I can't come up with any better way to introduce this Reason article, then to quote its sub-header: "Political donations are made public so that citizens can hold politicians accountable, not the other way around."

I can't come up with any better way to introduce this Reason article, then to quote its sub-header: "Political donations are made public so that citizens can hold politicians accountable, not the other way around."

Well, damn... sorry about that.

It was a hiccup, obviously.

Well, that's one way to get people to pay to see your movie. I was disinclined to see the next Thor movie (or much of phase 4 Marvel offerings) but this seals the deal.

There, there. You'll get over it when you realise you don't know what you want until I give it to you.

https://twitter.com/TaikaWaititi/status/1154824932674560000

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1159189557490774016

Perhaps instead of calling for more wasteful government spending and programs maybe you should write some editorials excoriating local government for failing to fulfill a core function of local government and keep your city clean?

"Call us skeptical," the paper remarked before going off on a litany of excuses, complaints, and verbal attacks as to why it was so wrong for out of towners to clean up the city.

"Look, we appreciate anyone who is willing to roll up their sleeves to help Baltimore. More than 170 people came from all over the country and cleaned up nearly 12 tons of trash, according to Mr. Presler’s Twitter feed." the paper claimed.

"But if this was all about 'Americans helping Americans,' why all the videos of Baltimore residents thanking Mr. Trump for bringing attention to the issue? We happen to know that not everybody in West Baltimore feels that way. And in the same posts as the videos, why the frequent reminders that this is in act Mr. Cummings’ district?," the editors pondered.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/08/07/baltimore-sun-attacks-trump-supporter-who-organized-massive-city-clean-ip-n2551319

Talk about blistering “racial” rhetoric. “The Hunt” is about liberal elite shooting down “deplorables” for fun.

I hope we look back on this time period and are horrified At just how irresponsible identity politics has gotten.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/08/08/the_hunt_movie_trailer_features_elites_hunting_deplorables_for_sport.html

White women, welcome to the deplorables basket. And remember, leftists need lots of enemies. If they don't have enough, they'll invent some.

Oh.

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1158992604706381824

Williamson. Emphasis mine, as that is always an excellent question to ask when someone says "trust me".

That so many self-proclaimed do-gooders turn first and instinctively to gutting the Bill of Rights and suspending due process for socially marginal types and purported subversives tells us only that political power must be kept from those who desire it most. When the Democrats propose new constraints on Americans’ constitutional rights — and not only the right to keep and bear arms — and when it is clear that those constraints would do nothing at all to prevent massacres like the one in El Paso, it is fair to ask what their real motives are and why they apparently are unable to be honest about them with the public.

Meanwhile, what to do? Call it terrorism, yes. Now what? There is no Osama bin Laden to hunt down on this front, only our sons and brothers.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/el-paso-dayton-shootings-domestic-terrorism/

Fathers and sons.

https://twitter.com/JProskowGlobal/status/1159498434774274048

Bad day at Quillette. Those darn journals that don’t fact-check!

Good news:

Sarah Palin Can Sue New York Times for Defamation, Court Rules

Cheaters may prosper for awhile, but eventually, they all must die.

China scholar has life ruined for telling the truth about China's coercive one-child policy.

But now he stands vindicated.

I am literally exhausted trying to explain to liberal friends and family why more regulations on guns will not help. I’ve been accused of lacking empathy, needing for something really horrific to happen to my child before I change (this was met with choice words) and “what could it hurt to have a gun ban. No one would get hurt” - I even had one person respond to my “taking away the rights of law abiding citizens” with (and I quote) “I’m not touching your rights...I want regulations to....) I mean, wtf?!? I usually pass on political discussions but this is way too important. If people don’t realize why we should t observe an Amendment just “because” I’m at a motherfucking loss.

One was even glib telling me that the blue wave was coming for my state since a lot of young people are moving here. I mean - who do these people think they are? Where is their humility and why don’t they pass legislation in their own fuxki g states instead of coming after mine.

My kids school gave every teacher a CHOICE to
Take a concealed / carry class that they would pay for and agree to take their weapon to school daily, keep it locked up to protect the kids from an active shooter.

Every single one or these female teachers took, passed and now carry a firearm to school. This was not mandated.

I was beaming with pride because while the likelihood of my daughter’s school being faced with such a threat - the teachers instead of hiding in a locked bathroom with the kids waiting for impending doom - can go all Dirty Fucking Harry on their asses.

