesn’t say that it is helping to solve crimes, not at all. Talk about a waste of police resources. No wonder police agencies don’t bother submitting guns for a trace.

9. The SciAm article is the usual statistical game of hide-the-sausage: confusing cause and effect, conflating lawful ownership with unlawful ownership, using the independent urban/rural splits on both gun ownership and suicide to imply causality.

   This is part of what brought me over to the side of gun rights in the first place. For how broadly academics, scientists, journalists favor gun control, you’d think their data would be rock-solid, overwhelming – but it’s not. It’s a series of cheap tricks, houses of cards that fall apart if you blow on them. If this is the quality of the data they think ought to convince scientifically-minded people, then there’s no “there” there.

   • Good for you on absolutely correct conclusions! All one has to do is carefully examine the raw data and compare to the official ‘conclusions’ in any gun control study and their bias and outright fabrications become transparent. It seems to me that they just think that their readers will never examine their ‘evidence’ with a critical eye, but simply accept their fraudulent conclusions as gospel.
     Little wonder then, that functional minds have gone elsewhere, and no longer even listen to them. As you stated, their house of cards is too easy to blow over, and it’s already done by others, usually within a matter of days. It is clear they will not stop with the lies, so why bother to refute them every time? Like talking to a spoiled three year-old, or beating your head against a brick wall, it feels so much better to just stop, and instead just ignore the stupid infant.

     • What put me in the gun control is indefensible camp was when examined the relationship between gun control and crime in my statistics class. My model wasn’t that great (I can’t remember my statistical terms, but to prove the hypothesis we wanted one of our scores to be .95. Mine was .90. .90 was considered ok but not good). In my literature review, I read both the book and paper “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott. I had to also read the criticism of those works. They boiled down to ad hominem attacks on Lott. And that’s what really did for me. The detractors didn’t even have an argument against Lott’s position. Just against him, and they were wrong on those facts more often than not.

   • EXACTLY.

     Before I jumped into the deep end of the pool and started buying guns, about seven years ago, I did a lot of research — I wanted to know what the facts were. What I found was that one side usually cited its sources and tried to argue factually. The other side, well…not so much.

     Whenever the two sides each referred to evidence that I had evaluated for myself (that stupid Kellerman study being exhibit A), the anti-gun side invariably cherrypicked, distorted, or outright lied about it, while the pro-gun places tended to do the same kind of logical analysis I had already done (and often did it better).

     The anti-gun position is ethically and intellectually bankrupt.

10. This Virginia election, like the last on that put McCauliffe into office, is what happens when the Republican Party has allowed itself to be so fractured that it cannot come up with strong candidates. There is such a thing as being “too conservative” to be elected to a statewide office in a state where you have to make a good showing in the Beltway and Tidewater counties. Last time around, the Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor was so far out there that he took down the whole ticket, and Virginia got the ultimate Democratic insider, McCauliffe, now rumored to be a potential Presidential candidate in 2020. As President, he would be a nightmare, like having Obama back in office.

    Meanwhile, this year the Republicans had to resort to their own Washington insider, Ed Gillespie, as they can’t seem to find anyone else. Previous life as a lobbyist does not exactly create high enthusiasm and turnout. On the other hand, the Democrats have Northam, to me a worse nightmare than McCauliffe and Kaine. For those who don’t know, Northam is a pediatrician by trade, therefore a believer in the nanny-state and the personal embodiment of nannyism. He also pandered to the worst of the Bureau of Land Management elements when he “apologized” for his white privilege in that his great great grand-relative was a slave owner in the antebellum South. A worse choice could not be found.

    If you vote in Virginia, hold your nose and vote for Gillespie.

    • The trouble with conservatives/Republicans is we demand “perfection,” unlike progressives, who see that a three-legged mule is better than none. Gillespie is not 100% on guns, but look at Reagan. And Trump? He’s barely a conservative.

      Gillespie has a much better chance of winning than Corey Stewart, so I’ll take the three-legged mule happily.

      • “The trouble with conservatives/Republicans is we demand “perfection,” unlike progressives, who see that a three-legged mule is better than none.”

        Eh, not so much.

        Look at what’s happening in the Democrat party – Very loud calls for political ‘purity’. As in, ‘Single Payer’, identity politics, free college, etc.

        There’s a huge battle brewing between the hard Left (Bernie, Kamala, etc.) and the pragmatic Left. This is *fantastic* news for us as ‘that dog don’t hunt’ with the middle America working class, who they MUST have to win national office…

11. Overheard:

    “Evil people buying influence to inflict their preferences on regular folks with less money?”

    “We must get money out of politics. For the little guy!”

    “Wait, it’s Bloomie, buying outcomes for our side?”

    “Nevermind.”

12. “Scientific” American went off the liberal deep end in the early 90’s– I dropped my subscription over it then. Looks like nothing has changed.

Comments are closed.