The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / By Andrew Napolitano
 All Comments / By Andrew Napolitano
    A few weeks ago, President Donald Trump was an outwardly happy man because of the utterance of one solitary word from the lips of special counsel Robert Mueller to one of Trump's lawyers. The word that thrilled the president and his legal team was "subject." It seems that Mueller and one of Trump's lawyers had...
  • @Xerxes
    Thank you Mr Neapolitans. Enlightening as always.

    No he’s not. He’s all over the place – wants to be seen as ‘judicious’ .. but forgiving the over reach of fellow prosecutors. He has fucking GILLS for Christ’s sakes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    I've been among the commenters criticizing "Judge's" icky, propagandistic columns about RussiaGate, etc., since last November. Here are a couple of significant passages in his latest.

    1. "Then they revealed that the source of their purported knowledge of the Trump-Cohen relationship was surveillance of Cohen, whose telephone calls, emails and text messages the feds had been capturing for months."

    Can someone elaborate on this? Mr. Napolitano doesn't tell us which "feds," when the "surveillance of Cohen" commenced, or under what authority it was conducted. I suspect that the omissions are intentional, leaving room to navigate down the road.

    2. "Who can safely confide in a lawyer after this?"

    I don't believe that this is something that deep down troubles Mr. Napolitano. Rather, he is trying to create a sense that there is a big, bad sector of the government -- his "feds" -- of which people should be vaguely aware but definitely scared. Cheerleading by fearleading.

    Glad you said that. I don’t like this guy… don’t trust him. He bends with the winds, swaying between outrage for over reach — and maintenance of our “international reputation”.

    He sees the corruption of the FBI as a nuisance, that needs to be kept in house … fearing an avalanche of appeals.

    He’s the insiders insider…. wants order and back room deals

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Napolitano bends with the breezes in the swamp. I don’t trust him because he always finds an excuse for the jack booted prosecutors. He loves and admires the STATE and all its gory..

    He also sees the importance of maintaining the US charade as a beacon of light for the shit holes of the 3rd world.

    Then there are all those pesky and expensive appeals for thousands of cases prosecuted by a feral FBI… Can’t have that eh, Judge?

    And where is BLM? – they’ve been whining about FBI planted guns, evidence and illegal wire taps for decades… they now have an ally- but are MIA. Another feigned outrage for partisan purposes… they want BLACK LIVES to matter… but not Trump or his supporters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • What about the Russians?

    It’s so obvious that these “special” prosecutors are really persecutors. Trump needs to call Erdogan for some tips on how to carry out a purge.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thank you Mr Neapolitans. Enlightening as always.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gustafus21
    No he's not. He's all over the place - wants to be seen as 'judicious' .. but forgiving the over reach of fellow prosecutors. He has fucking GILLS for Christ's sakes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    I’ve been among the commenters criticizing “Judge’s” icky, propagandistic columns about RussiaGate, etc., since last November. Here are a couple of significant passages in his latest.

    1. “Then they revealed that the source of their purported knowledge of the Trump-Cohen relationship was surveillance of Cohen, whose telephone calls, emails and text messages the feds had been capturing for months.”

    Can someone elaborate on this? Mr. Napolitano doesn’t tell us which “feds,” when the “surveillance of Cohen” commenced, or under what authority it was conducted. I suspect that the omissions are intentional, leaving room to navigate down the road.

    2. “Who can safely confide in a lawyer after this?”

    I don’t believe that this is something that deep down troubles Mr. Napolitano. Rather, he is trying to create a sense that there is a big, bad sector of the government — his “feds” — of which people should be vaguely aware but definitely scared. Cheerleading by fearleading.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gustafus21
    Glad you said that. I don't like this guy... don't trust him. He bends with the winds, swaying between outrage for over reach -- and maintenance of our "international reputation".

    He sees the corruption of the FBI as a nuisance, that needs to be kept in house ... fearing an avalanche of appeals.

    He's the insiders insider.... wants order and back room deals
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In the midst of worrying about North Korea, Syria and Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives this fall, President Donald Trump is now worrying about a government assault on his own business, which targeted his own lawyer. Michael Cohen has been the personal lawyer for Trump and for the Trump Organization -- the...
  • AN is secretly in love with BO and HC, and is praying 24/7 that they somehow can again usurp the WH and proceed with their marxist/progressive destruction of the nation.
    I can smell a BO/HC worshiper across continents.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz aritist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @redmudhooch
    FBI is corrupt to the core, criminals. No one in America trusts them, they pretty much lost all credibility after the bogus 9/11 investigation. Guess who was in charge of FBI 9/11 investigation? Mueller. Send him to GITMO, waterboard him till he talks.

    Sorry FBI but no one cares, no one is listening. Want your credibility back? Do a real 9/11 investigation, arrest the ones truly guilty. Mueller should be at top of list for the cover up, which has led to so much death and destruction all over the globe.
    Fake Bureau of Investigations. Ha!

    “Sorry FBI but no one cares, no one is listening. Want your credibility back? Do a real 9/11 investigation, arrest the ones truly guilty. Mueller should be at top of list for the cover up, which has led to so much death and destruction all over the globe.
    Fake Bureau of Investigations. Ha!”

    So true! Thank you for pointing it out, this should remain top of mind until it is acted upon. Cheers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This raid is obviously the Deep State using unethical power to destroy our President.

    From Cato.org:
    Dershowitz points out that this was a technique developed by Beria, the infamous sidekick of Stalin, who said, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • FBI is corrupt to the core, criminals. No one in America trusts them, they pretty much lost all credibility after the bogus 9/11 investigation. Guess who was in charge of FBI 9/11 investigation? Mueller. Send him to GITMO, waterboard him till he talks.

    Sorry FBI but no one cares, no one is listening. Want your credibility back? Do a real 9/11 investigation, arrest the ones truly guilty. Mueller should be at top of list for the cover up, which has led to so much death and destruction all over the globe.
    Fake Bureau of Investigations. Ha!

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    "Sorry FBI but no one cares, no one is listening. Want your credibility back? Do a real 9/11 investigation, arrest the ones truly guilty. Mueller should be at top of list for the cover up, which has led to so much death and destruction all over the globe.
    Fake Bureau of Investigations. Ha!"

    So true! Thank you for pointing it out, this should remain top of mind until it is acted upon. Cheers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Robert Mueller is the special counsel appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017 to probe the nature and extent of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. The investigation began in October 2016 under President Barack Obama when the FBI took seriously the boast of Carter Page, one of candidate Donald Trump's...
  • @Anon
    How long has Mr. Napolitano been writing on the topic? What gives you reason to believe he is less informed than Mr. Abramson, or that Mr. Abramson is particularly well-informed or acute in his commentary?

    “How long has Mr. Napolitano been writing on the topic?”

    Not as long or as in depth as Mr. Abrahson.

    “What gives you reason to believe he is less informed than Mr. Abramson, or that Mr. Abramson is particularly well-informed or acute in his commentary?”

    It’s not about being less informed, but it’s about actively seeking to be informed. Mr. Abramson does his due diligent in citing sources and offering analysis…and generally recognizes his own confirmation biases. Of course, like anyone, he goes over the top on some of his comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In the midst of worrying about North Korea, Syria and Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives this fall, President Donald Trump is now worrying about a government assault on his own business, which targeted his own lawyer. Michael Cohen has been the personal lawyer for Trump and for the Trump Organization -- the...
  • Mr. Napolitano has been eating too much Establishment Caviar. It really BS but they tell themselves its the finest Caviar on the planet. Its not entirely their fault. Long term consumption of this Caviar has serious neurological effects. Note the behavior of the British Prime Minister as an example. The real bottom line is the Mr. Napolitano has always been a buffoon, just never had the chance to demonstrate it so clearly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    A year ago, I might have assumed that Mr. Napolitano fairly believed what he said. But over the last six months he has shown himself to be an Establishment propagandist concerning Russia and Trump. Having earned my skepticism, here are two questions that he’ll never answer, but that perhaps someone else can address.

    1. “Needless to say, there are safeguards in place to prevent the prosecutors who dispatched the agents from viewing the privileged materials.”

    No, please clarify this. I suspect that it’s bullspackle to hide a gap in the credibility of Mr. Napolitano’s “back story.”

    2. “In October 2016, when the federal government began its investigation of alleged attempts by the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 presidential election, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch managed the work. [Etc.]”

    Why all this timelining about who was doing what when, even down to numbered months? As the Russian stuff fizzles out, I suspect that Mr. Napolitano here is crafting a version of the Establishment’s election meddling that will leave the “unmasking” and other dirt at the feet of Ms. Lynch and maintain the nonpartisan, above-it-all image of Mr. Mueller, who Mr. Napolitano fawningly described a while back as “no-nonsense.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Self restraint? Trump should strike out in all directions with every weapon he has. Washington should fear him. Trump’s enemies are in Washington. Not Syria.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Robert Mueller is the special counsel appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017 to probe the nature and extent of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. The investigation began in October 2016 under President Barack Obama when the FBI took seriously the boast of Carter Page, one of candidate Donald Trump's...
  • @Macon Richardson
    I, too, noticed the same line:

    Mueller has already established as a base line the saturation of the 2016 presidential campaign by Russian intelligence agents.
     
    No, the campaign was not saturated by Russian intelligence agents. Mueller has indicted 13 Russian citizens who work for two Russian companies. We, you or I. . .or Mr. Napolitano, have no basis for deciding if these thirteen are intelligence agents or not. In fact, indictments of individuals who are beyond apprehension or trial may assert anything they want to. The prosecution can assert that the accused are emissaries from Ming of Mongo if he wishes to. He never has to prove his accusations in court. Here Napolitano tips his hand:

    If his indictments of these Russians are accurate, they were here virtually and physically and they spent millions to help Trump. But the indicted Russians are not coming back to the U.S. for their trials.

