Shooting oneself in the foot….

Krazy Kalifornia has decided it’s the evil oil companies that are to blame for global warming:

California’s lawsuit says oil giants downplayed climate change. Here’s what to know

It’s bad enough to suggest that oil companies meeting consumer demand for energy are to blame for global warming (rather than the consumers who actually burned the fossil fuels). But to suggest that no one knew of the impact of fossil fuel use due to the so-called propaganda of the oil companies is ludicrous.

I first heard of the impact of CO2 emissions on climate change in the 1958 Frank Capra produced Bell System Science Series film, “The Unchained Goddess” – a film that many of us saw in primary school (I saw it in sixth grade). This film made clear – more than 6 decades ago – that continued CO2 emissions due to the use of fossil fuels would lead to global warming. So, in short, even school children knew by 1958 that fossil fuel use would lead to global warming. To claim ignorance with a straight face now is insulting to sixth graders everywhere.

The truth is that the people simply didn’t care. They insisted on personal automobiles, air conditioning, and cheap power to operate them. It’s the consumer and their demands for energy that have driven fossil fuel use and carbon emissions, even though they knew – or should have known – its long-term impact. Consumers are the ones to blame – not the oil companies.

Finally, any legal award against the fossil fuel companies will not result in a loss for the oil companies – even though that’s how climate change activists and politicians will present it to the voter. In truth the energy companies will simply be forced to charge substantially more for their products going forward, passing the costs of litigation and claims onto the poor consumer – who still needs the energy to power their Hummer for the occasional grocery run, or to condition their condo down to a crisp 68 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer heat. An award against the oil companies is really an award against your own pocketbook – no matter how loudly politicians cry otherwise.

The only real positive impact of such an award (from a climate perspective) is that the resulting increased cost of fossil fuels will drive a downturn in use, reducing carbon emissions (at least locally;  as if China – the world’s largest CO2 emitter – will give a damn…). However, the increased energy costs will disparately impact low-income users in the U.S., requiring additional government interference (i.e.: wealth redistribution systems) to resolve.

California politicians are wasting taxpayer funds to litigate a case that – even if they win – will only cost the average voter even more money, all while having a negligible impact on global CO2 emissions.

“Dear criminals…”

Dear Criminals –

All law-abiding people in Albuquerque New Mexico will no longer be allowed to carry firearms for their defense or the defense of others. So no more crime in Albuquerque, OK?

Best regards,

Her Royal Highness,

Gov. Michelle Grisham

PS: Even though all the law-abiding citizens of this town are now disarmed, please don’t shoot them. 

Governor announces statewide enforcement plan for gun violence, fentanyl reduction – Plan includes 30-day suspension of concealed, open carry in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County

Let’s be serious: this is simply a thinly-veiled local attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment by the two-term Democrat Governor of New Mexico, conveniently disguised as a “public health” order. I wonder why she didn’t do this during her first term… oh, that’s right – she’s now term limited and doesn’t need to worry about the next election! Let’s also be serious on this decree’s possible impact: disarming law-abiding citizens (the only group likely to follow this decree by Grisham) will only get them killed by criminals now emboldened by the thought of defenseless victims.

Note, too that Grisham cited several shootings as justification for her unconstitutional ban, including this one (from a US News and World Report article):

Last month, 5-year-old Galilea Samaniego was fatally shot while asleep in a motor home. Four teens entered the mobile home community in two stolen vehicles early on Aug. 13 and opened fire on the trailer, according to police. The girl was struck in the head and later died at a hospital.

Now tell me: How is the decry by Grisham going to stop teenage hoodlums in stolen cars from shooting up a mobile home?

Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, had this to say about Grisham’s order:

“If it saves one life, then it’s worth doing,” Viscoli said.

But what if it costs a life, Miranda? What if a law abiding citizen, prevented from carrying their self-defense firearm as a result of Grisham’s order, is killed by a criminal perpetrator during the commission of a crime? Would it be worth that life to further your political agenda, Miranda?

Laws restricting concealed carry of firearms only impact law-abiding citizens who have already gone through a significant national background check. Criminals who want to carjack and murder people simply don’t care about such laws – they can’t legally carry firearms for criminal purposes anyway, so why should they worry about Grisham’s new order? And, really – do you think they are worried about a gun charge (in this case, a civil gun charge) when they are going out to murder or rob someone? Are you kidding?

Good luck, Albuquerque. You’re going to need it.

PS: I can’t understand the idea of disarming law-abiding citizens as a way to combat gun crime. It is more likely that gun crime will increase when citizens are disarmed. Think of it: prior to this “public health” order, using a gun in criminal activity against law-abiding citizens might get you shot; it was a risk. Now, however, using a gun while committing a crime  in Albuquerque is no longer a risk – it is instead a just a solid advantage over your prey. And even if a criminal is caught with a gun during the “no-carry” period proclaimed by Grisham, the law calls for a civil – not criminal – penalty. With this in mind, do you think that the use of guns by criminals will increase or decrease as a result of this “public health” order?

It may well be that the Democrats want more gun crime, and know that this will occur as a result of their disarming the law-abiding population. More gun crime might garner support among democrats for their argument that the 2nd Amendment must be abolished altogether to bring peace to the streets of America (since gun laws – well, Democrat gun laws, anyway – will not have worked).