I typically don’t like these YouTube personalities and their stop/start preaching. But I’ll make an exception for this one. It’s nearly the same thing I’ve been saying. All. Day. Long.

https://youtu.be/qtvjXc0lsbo

Better.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U0QGZSY35sI

I was beaming with pride because while the likelihood of my daughter’s school being faced with such a threat - the teachers instead of hiding in a locked bathroom with the kids waiting for impending doom - can go all Dirty Fucking Harry on their asses.

Feebie at August 8, 2019 8:37 PM
Chances are great, because they are prepared for the threat, they won’t have to.
The only viable alternative to armed teachers, is hardening all school buildings, and controlling all access points with an armed security guard at all entrances.

Taxpayers aren’t going to like the bill for that.

Concealed carry is like a vaccination for infectious disease. Like viruses, rampage killers hunt out softer targets.

Why ubiquitous gun ownership and concealed carry reduces, and something practically eliminates crime is counter intuitive to people incapable of critical thinking.

The idea of arming teachers is not that they will go Dirty Harry on a shooter. The idea is that the shooter, knowing some teachers are armed at that school, but not knowing which ones, will avoid the school as a target. Shooters seek easy targets.

A single resource officer or armed guard can fail, be distracted, or shot initially - thus, fail as a deterrent to a determined shooter. At Parkland, the armed resource officer, hall monitors, and even the local police department all failed to deter or confront the shooter. Teachers were left to perform heroics unarmed.

Arming teachers, the theory maintains, can have a deterrent effect on a potential shooter.

FWIW:

Conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby recently wrote a column that was headlined: "No, expanded background checks wouldn't prevent mass shootings."

You can read it here.

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/23045/no-expanded-background-checks-wouldnt-prevent

Anyway, here's one response:

Jeff Jacoby's conclusion, “If there were 'common sense' gun regulation that could unfailingly foil mass shootings, we would have adopted it long ago," indicates that he should get out more — perhaps to Japan, Greece, Canada, Spain, Ireland, Australia, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, or Britain.

Emilie DiMento, Winthrop

Plus:

It has been just a couple days since the devastating murders in El Paso and Dayton, and there goes Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby (“No, expanded background checks wouldn't prevent mass shootings," Aug. 7) arguing about the futility of legislation that can prevent future such atrocities.

Let me make a suggestion — and I do this as a lifetime gun owner.

The Dayton gunman's rifle, according to police reports, fired bullets into the bodies of more than 20 innocent victims, nine of them fatally, within a span of a mere 30 seconds. Can anyone in their right mind justify public ownership of an instrument like that?

The time to control sale of such lethal weapons is now. Assault rifles are not toys for big boys. They are designed for a single purpose: killing human beings by shattering their bodies. They need to be kept in the same place as machine guns, howitzers, and nuclear bombs: out of reach of the general public. Perhaps this is where we can begin proving that sensible laws are capable of preventing these deplorable killings.

Mark Hopkins, Concord

You can buy a tank if you have the money for it Lenona. Perfectly legal here in the US. It is very expensive but some people have done so. And it can be fully operational too. Just more taxes and paperwork. You will probably run into issues driving it on public roads.

To the best of my knowledge no one has purchased a nuclear bomb in the US. That said it is perfectly legal to own one. You will run into issue with transporting it. The paperwork is voluminous.

As for the howitzer, it too is legal to own in most of the US. Some states have laws against them. If it is a working piece then there is a lot of paperwork on the federal side. Even so it is legal to own and operate them and some people have done so.

The time to control sale of such lethal weapons is now. Assault rifles are not toys for big boys. They are designed for a single purpose: killing human beings by shattering their bodies. ~ Mark Hopkins via lenona at August 10, 2019 10:36 AM

All firearms are lethal, designed to deliver a bullet at high speed into a target. Some are designed to do that a higher rate of fire. Not all of those deadly weapons are "assault rifles."

Banning "assault rifles" is an issue driven by emotions, not logic. Under the Obama administration's proposed "assault rifle" ban, the folding stock Ruger Mini-14 rifle would have been banned banned while the standard model with a fixed wooden stock would not. There was no difference between the two weapons but the shape of the stock.

In 1966, Charles Joseph Whitman killed 16 people using various weapons, including a bolt-action hunting rifle, a semi-automatic rifle (an M-1 battle rifle), shotguns, pistols, knives, etc. Many of the people who came in response to the shooting brought their own rifles from home and returned fire, forcing Whitman to keep his head down while police and civilians made their way up the tower to confront him, eventually killing him.

Whitman's rampage can be considered the progenitor of modern mass shootings, each new shooter trying to outdo the last. Imitation may play a bigger role than we give it credit.