     

    Well, yes! "If his indictments are accurate!" Yet we'll never know. Mr. Mueller may assert anything he wants to because, for these thirteen Russians, he will never have to prove one word of the indictments. With a heavily politicized James Comey holding his finger up to see which way the wind blew, with other FBI administrators doing the same thing, with Mueller being thick as thieves with now-fired Comey and now-disgraced other FBI officials, why should one believe anything he says, even under oath.

    Absent politics, what was needed (if anything was needed) to investigate Trump's "Russian connection" was a truly dispassionate, truly independent special counsel. That didn't happen.

    Considering Mr. Napolitano, he is getting a bit overbearing.

    “…indictments of individuals who are beyond apprehension or trial may assert anything they want to. The prosecution can assert that the accused are emissaries from Ming of Mongo if he wishes to. He never has to prove his accusations in court.”

    So, he has successfully established a base line?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    How long has Mr. Napolitano been writing on the topic? What gives you reason to believe he is less informed than Mr. Abramson, or that Mr. Abramson is particularly well-informed or acute in his commentary?

    You do realize that “Corvinus” is a troll(s) aping Winston Smith’s neighbor, Tom Parsons?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The president cannot seem to find an experienced criminal defense lawyer.

    There really aren’t many lawyers with the required experience in defending High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Most criminal lawyers deal with drunk driving and drugs offenses.

    The job of a Special Prosecutor is to look for High Crimes, but if all else fails aim below the belt and go for the target’s genital misdemeanors.

    “You lied to the FBI when you said you had never cheated on your wife, as we have found highly credible porn stars and hookers who will say otherwise.”

    What Trump needs is a lawyer with experience in defending sex offenders.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "Why should Mr. Napolitano educate himself by reading Mr. Abramson, and not Mr. Abramson by reading Mr. Napolitano?"

    Because Mr. Abramson has been reporting the events, with sources and commentary, since 2016.

    How long has Mr. Napolitano been writing on the topic? What gives you reason to believe he is less informed than Mr. Abramson, or that Mr. Abramson is particularly well-informed or acute in his commentary?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    You do realize that “Corvinus” is a troll(s) aping Winston Smith’s neighbor, Tom Parsons?
    , @Corvinus
    "How long has Mr. Napolitano been writing on the topic?"

    Not as long or as in depth as Mr. Abrahson.

    "What gives you reason to believe he is less informed than Mr. Abramson, or that Mr. Abramson is particularly well-informed or acute in his commentary?"

    It's not about being less informed, but it's about actively seeking to be informed. Mr. Abramson does his due diligent in citing sources and offering analysis...and generally recognizes his own confirmation biases. Of course, like anyone, he goes over the top on some of his comments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    Why should Mr. Napolitano educate himself by reading Mr. Abramson, and not Mr. Abramson by reading Mr. Napolitano?

    “Why should Mr. Napolitano educate himself by reading Mr. Abramson, and not Mr. Abramson by reading Mr. Napolitano?”

    Because Mr. Abramson has been reporting the events, with sources and commentary, since 2016.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    How long has Mr. Napolitano been writing on the topic? What gives you reason to believe he is less informed than Mr. Abramson, or that Mr. Abramson is particularly well-informed or acute in his commentary?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Corvinus
    "These bear little surface relationship to Russian involvement in the campaign..."

    Mr. Napolitano, please educate yourself on this matter.

    https://twitter.com/SethAbramson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    Why should Mr. Napolitano educate himself by reading Mr. Abramson, and not Mr. Abramson by reading Mr. Napolitano?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Why should Mr. Napolitano educate himself by reading Mr. Abramson, and not Mr. Abramson by reading Mr. Napolitano?"

    Because Mr. Abramson has been reporting the events, with sources and commentary, since 2016.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “These bear little surface relationship to Russian involvement in the campaign…”

    Mr. Napolitano, please educate yourself on this matter.

    https://twitter.com/SethAbramson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Why should Mr. Napolitano educate himself by reading Mr. Abramson, and not Mr. Abramson by reading Mr. Napolitano?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    Several of us here have gradually realized that Mr. Napolitano is no longer doing admirable work. I have been voicing my suspicion since comment #1 to his column of 11/2/17. It has been both fun and infuriating to look for and call out the slithery support for the Establishment’s demonization of Russia, and his ancillary propagandandizing for bad actors in Washington who actually have been “meddling” in the 2016 election and since.

    This week's best example of propaganda: "Mueller has already established as a base line the saturation of the 2016 presidential campaign by Russian intelligence agents." It would be easy enough to provide a linked source for this assertion, as a lawyer would be required to do in making an argument. But you never see evidence from "Judge," who just pumps away with hyperbolic repetition. He's no show, all tell, and thus much more effective in the TV medium than in a written forum.

    I encourage anyone who still considers Mr. Napolitano to be a fair and credible commentator on RussiaGate to spend an hour reviewing his columns over the last six months in the light of my comments.

    I agree.
    Your points are spot on.
    Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    Several of us here have gradually realized that Mr. Napolitano is no longer doing admirable work. I have been voicing my suspicion since comment #1 to his column of 11/2/17. It has been both fun and infuriating to look for and call out the slithery support for the Establishment’s demonization of Russia, and his ancillary propagandandizing for bad actors in Washington who actually have been “meddling” in the 2016 election and since.

    This week's best example of propaganda: "Mueller has already established as a base line the saturation of the 2016 presidential campaign by Russian intelligence agents." It would be easy enough to provide a linked source for this assertion, as a lawyer would be required to do in making an argument. But you never see evidence from "Judge," who just pumps away with hyperbolic repetition. He's no show, all tell, and thus much more effective in the TV medium than in a written forum.

    I encourage anyone who still considers Mr. Napolitano to be a fair and credible commentator on RussiaGate to spend an hour reviewing his columns over the last six months in the light of my comments.

    I, too, noticed the same line:

    Mueller has already established as a base line the saturation of the 2016 presidential campaign by Russian intelligence agents.

    No, the campaign was not saturated by Russian intelligence agents. Mueller has indicted 13 Russian citizens who work for two Russian companies. We, you or I. . .or Mr. Napolitano, have no basis for deciding if these thirteen are intelligence agents or not. In fact, indictments of individuals who are beyond apprehension or trial may assert anything they want to. The prosecution can assert that the accused are emissaries from Ming of Mongo if he wishes to. He never has to prove his accusations in court. Here Napolitano tips his hand:

    If his indictments of these Russians are accurate, they were here virtually and physically and they spent millions to help Trump. But the indicted Russians are not coming back to the U.S. for their trials.

    Well, yes! “If his indictments are accurate!” Yet we’ll never know. Mr. Mueller may assert anything he wants to because, for these thirteen Russians, he will never have to prove one word of the indictments. With a heavily politicized James Comey holding his finger up to see which way the wind blew, with other FBI administrators doing the same thing, with Mueller being thick as thieves with now-fired Comey and now-disgraced other FBI officials, why should one believe anything he says, even under oath.

    Absent politics, what was needed (if anything was needed) to investigate Trump’s “Russian connection” was a truly dispassionate, truly independent special counsel. That didn’t happen.

    Considering Mr. Napolitano, he is getting a bit overbearing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    "...indictments of individuals who are beyond apprehension or trial may assert anything they want to. The prosecution can assert that the accused are emissaries from Ming of Mongo if he wishes to. He never has to prove his accusations in court."

    So, he has successfully established a base line?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tick Tock
    I must agree wholeheartedly with the two previous commentators. We could be kind and suggest he is just another paid stooge, which is understandable as we all need to make a living. Prostitution is a common theme in politics. But I do really become nauseous reading his drivel. I guess we can just ignore his bull crap and keep protesting his inclusion on this site.

    It may be for the best that The Narrative as voiced by a relatively well respected mainstream commentator can be compared to the fine writers also published here. It appears from the commentary in recent months that Mr. Napolitano has lost at least some of his fans. I was seeing some (non-substantive) pushback to my criticism, but not much of late.

    What continues to mystify me is the pass given “Judge” by his fellow UR columnists. I guess he’s still a pinstriped sacred cow because he defends Constitutional and other principles in the abstract or in other contexts. The religious stuff likely helps in this way, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I must agree wholeheartedly with the two previous commentators. We could be kind and suggest he is just another paid stooge, which is understandable as we all need to make a living. Prostitution is a common theme in politics. But I do really become nauseous reading his drivel. I guess we can just ignore his bull crap and keep protesting his inclusion on this site.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    It may be for the best that The Narrative as voiced by a relatively well respected mainstream commentator can be compared to the fine writers also published here. It appears from the commentary in recent months that Mr. Napolitano has lost at least some of his fans. I was seeing some (non-substantive) pushback to my criticism, but not much of late.

    What continues to mystify me is the pass given “Judge” by his fellow UR columnists. I guess he’s still a pinstriped sacred cow because he defends Constitutional and other principles in the abstract or in other contexts. The religious stuff likely helps in this way, too.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Mueller is a swamp creature and a hired gun. His job is to nullify the will of the people in the election of Donald Trump. He is in the service of evil.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    Several of us here have gradually realized that Mr. Napolitano is no longer doing admirable work. I have been voicing my suspicion since comment #1 to his column of 11/2/17. It has been both fun and infuriating to look for and call out the slithery support for the Establishment’s demonization of Russia, and his ancillary propagandandizing for bad actors in Washington who actually have been “meddling” in the 2016 election and since.

    This week’s best example of propaganda: “Mueller has already established as a base line the saturation of the 2016 presidential campaign by Russian intelligence agents.” It would be easy enough to provide a linked source for this assertion, as a lawyer would be required to do in making an argument. But you never see evidence from “Judge,” who just pumps away with hyperbolic repetition. He’s no show, all tell, and thus much more effective in the TV medium than in a written forum.