But it’s not that gun laws don’t work; it’s that gun laws passed by Democrats disproportionately impact law abiding citizens rather than criminals. If we want gun laws to work, such laws must disproportionately impact criminals instead. For instance, instead of a a ban on concealed carry for the next 30 days levied against law-abiding citizens, how about for the next 30 days we add 10 years of prison to the sentence of any criminal convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime? Which of these two options is more likely to reduce crime-related gun use in Albuquerque?

Only when gun laws punish criminals – rather than law-abiding citizens – will our streets be safe.

PPS: A day after this story broke, I searched both NPR and MSNBC web sites for any mention of this story. Guess what? I could not find a single one. I’ll let you figure out what that means…

“Are you F**king high?!?”

As it turns out, in California the answer is probably “yes”:

California bill decriminalizing personal use of psychedelics, magic mushrooms heads to Newsom’s desk

Nah…. more homeless drug users won’t “immigrate” to California as a result of this bill, will they?

I love this quote from California Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher:

“If Democrats don’t think this will make things worse, they’re hallucinating…”

Bizarrely, democrats had another take:

Democrat State Assemblyman Scott Wiener, who introduced the bill, argued that veterans and first responders struggling with PTSD, depression, and addiction “deserve access to these promising plant medicines.”

WTF? Veterans and first responders – like military personnel and police officers? People with guns and PTSD? Do we really want them hallucinating on ‘shrooms?!? And should people suffering from “…PTSD, depression and addiction…” really be allowed to self-medicate without doctor supervision?

In truth, I’m all for people being able to take any reasonable drug that they want – even psychedelics. It’s their body and mind. However it should remain illegal for people to use such drugs in public, as it endangers them and others. Also, any users of such drugs should be restricted in their use and possession of firearms (particularly in California).

Any bill that permits the decriminalization of such drugs should include a stipulation that the use of these drugs in the public space is still illegal. This would keep drug use by homeless in the public space an offense that – if the cause of their homelessness – can be used by the courts to direct them into appropriate treatment.

“H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y …. Hypocrisy”

OK, so social media companies can argue that it’s unconstitutional to prevent minors from opening social media accounts (free speech and all), but it’s NOT unconstitutional for these same social media companies to then censor what these  minors (and everyone else) can post and/or view?

Arkansas law requiring parental consent for minors to create social media accounts temporarily blocked

END SECTION 230! Social media companies should not be able to have their cake (protection from liability for what is posted on their platforms) and eat it, too (censorship of what is posted or viewed on their platforms).

Simple

A friend of mine asked me a simple question: Why do people vote for the socialist policies of far-left liberal democrats? The answer is easy, but comes in two parts.

1) People are stupid. Really. So stupid that many who buy into far-left socialist dogma think that the funds needed to pay for their programs come from “the government”. However, even some liberals know that there is no such thing as “government” money. The government collects all its money from taxpayers, thus “government” money is more correctly referred to as “taxpayer” money. But even those who know that the government doesn’t really have any money believe the additional taxes that they might be forced to pay will be far less than the benefit they expect to receive. In short, they expect to pick the pockets of their betters. Unfortunately (here comes the “stupid” part), they forget that they, too, are someone’s better.

2) People are lazy (and greedy – really, flip sides of the same coin). But I can’t blame them for this – it’s simply natural that they want the greatest pay for the least work. However, reason would seem to indicate that it would be impossible to demand something that had not been produced (since they did not produce the benefit they expect to receive, or equivalent production of something they can trade for it); this takes us back to point 1 (someone else will have to produce it).

So, in summary, people vote for socialist policies because they are stupid and lazy.

See? I told you it was simple.

 

 

Of course they are

I mean, why blame the criminals? It’s not their fault that cars are easy to steal. It’s entrapment – yeah, that’s the ticket! Entrapment, I tell you!

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson sues automakers as car theft ‘crisis’ gets worse

While we’re at it, why not blame car manufacturers for all car thefts? I mean, surely they can DNA-code cars to their owners and eliminate auto theft entirely? Isn’t their failure to develop and make standard such technology the reason for car thefts? And why not blame banks for bank robberies? Or retail stores for shoplifting? Or guns for gun crimes? Oh, wait; they’re already trying that last one

I mean, it’s not like locking up the criminals would do any good, right? Not in Chicago, anyway… that wouldn’t be fair to criminals!

But cops are special…

… since they are commonly granted a right to own and carry firearms when retired – even in states that otherwise forbid or heavily restrict the same rights for their citizens. Unfortunately, police have been found to be more likely to commit criminal acts than the average Joe/Jane with a concealed carry permit. Case in point – a mass shooting by a retired cop:

Retired police sergeant targeted estranged wife in deadly mass shooting at California biker bar: sheriff

If a state restricts access to firearms or concealed carry permits for its citizens, those same rules should be applied to everyone – including retired police officers. Alternatively, if retired cops are allowed to carry firearms then so should be the rest of the population.

Dangerous morons with guns

Shooting blindly through the door – even at burglars – risks the lives of innocent neighbors. The video in this story shows the bullets hitting the apartment wall opposite the shooter’s front door. I wonder how many made it through the stucco finish and into the apartment? Hope no one was home:

Texas man fires at suspects posing as maintenance workers through front door

I’m a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, but this was just plain stupid. It’s a good argument for basic skills and knowledge training for firearm owners.

Or at least an IQ test…