    I encourage anyone who still considers Mr. Napolitano to be a fair and credible commentator on RussiaGate to spend an hour reviewing his columns over the last six months in the light of my comments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Macon Richardson
    I, too, noticed the same line:

    Mueller has already established as a base line the saturation of the 2016 presidential campaign by Russian intelligence agents.
     
    No, the campaign was not saturated by Russian intelligence agents. Mueller has indicted 13 Russian citizens who work for two Russian companies. We, you or I. . .or Mr. Napolitano, have no basis for deciding if these thirteen are intelligence agents or not. In fact, indictments of individuals who are beyond apprehension or trial may assert anything they want to. The prosecution can assert that the accused are emissaries from Ming of Mongo if he wishes to. He never has to prove his accusations in court. Here Napolitano tips his hand:

    If his indictments of these Russians are accurate, they were here virtually and physically and they spent millions to help Trump. But the indicted Russians are not coming back to the U.S. for their trials.

     

    Well, yes! "If his indictments are accurate!" Yet we'll never know. Mr. Mueller may assert anything he wants to because, for these thirteen Russians, he will never have to prove one word of the indictments. With a heavily politicized James Comey holding his finger up to see which way the wind blew, with other FBI administrators doing the same thing, with Mueller being thick as thieves with now-fired Comey and now-disgraced other FBI officials, why should one believe anything he says, even under oath.

    Absent politics, what was needed (if anything was needed) to investigate Trump's "Russian connection" was a truly dispassionate, truly independent special counsel. That didn't happen.

    Considering Mr. Napolitano, he is getting a bit overbearing.
    , @Wally
    I agree.
    Your points are spot on.
    Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • What is the connection between personal freedom and rising from the dead? When America was in its infancy and struggling to find a culture and frustrated at governance from Great Britain, the word most frequently uttered in speeches and pamphlets and editorials was not "safety" or "taxes" or "peace"; it was "freedom." Two acts of...
  • @bartok
    Jesus didn't say "merge all the nations together before I gather them," but Andrew worships an idol called racial equality. Andrew supports libertarian open borders but conceals his view. He wants a Somali living to your left and a Afghan to your right. He is betting on which one rapes your daughter first.

    He wants a Somali living to your left and a Afghan to your right. He is betting on which one rapes your daughter first.

    The Somali men I know don’t even want to touch white women. Why would they? Their own women have been less corrupted by modernity than almost any other group’s.

    As for Afghans, it’s your son you’ll have to protect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Jesus was
    1)A rabbi who wanted moral revival of the jewry and condemned Herod’s immorality
    2)A non-violent sympathizer of jewish nationalism
    3)He never explicitly said he was the ‘Messiah’ nor he denied the claim(IMO Jesus didn’t want to dampen the enthusiasm of his followers). He called Yahweh his ‘father’ in manners americans call Washington ‘Father of the Nation’; It’s a metaphor; same with ‘Son of God’. The most controversial theological theme of Christianity is ‘Trinity’ which is pure blasphemy from the view point of Judaism,the religion of Jesus.
    Many of his followers saw potential in him as a rallying focus to fight for independence from Rome. ‘Messiah’ means the ‘chosen one’, traditionally the title of jewish king, not ‘saviour’ as claimed by Christians. The average Christian pastors/priests know this fact very well but they usually don’t mention it, fearing disrupting the religion of Christianity which was laid down by disciples of Jesus. Jesus didn’t intend to form a new religion. The ‘Messiah’ thing was shouted so loud that King Herod and the pharisee felt threatened. When the jewish theocrats brought jesus to the audience of the Roman governor, they said Jesus was called the ‘King of jews’ by his followers, suggesting jesus was a leader of an anti-Roman and anti-Herod up-rising. Jesus said his kingdom was not of this earth. The Romans realized that was just internal jewish religious conflict but to placate Herod and the Pharisees, the roman governor nevertheless just crucified him.

    Crucification was the punishment deserved for enemies of Rome or rebel leaders like Spartacus. Herod and the Pharisees dared not stone Jesus because of Jesus’s large following(Stoning was the punishment for heretics) but successfully persuaded the romans to play executioner.
    After Herod and the Pharisees, Jesus’s followers were the culprits directly or indirectly responsible for Jesus’s crucification. The Romans were just executioners.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Eostre is the name of a German fertility goddess you cucklord।।

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous[365] • Disclaimer says:

    Free will is a natural characteristic we share in common with God. He created us in His image and likeness. As He is perfectly free, so are we.

    Nice. I’m not religious but this rings true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Napolitano is incorrect when he blames the Romans for Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and death. The Jews (Pharisees) took full responsibility for Christ’s crucifixion and death, stating that “his blood would be on their hands”. Pontius Pilate KNEW that he was condemning an innocent man, but feared Jewish riots if he did not “carry out the deed”.
    To this day, Jewish hatred for Jesus Christ, and by inference, Christianity is common. One glaring hypocrisy is Christian dispensationalism’s slathering support for Israel and zionism, despite vitriolic Jewish hatred of Christianity. Christian dispensationalists are today’s “useful idiots”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thanks Judge. I concur in your verdict.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Jesus didn’t say “merge all the nations together before I gather them,” but Andrew worships an idol called racial equality. Andrew supports libertarian open borders but conceals his view. He wants a Somali living to your left and a Afghan to your right. He is betting on which one rapes your daughter first.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    He wants a Somali living to your left and a Afghan to your right. He is betting on which one rapes your daughter first.
     
    The Somali men I know don't even want to touch white women. Why would they? Their own women have been less corrupted by modernity than almost any other group's.

    As for Afghans, it's your son you'll have to protect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • For the past few days, the nation's media and political class have been fixated on the firing of the No. 2 person in the FBI, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. McCabe became embroiled in the investigation of President Donald Trump because of his alleged approval of the use of a political dossier, written about Trump and...
  • The whole purpose of the Constitution is to restrain the government and to protect personal liberty. FISA and its enablers in both major political parties have done the opposite. They have infused government with corruption and have assaulted the privacy of us all.

    Funny how “both major political parties” have destroyed rather than preserved the Constitution. They did it for money and in spite of their oath. They did it by the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. The Constitution says what it says. But only nine people on earth can know what it means. The Supreme Court is a poison pill baked in the American cake. Whether intentionally or unintentionally I do not know. Decisions about what is Constitutional and what is not should have been left to a jury.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Macon Richardson

    Several of us have, through careful review of what he says and how, pointed out that he’s quite the tool, especially when it comes to RussiaGate and the criminal acts of people in and around Washington who opposed and still are opposed to President Trump, for reasons that are pretty much the opposite of mine.
     
    Pardon me for being a bit new to this discussion but could you explain your reasons for opposition to President Trump. More specifically, if I understand you, you seem to believe that the election should be nullified. On what grounds do you believe this?

    I thank you in advance for explaining the matter to me.

    Well, this seems redundant of the upthread discussion with commenter Buzz Mohawk, but you sound sincere, so here goes.

    I don’t believe that the election should be nullified. The machinations against Mr. Trump during the race and President Trump since the election are criminal and seditious, and should (but won’t) be addressed as such.

    My opposition to candidate and President Trump has been that he neither understands nor believes what he espoused in his few good speeches (apparently written by Mr. Miller) such as the inaugural address, as indicated in his wildly inconsistent positions over the years and to date, the most recent being the appointment of Mr. Bolton. I sometimes think that Linh Dinh was correct in calling the outcome as the one engineered by our rulers, but consider just as likely the easily demonstrated version that Trump is Dr. ClintonStein’s monster, the ideal opponent who ran wild.

    I stopped voting for USG offices after 2012, when I supported Dr. Paul, who was screwed by the GOP part of the Establishment.

    So, what do you think?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    Thank you.

    We've tangled before, but I agree with what you've said above about Trump. I have taken a ton of snot here starting back in 2015 for questioning his sincerity and encouraging people to stop participating in the national elections that serve only to harmlessly let off their steam. I was pleased to see Clinton lose, though, as the fallout at least seems to have made the corruption with one of its main hubs in Washington all the more apparent.

    And that's where "Judge" comes in. Take less than an hour to review his columns in recent months. Several of us have, through careful review of what he says and how, pointed out that he's quite the tool, especially when it comes to RussiaGate and the criminal acts of people in and around Washington who opposed and still are opposed to President Trump, for reasons that are pretty much the opposite of mine.

    Several of us have, through careful review of what he says and how, pointed out that he’s quite the tool, especially when it comes to RussiaGate and the criminal acts of people in and around Washington who opposed and still are opposed to President Trump, for reasons that are pretty much the opposite of mine.

    Pardon me for being a bit new to this discussion but could you explain your reasons for opposition to President Trump. More specifically, if I understand you, you seem to believe that the election should be nullified. On what grounds do you believe this?

    I thank you in advance for explaining the matter to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Well, this seems redundant of the upthread discussion with commenter Buzz Mohawk, but you sound sincere, so here goes.

    I don't believe that the election should be nullified. The machinations against Mr. Trump during the race and President Trump since the election are criminal and seditious, and should (but won't) be addressed as such.

    My opposition to candidate and President Trump has been that he neither understands nor believes what he espoused in his few good speeches (apparently written by Mr. Miller) such as the inaugural address, as indicated in his wildly inconsistent positions over the years and to date, the most recent being the appointment of Mr. Bolton. I sometimes think that Linh Dinh was correct in calling the outcome as the one engineered by our rulers, but consider just as likely the easily demonstrated version that Trump is Dr. ClintonStein's monster, the ideal opponent who ran wild.

    I stopped voting for USG offices after 2012, when I supported Dr. Paul, who was screwed by the GOP part of the Establishment.

    So, what do you think?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @El Dato

    Saying “not entirely substantiated” conveys that the dossier was substantiated … largely? mostly? substantially?
     
    Sarcasm, I think.

    Saying “who once boasted” implies that the boast was known of early on, even before the dossier, and informed the request for surveillance.
     
    Very likely.

    As I said, only those who have dug into the details will see the spin.

    Please take less than an hour to review Mr. Napolitano’s columns in recent months. Several of us have, through careful review of what he says and how, pointed out that he’s quite the tool, especially when it comes to RussiaGate and the criminal acts of people in and around Washington who opposed and still are opposed to President Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Got it. Sorry about misunderstanding. I'm not convinced Napolitano is doing what you describe, but I haven't seen a lot of him. At this point, I'm not sure why anybody would think they need to nullify the election, since Trump is doing their bidding and installing all the same old neocons.

    He is blessing a bloated budget that does nothing about immigration, and he has just made John Bolton his National Security Advisor. It seems to me the powers that be should just keep Trump. He's their "water boy" now.

    Thank you.

    We’ve tangled before, but I agree with what you’ve said above about Trump. I have taken a ton of snot here starting back in 2015 for questioning his sincerity and encouraging people to stop participating in the national elections that serve only to harmlessly let off their steam. I was pleased to see Clinton lose, though, as the fallout at least seems to have made the corruption with one of its main hubs in Washington all the more apparent.

    And that’s where “Judge” comes in. Take less than an hour to review his columns in recent months. Several of us have, through careful review of what he says and how, pointed out that he’s quite the tool, especially when it comes to RussiaGate and the criminal acts of people in and around Washington who opposed and still are opposed to President Trump, for reasons that are pretty much the opposite of mine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Macon Richardson

    Several of us have, through careful review of what he says and how, pointed out that he’s quite the tool, especially when it comes to RussiaGate and the criminal acts of people in and around Washington who opposed and still are opposed to President Trump, for reasons that are pretty much the opposite of mine.
     
    Pardon me for being a bit new to this discussion but could you explain your reasons for opposition to President Trump. More specifically, if I understand you, you seem to believe that the election should be nullified. On what grounds do you believe this?

    I thank you in advance for explaining the matter to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    On which sentence in this week's column did Mr. Napolitano spend the most time? I'll guess this one:

    "McCabe became embroiled in the investigation of President Donald Trump because of his alleged approval of the use of a political dossier, written about Trump and paid for by the Democrats and not entirely substantiated, as a basis to secure a search warrant for surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser who once boasted that he worked for the Kremlin at the same time that he was advising candidate Trump."

    The purpose of this monstrosity is to whitewash a scandalous abuse. Note the artful language:

    > Saying "not entirely substantiated" conveys that the dossier was substantiated ... largely? mostly? substantially?

    > Saying "who once boasted" implies that the boast was known of early on, even before the dossier, and informed the request for surveillance.

    Only those who have dug into the details will see the spin. His dissembling done, Judge Waterboy (aka Freedom Watcher) then gives a civics lesson to reinforce his image as a guardian of the Constitution, a principled commentator above the political fray.

    Saying “not entirely substantiated” conveys that the dossier was substantiated … largely? mostly? substantially?

    Sarcasm, I think.

    Saying “who once boasted” implies that the boast was known of early on, even before the dossier, and informed the request for surveillance.

    Very likely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    As I said, only those who have dug into the details will see the spin.

    Please take less than an hour to review Mr. Napolitano's columns in recent months. Several of us have, through careful review of what he says and how, pointed out that he’s quite the tool, especially when it comes to RussiaGate and the criminal acts of people in and around Washington who opposed and still are opposed to President Trump.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    You have misunderstood my comment.

    The FISA on its face and as used is indeed unconstitutional.

    My point, which I've been making here for months, is that Mr. Napolitano is running interference for those who are attempting to nullify the election.

    Got it. Sorry about misunderstanding. I’m not convinced Napolitano is doing what you describe, but I haven’t seen a lot of him. At this point, I’m not sure why anybody would think they need to nullify the election, since Trump is doing their bidding and installing all the same old neocons.

    He is blessing a bloated budget that does nothing about immigration, and he has just made John Bolton his National Security Advisor. It seems to me the powers that be should just keep Trump. He’s their “water boy” now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Thank you.

    We've tangled before, but I agree with what you've said above about Trump. I have taken a ton of snot here starting back in 2015 for questioning his sincerity and encouraging people to stop participating in the national elections that serve only to harmlessly let off their steam. I was pleased to see Clinton lose, though, as the fallout at least seems to have made the corruption with one of its main hubs in Washington all the more apparent.

    And that's where "Judge" comes in. Take less than an hour to review his columns in recent months. Several of us have, through careful review of what he says and how, pointed out that he's quite the tool, especially when it comes to RussiaGate and the criminal acts of people in and around Washington who opposed and still are opposed to President Trump, for reasons that are pretty much the opposite of mine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Buzz Mohawk
    You are obscuring something even more important than your need to nullify our rightful election of a president who challenges your power: The civics lesson.

    The FISA system is unconstitutional. That fact is bigger than any individual case you may care about. Napolitano gives an excellent explanation of why.

    You have misunderstood my comment.

    The FISA on its face and as used is indeed unconstitutional.

    My point, which I’ve been making here for months, is that Mr. Napolitano is running interference for those who are attempting to nullify the election.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Got it. Sorry about misunderstanding. I'm not convinced Napolitano is doing what you describe, but I haven't seen a lot of him. At this point, I'm not sure why anybody would think they need to nullify the election, since Trump is doing their bidding and installing all the same old neocons.

    He is blessing a bloated budget that does nothing about immigration, and he has just made John Bolton his National Security Advisor. It seems to me the powers that be should just keep Trump. He's their "water boy" now.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The FBI and the CIA are now the same agency, they work exclusively for the deep state and need to be eradicated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    On which sentence in this week's column did Mr. Napolitano spend the most time? I'll guess this one:

    "McCabe became embroiled in the investigation of President Donald Trump because of his alleged approval of the use of a political dossier, written about Trump and paid for by the Democrats and not entirely substantiated, as a basis to secure a search warrant for surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser who once boasted that he worked for the Kremlin at the same time that he was advising candidate Trump."

    The purpose of this monstrosity is to whitewash a scandalous abuse. Note the artful language:

    > Saying "not entirely substantiated" conveys that the dossier was substantiated ... largely? mostly? substantially?

    > Saying "who once boasted" implies that the boast was known of early on, even before the dossier, and informed the request for surveillance.

    Only those who have dug into the details will see the spin. His dissembling done, Judge Waterboy (aka Freedom Watcher) then gives a civics lesson to reinforce his image as a guardian of the Constitution, a principled commentator above the political fray.

    You are obscuring something even more important than your need to nullify our rightful election of a president who challenges your power: The civics lesson.

    The FISA system is unconstitutional. That fact is bigger than any individual case you may care about. Napolitano gives an excellent explanation of why.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    You have misunderstood my comment.

    The FISA on its face and as used is indeed unconstitutional.

    My point, which I've been making here for months, is that Mr. Napolitano is running interference for those who are attempting to nullify the election.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    On which sentence in this week’s column did Mr. Napolitano spend the most time? I’ll guess this one:

    “McCabe became embroiled in the investigation of President Donald Trump because of his alleged approval of the use of a political dossier, written about Trump and paid for by the Democrats and not entirely substantiated, as a basis to secure a search warrant for surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser who once boasted that he worked for the Kremlin at the same time that he was advising candidate Trump.”

    The purpose of this monstrosity is to whitewash a scandalous abuse. Note the artful language:

    > Saying “not entirely substantiated” conveys that the dossier was substantiated … largely? mostly? substantially?

    > Saying “who once boasted” implies that the boast was known of early on, even before the dossier, and informed the request for surveillance.

    Only those who have dug into the details will see the spin. His dissembling done, Judge Waterboy (aka Freedom Watcher) then gives a civics lesson to reinforce his image as a guardian of the Constitution, a principled commentator above the political fray.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    You are obscuring something even more important than your need to nullify our rightful election of a president who challenges your power: The civics lesson.

    The FISA system is unconstitutional. That fact is bigger than any individual case you may care about. Napolitano gives an excellent explanation of why.
    , @El Dato

    Saying “not entirely substantiated” conveys that the dossier was substantiated … largely? mostly? substantially?
     
    Sarcasm, I think.

    Saying “who once boasted” implies that the boast was known of early on, even before the dossier, and informed the request for surveillance.
     
    Very likely.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • When James Madison drafted the First Amendment -- “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” -- he made sure to use the article “the” in front of the word “freedom.” What seemed normal to him and superfluous to moderns was actually a profound signal that has resonated for 227 years. The...
  • @Fran Macadam
    I take it then, that non-disclosure agreements with corporations are similarly invalid on the basis of freedom of speech? Seems to absolve Snowden and all the plethora of punished whistleblowers who spoke out. Yet it seems that speech is not actually free in all these cases, after all, de facto.

    OUCH! Stop making sense!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I take it then, that non-disclosure agreements with corporations are similarly invalid on the basis of freedom of speech? Seems to absolve Snowden and all the plethora of punished whistleblowers who spoke out. Yet it seems that speech is not actually free in all these cases, after all, de facto.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    OUCH! Stop making sense!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave from Oz
    On a related note: the freedom of the press is that freedom possessed by people to publish their views. It comes from an age when people would print off handbills with a small press and distribute those bills. It does not mean that there is some sort of entity named "The Press" and that this "The Press" must be "free".

    Today's equivalent is, of course, the blog.

    Not sure where you’re coming from — neither the column nor the Constitution uses “press” as opposed to speech.

    I hope you’re not endorsing the notion of Mr. Pompeo that the freedom of speech is limited to American publishers. I have a natural right to see and hear, irrespective of the speech’s source or motive. Mr. Napolitano pretends to agree, yet he cheerleads the Establishment construction of an iron curtain around “our computer systems and the American marketplaces of ideas.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • So why then is any non-disparage or NDA in the land valid?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • On a related note: the freedom of the press is that freedom possessed by people to publish their views. It comes from an age when people would print off handbills with a small press and distribute those bills. It does not mean that there is some sort of entity named “The Press” and that this “The Press” must be “free”.

    Today’s equivalent is, of course, the blog.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Not sure where you're coming from -- neither the column nor the Constitution uses "press" as opposed to speech.

    I hope you're not endorsing the notion of Mr. Pompeo that the freedom of speech is limited to American publishers. I have a natural right to see and hear, irrespective of the speech's source or motive. Mr. Napolitano pretends to agree, yet he cheerleads the Establishment construction of an iron curtain around "our computer systems and the American marketplaces of ideas."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    " The point of this piece is about the freedom of speech." I doubt it. Having read "Judge" critically here for several months, I believe that the point is to highlight the scandal du jour. Many of his columns are structured like this one, Establishment messaging wrapped in a civics lesson taught by this supposed "Freedom Watcher."

    If Mr. Napolitano believes what he says here about our natural right to speak, hear, and think freely, then why on February 22 was he wetting his robe over “the Russians [running] unchecked through our computer systems and the American marketplaces of ideas"?

    Many of his columns are structured like this one, Establishment messaging wrapped in a civics lesson taught by this supposed “Freedom Watcher.”

    Yes. Exactly.
    This guy is a swamp creature.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Maybe in heaven, or Wakanda, people have free speech in the same way they have arms and legs. Everywhere else free speech is limited by government. All it takes for the constitution to become meaningless is for the government to fail to enforce it. That’s where we are now.

    FU judge. I know which side you are on. Prattling on about the constitution will not cover your nasty ass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    ” The point of this piece is about the freedom of speech.” I doubt it. Having read “Judge” critically here for several months, I believe that the point is to highlight the scandal du jour. Many of his columns are structured like this one, Establishment messaging wrapped in a civics lesson taught by this supposed “Freedom Watcher.”

    If Mr. Napolitano believes what he says here about our natural right to speak, hear, and think freely, then why on February 22 was he wetting his robe over “the Russians [running] unchecked through our computer systems and the American marketplaces of ideas”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass

    Many of his columns are structured like this one, Establishment messaging wrapped in a civics lesson taught by this supposed “Freedom Watcher.”
     
    Yes. Exactly.
    This guy is a swamp creature.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Late Monday afternoon, we were treated to a series of bizarre interviews on nearly every major cable television channel except Fox when a colorful character named Sam Nunberg, a former personal and political aide to Donald Trump, took to the airwaves to denounce a grand jury subpoena he received compelling the production of documents and...
  • Judge Waterboy is back again this week, serving the Establishment by propagandizing against Russia while supposedly giving readers expert guidance on American governmental and legal processes.

    Perfect description. I stopped reading Napolitano many months ago as a result. I thought I would give him a second try. But still the ingrained Russophobia, still the establishment lickspittle. No change there. I won’t be back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If Mueller did offer Nunberg immunity, it can only mean that Mueller desperately needs Nunberg’s testimony against the president to be recounted to one of his grand juries, and that Nunberg has some criminal exposure.

    That’s your kill shot? I’m no lawyer, but 1) these people can indict a ham sandwich for mayo and 2) Mueller’s desperation is not, in and of itself, evidence of anything; we could just as well say Mueller’s like a whore on the corner offering blowjobs for $1.

    Another inquiry seeks to determine whether the president himself attempted to obstruct the work of the Mueller grand juries by firing then-FBI Director James Comey for a corrupt reason, one that is self-serving and lacking a bona fide governmental purpose — also a felony.

    Yeah, good luck with that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    Back this week to carrying water for the Establishment's election meddling, "Judge's" particular task is to whitewash the de facto effort to remove or at least weaken President Trump.

    I noted in commemt #1 to his column published here last December 21 how Mr. Napolitano was oddly altering his description of Mr. Mueller's authority.* But that rhetorical farce has now ended:

    "The grand jury is one of two summoned by special counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation of whether President Trump or his colleagues engaged in any criminal activity prior to or during the presidential campaign, or during his presidency."

    In other words, Mr. Napolitano finally admits that Mr. Mueller's investigation is boundless.

    -----------

    *I will recycle that comment here shortly.

    Here is my comment #1 to Mr. Napolitano’s column published here on December 21:

    ***

    Judge Waterboy is back again this week, serving the Establishment by propagandizing against Russia while supposedly giving readers expert guidance on American governmental and legal processes.

    ” .. special counsel Robert Mueller — who is investigating whether there was any agreement between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that resulted in the now-well-known efforts by Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election — ”

    Where does one go to read any specification of and see any evidence for these “now-well-known efforts”? Has anyone who still watches TV seen that question put to Mr. Napolitano?

    Notice, too, how the language has been massaged since Mr. Napolitano’s column published here on December 7:

    ” .. the no-nonsense special counsel investigating whether any Americans aided the Russian government in its now well-known interference in the 2016 American presidential election .. ”

    Rather than copy/cut/paste, the author has taken the time to alter his words:

    any Americans >>> the Trump campaign
    Russian government >>> Russian intelligence
    interference >>> affect the outcome

    Mr. Napolitano may be giving himself room to navigate the evolving scandals in Washington, where we are invited to take sides in the intramural battle between Team Red and Team Blue or, for the relatively sophisticated, President Trump and Deep State. But no matter how that all turns out, the processes and this article about them serve to Otherize another people and state from which our rulers can keep us safe and free.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Back this week to carrying water for the Establishment’s election meddling, “Judge’s” particular task is to whitewash the de facto effort to remove or at least weaken President Trump.

    I noted in commemt #1 to his column published here last December 21 how Mr. Napolitano was oddly altering his description of Mr. Mueller’s authority.* But that rhetorical farce has now ended:

    “The grand jury is one of two summoned by special counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation of whether President Trump or his colleagues engaged in any criminal activity prior to or during the presidential campaign, or during his presidency.”

    In other words, Mr. Napolitano finally admits that Mr. Mueller’s investigation is boundless.

    ———–

    *I will recycle that comment here shortly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Here is my comment #1 to Mr. Napolitano's column published here on December 21:

    ***

    Judge Waterboy is back again this week, serving the Establishment by propagandizing against Russia while supposedly giving readers expert guidance on American governmental and legal processes.

    ” .. special counsel Robert Mueller — who is investigating whether there was any agreement between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that resulted in the now-well-known efforts by Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election — ”

    Where does one go to read any specification of and see any evidence for these “now-well-known efforts”? Has anyone who still watches TV seen that question put to Mr. Napolitano?

    Notice, too, how the language has been massaged since Mr. Napolitano’s column published here on December 7:

    ” .. the no-nonsense special counsel investigating whether any Americans aided the Russian government in its now well-known interference in the 2016 American presidential election .. ”

    Rather than copy/cut/paste, the author has taken the time to alter his words:

    any Americans >>> the Trump campaign
    Russian government >>> Russian intelligence
    interference >>> affect the outcome

    Mr. Napolitano may be giving himself room to navigate the evolving scandals in Washington, where we are invited to take sides in the intramural battle between Team Red and Team Blue or, for the relatively sophisticated, President Trump and Deep State. But no matter how that all turns out, the processes and this article about them serve to Otherize another people and state from which our rulers can keep us safe and free.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The Ash Wednesday massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, seems to have broken more hearts than similar tragedies that preceded it. It was no more senseless than other American school shootings, but there is something about the innocence and bravery and eloquence of the youthful survivors that has touched the souls...
  • @RadicalCenter
    We need to engage with irrational people who are led too much by their emotions, because there are many such people and many of them VOTE.

    Here is the scenario for you:

    A “debate”. You win all the rational arguments.
    And “they” take away “AR-15 type weapons” after that. Just to feel that…”victory”.And your defeat.
    Then they relish that a bit. Just a bit.
    Then, they go for “high powered rifles”. Oh, you put sterling debate and win.
    And, then, they vote again. And relish…..
    Then, they go for pump/semauto shotguns.
    Then semauto handguns.
    Then handguns in general…….

    And….each time they pull one out from you, they pass more surveillance and “hate” laws. One at the time. Nothing rush.
    And, not to miss a beat, militarize the police more and more.
    Frog in the …..

    The end game, brother, is Soviet Union type of society.

    Oh, and, yes, carefully selected part of elite will have all those guns that you can’t. “Some animals…”.

    Implausible?
    Perhaps……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @RadicalCenter
    We need to engage with irrational people who are led too much by their emotions, because there are many such people and many of them VOTE.

    Free will, brother.
    Your call. Hopefully, you are right, I am wrong and that “engaging” will work.

    I don’t believe that, though.
    I believe sooner you realize that sooner you’ll start developing different strategy.
    VOTING shall not work for your side. Can’t. Just……can’t.
    Demographics is against you.

    I believe you still don’t get them. They aren’t there because of guns.
    They are there to impose their will on people like you. They can’t stand you. YOU.

    When they look at you they see how, really, weak and shallow they are. They can’t have it. Ever.
    They want you down and to be kept down, to make them up. To make them feel strong. And to keep them feeling strong.

    Because behind all that erudite sophistication there is, at core, a weakling.
    And that’s why they need a strong state; to have a tool to make you submit.

    On the positive side, nothing to lose.
    Keep doing what you think it’s right. At least you’ll get in touch with people on the same wavelength.
    And, also, learn a bit here and there in the process.
    Could prove useful, in future.

    And, I could be absolutely wrong.

    Good luck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @peterAUS

    You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts — FACTS do not answer their feelings!
     

    (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day’s book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can’t hear it.
     
    Couldn't agree more.

    Instead of trying to “teach them the truth”; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return.
    ...you must answer them with two feeling-linked points...
    ....try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) ....
    (Try to) Get your opponent’s feelings....
     
    Really?
    Why?
    I mean...why do you even need to engage with them?
    That is something of a puzzle for some of us watching all this.

    Is

    anything less leaves us seeming (to “feelers”) crass and unfeeling!
     
    the reason?

    You, in essence, want to play their game.
    One does that when the opponent has an advantage. Are you guys in that stage/phase?

    You can not win that. Ever.
    You shall lose, just a matter of time.

    We need to engage with irrational people who are led too much by their emotions, because there are many such people and many of them VOTE.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Free will, brother.
    Your call. Hopefully, you are right, I am wrong and that "engaging" will work.

    I don't believe that, though.
    I believe sooner you realize that sooner you'll start developing different strategy.
    VOTING shall not work for your side. Can't. Just......can't.
    Demographics is against you.

    I believe you still don't get them. They aren't there because of guns.
    They are there to impose their will on people like you. They can't stand you. YOU.

    When they look at you they see how, really, weak and shallow they are. They can't have it. Ever.
    They want you down and to be kept down, to make them up. To make them feel strong. And to keep them feeling strong.

    Because behind all that erudite sophistication there is, at core, a weakling.
    And that's why they need a strong state; to have a tool to make you submit.

    On the positive side, nothing to lose.
    Keep doing what you think it's right. At least you'll get in touch with people on the same wavelength.
    And, also, learn a bit here and there in the process.
    Could prove useful, in future.

    And, I could be absolutely wrong.

    Good luck.

    , @peterAUS
    Here is the scenario for you:

    A "debate". You win all the rational arguments.
    And "they" take away "AR-15 type weapons" after that. Just to feel that..."victory".And your defeat.
    Then they relish that a bit. Just a bit.
    Then, they go for "high powered rifles". Oh, you put sterling debate and win.
    And, then, they vote again. And relish.....
    Then, they go for pump/semauto shotguns.
    Then semauto handguns.
    Then handguns in general.......

    And....each time they pull one out from you, they pass more surveillance and "hate" laws. One at the time. Nothing rush.
    And, not to miss a beat, militarize the police more and more.
    Frog in the .....

    The end game, brother, is Soviet Union type of society.

    Oh, and, yes, carefully selected part of elite will have all those guns that you can't. "Some animals...".

    Implausible?
    Perhaps......

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @bjondo
    Live in an area with lotsa dogs some of 'em are pit bulls and some of those not of the pit variety are vicious and wandering foxes some of 'em rabid and some humans of the wild variety. Maybe also rabid.

    I want a fast firing weapon with minimum 30 round clip.

    Regarding a rabid fox: took 2 deputies and a number of rounds to down one recently. Not easy to hit when running. And you don't want a rabid fox to get close. Never know.

    I spent time in rural-ish New Mexico, where there is a plentiful supply of rude, irresponsible morons who let their vicious dogs roam free on the back roads and paths. You need a handgun on you for that alone. My brother-in-law was attacked by a neighbor’s dog there and would have been ripped to shreds if he hadn’t pulled out his handgun and shot it.

    In rural areas, regular peaceful people need guns mostly to protect against animals — though also because police can’t reach a lot of places quickly enough if called.

    In urban and now many suburban areas, regular peaceful people need guns mostly to protect again human animals. No sense denying it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Avalanche1956
    Nope. Won't work. Can't work! You're trying to reason people out of a feeling! Read Chapter 10 of Vox Day's (exceedingly excellent and educational) book: SJWs Always Lie and learn the difference between dialectic and rhetoric and how and when to use each. You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts -- FACTS do not answer their feelings!

    Dr Peter Sandman, in his risk communication teachings, suggested this, my annotations:

    Compassion vs. dispassion. When dealing with a situation, there comes a point where you must stop dealing with the hazard (facts, dialectic) and work with outrage (feelings, rhetoric). There’s a common misconception that engineers and scientists and technologists can't do it -- they retreat further into the tech specs, rather than deal with the emotionalism. But if an engineer's 18-yr-old daughter comes home in tears from college because she broke up with her boyfriend, the engineer doesn't say "now, honey, you must realize that the median teenager has an average of 3.7 breakups over the 4 years of college attendance."

    Teach your engineers when (and how) to address outrage, not just by throwing more technobabble at the outrage.
     
    And that "'average # of breakups" (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day's book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can't hear it. Instead of trying to "teach them the truth"; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return. That our rhetoric is based in the truth makes it easier for us to wince and stop trying to answer our opponents with logic and rational explanations, and deal with them where they are: emotionally overwrought and desperate.

    Since they are focused on (their emotional reaction to) the fear (and deaths) of the children in a gun-free shooting gallery, you must answer them with two feeling-linked points: 'yes, we agree: this is horrible, and we (gun owners) are AS horrified as you are; maybe more so because we know effective ways to lessen and even prevent these horrific events!' (Let them know that we, too, are outraged -- anything less leaves us seeming (to "feelers") crass and unfeeling! Yes, that's partly dialectic but it aligns with their primary emotions: you're aligning yourself with their direction, rather than trying to stand against them.)

    Then, try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) leaves the children frantically trying to hide under desks and in schoolroom closets -- and knowing their teachers (adult so-called protectors) cannot do anything to actually protect them! All the children are relying on their teachers; and seeing their teachers terrified and frantic, trying to protect them -- some of them even dying lying on top of the children they were trying to protect -- but nearly completely, close to 100%, UNABLE to -- from the madman who chose to attack the unprotected shooting gallery! (Yes, the brave and amazing gym teacher was able to protect the painfully few children he put his own body over -- but that was SHEER LUCK, nothing even close to "effectively protecting our children"! Once he was dead, the terrified children under him were just as endangered as they were before he gave up his life! Not effective! Braver than hell, a true hero -- but NOT effective for most of the children who died!) (Again; rhetoric, based in truth.)

    (Try to) Get your opponent's feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children -- and maybe a terrified adult or two -- is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.

    Sage advice, sir.

    Here’s another line of argument on gun rights that is both useful and true: without guns, most women have no chance to defend themselves against most men.

    Most of the elderly would also be helpless and could be robbed, tortured, and killed at will, even in their own homes.

    We need to emphasize that guns are the great equalizer that gives weaker, smaller people a fighting chance against aggressors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Quebecer
    Please enlighten me 'Igor', and I'm not saying this in a sarcatic tone.

    I will be the first to admit I know little about guns in the context of self-defence,
    as do most Canadians.

    My father used to own a Lee-Enfield .303 bolter, with a 10-round magazine.
    It looked mighty 'serious', and I do think brandishing this in a robber's face would
    provide enough of a deterrent.

    Doesn’t sound like a good firearm for defense inside a home or other short-range situation / enclosed space. Shotgun would seem to be better for that, generally. But I’ll defer to real firearms experts and shooters here.

    Your country, too, used to be a wonderful place. Even relatively recently I spent most of my time living in BC for two years and loved it, on balance.

    Let’s hope the USA and Canada turn things around in time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Quebecer
    I have no problem with people 'keeping and bearing arms' for self-defence or sporting purposes.

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?

    If the police have it — which they do — then yes, regular citizens need it to defend themselves as well. Or are the lives of police officers worth more than our lives?

    If gangs have such firearms — which they do — then again yes, regular citizens need it to defend themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @El Dato

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter
     
    That's the "Wehrmacht" and it also had horse-drawn carriages, "tanks" that would not withstand a sneeze by a lightly armed individual today, shitty crypto (on a level that modern governments today would LOVE to impose on the citizenry), barely any radio communication and not enough gear for the Russian Winter.

    But what has that to do with anything?

    Oh hey, no wait: Jimbo's Stupendous Stash Of Scrambled Info has this to say about the 30's submachine gun:


    At the outbreak of World War II, the majority of German soldiers carried either Karabiner 98k rifles or MP 40s, both of which were regarded as the standard weapons of choice for an infantryman.

    However, later experience with Soviet tactics, such as the Battle of Stalingrad where entire Russian units armed with submachine guns outgunned their German counterparts in short range urban combat, caused a shift in tactics, and by the end of the war the MP 40 and its derivatives were being issued to entire assault platoons on a limited basis. Starting in 1943, the German Army moved to replace both the Karabiner 98k rifle and MP 40 with the new, revolutionary StG 44. By the end of World War II (which ended in 1945), an estimated 1.1 million MP 40s had been produced of all variants.
     

    BRRRTTTT! So you be wrong.

    Well, he said “mostly armed”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jonathan Mason

    Plus the angry individual could always resort to cooking up napalm and throwing flaming gobs of death at one’s school companions.
     
    If that is the case, then I would also be all in favor of making it illegal to cook up napalm regardless of which constitutional amendment supports the use of napalm as a weedkiller. I know you will think that a bad person will ignore the law, but all the same they are more likely to be reported to police in the preparation phase.

    I know that even presenting oneself at a police station or FBI office with a napalm truck bomb and asking to be arrested before one blows up a school probably has only a minimum chance of success with our lackadaisical police forces and FBI unless your name is Mo and you are wearing a turban adn you fail to call the policeman 'sir' or 'ma'am', but it is a start.

    Also, while we are on the subject of alternatives to guns, I am not trained in combat, but can you really kill multiple people by throwing a knife through a locked door as you can with a rifle?

    Thank you M.Mason

    I was just trying to make a point, that I felt had some merit, but was greeted as an agnostic at a Jehovas’ Witnesses Kingdom house.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jonathan Mason

    Get your opponent’s feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children — and maybe a terrified adult or two — is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.
     
    Better still you can protect your children by voting for politicians who are prepared to vote for sensible "people control laws" that will make it harder for bad people and idiots who think that they are living in a video game, or those who have been psychologically damaged in foreign wars, to get their hands on weapons in the first place.

    You forget to mention the sociopathic thugs of our urban enclaves who statistically commmit more homicides (by the thousands!) than any of the “idiots” and “veterans” mentioned in your comment. If the daily Mainstream Media onslaught wasn’t a complete obfuscation and downright dishonest manipulation of minds and emotions, well maybe… While I’d like to believe that in time, sanity, honesty and transparency will return to our public discourse, I fear that hysteria and inevitable Coercion by Rule of Law will render any of these discussions mute.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @El Dato

    No one really want to disarm paranoid gun nuts, they just want to make it less likely that deadly weapons will get into the hands of mentally disturbed juveniles and other lunatics who want to go out in a blaze of gory.
     
    Unfortunately, the record shows that this hasn't gone all that well so far, as is the custom with govnm't programs, which fail in various ways when it really counts.

    Plus the angry individual could always resort to cooking up napalm and throwing flaming gobs of death at one's school companions. Although it would probably demand a stronger suppression of the instinct that tells us to refrain from killing people in horrible ways than the use of an assortment handguns.

    OTOH, maybe this is the killer application for AI+applied mechatronics. Literally.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heJBfReQF9Q

    Plus the angry individual could always resort to cooking up napalm and throwing flaming gobs of death at one’s school companions.

    If that is the case, then I would also be all in favor of making it illegal to cook up napalm regardless of which constitutional amendment supports the use of napalm as a weedkiller. I know you will think that a bad person will ignore the law, but all the same they are more likely to be reported to police in the preparation phase.

    I know that even presenting oneself at a police station or FBI office with a napalm truck bomb and asking to be arrested before one blows up a school probably has only a minimum chance of success with our lackadaisical police forces and FBI unless your name is Mo and you are wearing a turban adn you fail to call the policeman ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am’, but it is a start.

    Also, while we are on the subject of alternatives to guns, I am not trained in combat, but can you really kill multiple people by throwing a knife through a locked door as you can with a rifle?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quebecer
    Thank you M.Mason

    I was just trying to make a point, that I felt had some merit, but was greeted as an agnostic at a Jehovas' Witnesses Kingdom house.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jonathan Mason
    Yadda, yadda, yadda.

    No one really want to disarm paranoid gun nuts, they just want to make it less likely that deadly weapons will get into the hands of mentally disturbed juveniles and other lunatics who want to go out in a blaze of gory.

    Things like raising ages and improving background checks may help a little. Preemptive weapon seizures are similar in principle to mandatory mental hospital placement and make sense, so long as there is a process by which the person affected can go before a judge and make a case for the return of the weapons.

    That way, if there is another disaster, at least we can blame it on an elected judge.

    No one really want to disarm paranoid gun nuts, they just want to make it less likely that deadly weapons will get into the hands of mentally disturbed juveniles and other lunatics who want to go out in a blaze of gory.

    Unfortunately, the record shows that this hasn’t gone all that well so far, as is the custom with govnm’t programs, which fail in various ways when it really counts.

    Plus the angry individual could always resort to cooking up napalm and throwing flaming gobs of death at one’s school companions. Although it would probably demand a stronger suppression of the instinct that tells us to refrain from killing people in horrible ways than the use of an assortment handguns.

    OTOH, maybe this is the killer application for AI+applied mechatronics. Literally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Plus the angry individual could always resort to cooking up napalm and throwing flaming gobs of death at one’s school companions.
     
    If that is the case, then I would also be all in favor of making it illegal to cook up napalm regardless of which constitutional amendment supports the use of napalm as a weedkiller. I know you will think that a bad person will ignore the law, but all the same they are more likely to be reported to police in the preparation phase.

    I know that even presenting oneself at a police station or FBI office with a napalm truck bomb and asking to be arrested before one blows up a school probably has only a minimum chance of success with our lackadaisical police forces and FBI unless your name is Mo and you are wearing a turban adn you fail to call the policeman 'sir' or 'ma'am', but it is a start.

    Also, while we are on the subject of alternatives to guns, I am not trained in combat, but can you really kill multiple people by throwing a knife through a locked door as you can with a rifle?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jonathan Mason

    Oh, no, he said. He just meant confiscation among the civilian population. I replied that then we wouldn’t be a civilian population any longer. We’d be a nation of sheep.
     
    “Four young porkers in the front row uttered shrill squeals of disapproval, and all four of them sprang to their feet and began speaking at once. But suddenly the dogs sitting round Napoleon let out deep, menacing growls, and the pigs fell silent and sat down again. Then the sheep broke out into a tremendous bleating of "Four legs good, two legs bad!" which went on for nearly a quarter of an hour and put an end to any chance of discussion.” [George Orwell: Animal Farm.


    Two guns good, four guns better. [NRA slogan].

    Who are the sheep and who are the pigs?

    Who are the sheep and who are the pigs?

    In that context, the pigs are Stalin’s Camarilla and the sheep are the benighted followers of the Bolshevik Party and random citizens, soon hanging from rafters in any case.

    Transposed to today, you know the answer as well as anyone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Quebecer
    I have no problem with people 'keeping and bearing arms' for self-defence or sporting purposes.

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter

    That’s the “Wehrmacht” and it also had horse-drawn carriages, “tanks” that would not withstand a sneeze by a lightly armed individual today, shitty crypto (on a level that modern governments today would LOVE to impose on the citizenry), barely any radio communication and not enough gear for the Russian Winter.

    But what has that to do with anything?

    Oh hey, no wait: Jimbo’s Stupendous Stash Of Scrambled Info has this to say about the 30′s submachine gun:

    At the outbreak of World War II, the majority of German soldiers carried either Karabiner 98k rifles or MP 40s, both of which were regarded as the standard weapons of choice for an infantryman.

    However, later experience with Soviet tactics, such as the Battle of Stalingrad where entire Russian units armed with submachine guns outgunned their German counterparts in short range urban combat, caused a shift in tactics, and by the end of the war the MP 40 and its derivatives were being issued to entire assault platoons on a limited basis. Starting in 1943, the German Army moved to replace both the Karabiner 98k rifle and MP 40 with the new, revolutionary StG 44. By the end of World War II (which ended in 1945), an estimated 1.1 million MP 40s had been produced of all variants.

    BRRRTTTT! So you be wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    Well, he said "mostly armed".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Oh, no, he said. He just meant confiscation among the civilian population. I replied that then we wouldn’t be a civilian population any longer. We’d be a nation of sheep.

    “Four young porkers in the front row uttered shrill squeals of disapproval, and all four of them sprang to their feet and began speaking at once. But suddenly the dogs sitting round Napoleon let out deep, menacing growls, and the pigs fell silent and sat down again. Then the sheep broke out into a tremendous bleating of “Four legs good, two legs bad!” which went on for nearly a quarter of an hour and put an end to any chance of discussion.” [George Orwell: Animal Farm.

    Two guns good, four guns better. [NRA slogan].

    Who are the sheep and who are the pigs?

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato

    Who are the sheep and who are the pigs?
     
    In that context, the pigs are Stalin's Camarilla and the sheep are the benighted followers of the Bolshevik Party and random citizens, soon hanging from rafters in any case.

    Transposed to today, you know the answer as well as anyone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Avalanche1956
    Nope. Won't work. Can't work! You're trying to reason people out of a feeling! Read Chapter 10 of Vox Day's (exceedingly excellent and educational) book: SJWs Always Lie and learn the difference between dialectic and rhetoric and how and when to use each. You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts -- FACTS do not answer their feelings!

    Dr Peter Sandman, in his risk communication teachings, suggested this, my annotations:

    Compassion vs. dispassion. When dealing with a situation, there comes a point where you must stop dealing with the hazard (facts, dialectic) and work with outrage (feelings, rhetoric). There’s a common misconception that engineers and scientists and technologists can't do it -- they retreat further into the tech specs, rather than deal with the emotionalism. But if an engineer's 18-yr-old daughter comes home in tears from college because she broke up with her boyfriend, the engineer doesn't say "now, honey, you must realize that the median teenager has an average of 3.7 breakups over the 4 years of college attendance."

    Teach your engineers when (and how) to address outrage, not just by throwing more technobabble at the outrage.
     
    And that "'average # of breakups" (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day's book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can't hear it. Instead of trying to "teach them the truth"; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return. That our rhetoric is based in the truth makes it easier for us to wince and stop trying to answer our opponents with logic and rational explanations, and deal with them where they are: emotionally overwrought and desperate.

    Since they are focused on (their emotional reaction to) the fear (and deaths) of the children in a gun-free shooting gallery, you must answer them with two feeling-linked points: 'yes, we agree: this is horrible, and we (gun owners) are AS horrified as you are; maybe more so because we know effective ways to lessen and even prevent these horrific events!' (Let them know that we, too, are outraged -- anything less leaves us seeming (to "feelers") crass and unfeeling! Yes, that's partly dialectic but it aligns with their primary emotions: you're aligning yourself with their direction, rather than trying to stand against them.)

    Then, try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) leaves the children frantically trying to hide under desks and in schoolroom closets -- and knowing their teachers (adult so-called protectors) cannot do anything to actually protect them! All the children are relying on their teachers; and seeing their teachers terrified and frantic, trying to protect them -- some of them even dying lying on top of the children they were trying to protect -- but nearly completely, close to 100%, UNABLE to -- from the madman who chose to attack the unprotected shooting gallery! (Yes, the brave and amazing gym teacher was able to protect the painfully few children he put his own body over -- but that was SHEER LUCK, nothing even close to "effectively protecting our children"! Once he was dead, the terrified children under him were just as endangered as they were before he gave up his life! Not effective! Braver than hell, a true hero -- but NOT effective for most of the children who died!) (Again; rhetoric, based in truth.)

    (Try to) Get your opponent's feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children -- and maybe a terrified adult or two -- is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.

    Get your opponent’s feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children — and maybe a terrified adult or two — is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.

    Better still you can protect your children by voting for politicians who are prepared to vote for sensible “people control laws” that will make it harder for bad people and idiots who think that they are living in a video game, or those who have been psychologically damaged in foreign wars, to get their hands on weapons in the first place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @t-gordon
    You forget to mention the sociopathic thugs of our urban enclaves who statistically commmit more homicides (by the thousands!) than any of the "idiots" and "veterans" mentioned in your comment. If the daily Mainstream Media onslaught wasn't a complete obfuscation and downright dishonest manipulation of minds and emotions, well maybe... While I'd like to believe that in time, sanity, honesty and transparency will return to our public discourse, I fear that hysteria and inevitable Coercion by Rule of Law will render any of these discussions mute.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Avalanche1956
    Nope. Won't work. Can't work! You're trying to reason people out of a feeling! Read Chapter 10 of Vox Day's (exceedingly excellent and educational) book: SJWs Always Lie and learn the difference between dialectic and rhetoric and how and when to use each. You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts -- FACTS do not answer their feelings!

    Dr Peter Sandman, in his risk communication teachings, suggested this, my annotations:

    Compassion vs. dispassion. When dealing with a situation, there comes a point where you must stop dealing with the hazard (facts, dialectic) and work with outrage (feelings, rhetoric). There’s a common misconception that engineers and scientists and technologists can't do it -- they retreat further into the tech specs, rather than deal with the emotionalism. But if an engineer's 18-yr-old daughter comes home in tears from college because she broke up with her boyfriend, the engineer doesn't say "now, honey, you must realize that the median teenager has an average of 3.7 breakups over the 4 years of college attendance."

    Teach your engineers when (and how) to address outrage, not just by throwing more technobabble at the outrage.
     
    And that "'average # of breakups" (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day's book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can't hear it. Instead of trying to "teach them the truth"; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return. That our rhetoric is based in the truth makes it easier for us to wince and stop trying to answer our opponents with logic and rational explanations, and deal with them where they are: emotionally overwrought and desperate.

    Since they are focused on (their emotional reaction to) the fear (and deaths) of the children in a gun-free shooting gallery, you must answer them with two feeling-linked points: 'yes, we agree: this is horrible, and we (gun owners) are AS horrified as you are; maybe more so because we know effective ways to lessen and even prevent these horrific events!' (Let them know that we, too, are outraged -- anything less leaves us seeming (to "feelers") crass and unfeeling! Yes, that's partly dialectic but it aligns with their primary emotions: you're aligning yourself with their direction, rather than trying to stand against them.)

    Then, try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) leaves the children frantically trying to hide under desks and in schoolroom closets -- and knowing their teachers (adult so-called protectors) cannot do anything to actually protect them! All the children are relying on their teachers; and seeing their teachers terrified and frantic, trying to protect them -- some of them even dying lying on top of the children they were trying to protect -- but nearly completely, close to 100%, UNABLE to -- from the madman who chose to attack the unprotected shooting gallery! (Yes, the brave and amazing gym teacher was able to protect the painfully few children he put his own body over -- but that was SHEER LUCK, nothing even close to "effectively protecting our children"! Once he was dead, the terrified children under him were just as endangered as they were before he gave up his life! Not effective! Braver than hell, a true hero -- but NOT effective for most of the children who died!) (Again; rhetoric, based in truth.)

    (Try to) Get your opponent's feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children -- and maybe a terrified adult or two -- is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.

    that lying on the floor under a desk… is a proof (way too young) that… the world is a dangerous place

    Ah, the memories of a half-century ago, under the desks with one hand on the eyes and the other on the nape. Our school district took these drills very seriously– we were five miles from Pearl Harbor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jonathan Mason
    Yadda, yadda, yadda.

    No one really want to disarm paranoid gun nuts, they just want to make it less likely that deadly weapons will get into the hands of mentally disturbed juveniles and other lunatics who want to go out in a blaze of gory.

    Things like raising ages and improving background checks may help a little. Preemptive weapon seizures are similar in principle to mandatory mental hospital placement and make sense, so long as there is a process by which the person affected can go before a judge and make a case for the return of the weapons.

    That way, if there is another disaster, at least we can blame it on an elected judge.

    Things like raising ages and improving background checks may help a little

    In early America, many states had blackground checks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anarchyst
    I purposely left out the one real reason for the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny as many left-wing liberals (who cannot be reasoned with), all of a sudden now, are taking the side of government, insisting that only police and other government types should be allowed to have firearms. These left-wing types will make the accusation that "one wants to overthrow the government". Maybe not such a bad idea, BUT, in polite company...

    Oh, I get that.

    The point of mine (and not only mine, of course) is that by not mentioning that element you’ve already given a lot and created a good debating environment for them.
    I know it’s not so simple and clear cut and to properly address that would require more time/space, and, most likely, much smarter people than I am (and, well, most of people posting here).

    That element of the 2nd is the only argument, actually, preserving that right. All the rest can be “debated out”. You know that.

    Self-defense, hunting, sport….all can be done, easily, without “AR-15 type weapon”.
    Of course, as soon as you give that they’ll go for the rest, one by one. So, you draw some sort of “defense line” on “AR-15″, but they WILL chew that down. In time, no doubt about that.

    Now……I feel that you know perfectly well (and are reluctant to post it here, as I am ) WHY that element, really, can’t be mentioned in “polite company”.
    Paul Gotfried explained that well somewhere (can’t post a link, unfortunately).

    I mean, it’s easy to reply to

    ….one wants to overthrow the government…

    with

    one wants to defend against tyrannical government should it get into position of power…

    or similar. Easy.

    The true reason why that argument is not being used is…something else.

    And that is the problem here.
    A BIG one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @peterAUS
    Interesting.

    One element is missing from your well thought out attempt to reason with "progs" (save the fact that reason has no relevance to them).

    Hunting, self-defense, comparisons etc. all fine points, but not The Point, as I understand the 2nd.

    Granted, I am not an American but I do know something about the topic/subject, and that's the very reason I look up to that achievement in "Colonies" there.

    So...why don't you guys bring that point as the very first point in any...ahm...discussion with "progs"?

    Now, I do have a decent theory, but I'd really like to hear you guys first.
    One theory with two, say, groups.
    One group doesn't want to bring that up because....say.....they aren't onto it, on the contrary actually.
    The another group, well, I do get why they don't want to bring that up ,just for a different reason. Like...."you know why, don't play dumb".

    And, that is the thing, isn't it?
    Would be funny if it wasn't serious.

    I purposely left out the one real reason for the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny as many left-wing liberals (who cannot be reasoned with), all of a sudden now, are taking the side of government, insisting that only police and other government types should be allowed to have firearms. These left-wing types will make the accusation that “one wants to overthrow the government”. Maybe not such a bad idea, BUT, in polite company…

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Oh, I get that.

    The point of mine (and not only mine, of course) is that by not mentioning that element you've already given a lot and created a good debating environment for them.
    I know it's not so simple and clear cut and to properly address that would require more time/space, and, most likely, much smarter people than I am (and, well, most of people posting here).

    That element of the 2nd is the only argument, actually, preserving that right. All the rest can be "debated out". You know that.

    Self-defense, hunting, sport....all can be done, easily, without "AR-15 type weapon".
    Of course, as soon as you give that they'll go for the rest, one by one. So, you draw some sort of "defense line" on "AR-15", but they WILL chew that down. In time, no doubt about that.

    Now......I feel that you know perfectly well (and are reluctant to post it here, as I am ) WHY that element, really, can't be mentioned in "polite company".
    Paul Gotfried explained that well somewhere (can't post a link, unfortunately).

    I mean, it's easy to reply to

    ....one wants to overthrow the government...

     

    with

    one wants to defend against tyrannical government should it get into position of power...
     
    or similar. Easy.

    The true reason why that argument is not being used is...something else.

    And that is the problem here.
    A BIG one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Yadda, yadda, yadda.

    No one really want to disarm paranoid gun nuts, they just want to make it less likely that deadly weapons will get into the hands of mentally disturbed juveniles and other lunatics who want to go out in a blaze of gory.

    Things like raising ages and improving background checks may help a little. Preemptive weapon seizures are similar in principle to mandatory mental hospital placement and make sense, so long as there is a process by which the person affected can go before a judge and make a case for the return of the weapons.

    That way, if there is another disaster, at least we can blame it on an elected judge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Things like raising ages and improving background checks may help a little
     
    In early America, many states had blackground checks.
    , @El Dato

    No one really want to disarm paranoid gun nuts, they just want to make it less likely that deadly weapons will get into the hands of mentally disturbed juveniles and other lunatics who want to go out in a blaze of gory.
     
    Unfortunately, the record shows that this hasn't gone all that well so far, as is the custom with govnm't programs, which fail in various ways when it really counts.

    Plus the angry individual could always resort to cooking up napalm and throwing flaming gobs of death at one's school companions. Although it would probably demand a stronger suppression of the instinct that tells us to refrain from killing people in horrible ways than the use of an assortment handguns.

    OTOH, maybe this is the killer application for AI+applied mechatronics. Literally.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heJBfReQF9Q
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Avalanche1956
    Nope. Won't work. Can't work! You're trying to reason people out of a feeling! Read Chapter 10 of Vox Day's (exceedingly excellent and educational) book: SJWs Always Lie and learn the difference between dialectic and rhetoric and how and when to use each. You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts -- FACTS do not answer their feelings!

    Dr Peter Sandman, in his risk communication teachings, suggested this, my annotations:

    Compassion vs. dispassion. When dealing with a situation, there comes a point where you must stop dealing with the hazard (facts, dialectic) and work with outrage (feelings, rhetoric). There’s a common misconception that engineers and scientists and technologists can't do it -- they retreat further into the tech specs, rather than deal with the emotionalism. But if an engineer's 18-yr-old daughter comes home in tears from college because she broke up with her boyfriend, the engineer doesn't say "now, honey, you must realize that the median teenager has an average of 3.7 breakups over the 4 years of college attendance."

    Teach your engineers when (and how) to address outrage, not just by throwing more technobabble at the outrage.
     
    And that "'average # of breakups" (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day's book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can't hear it. Instead of trying to "teach them the truth"; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return. That our rhetoric is based in the truth makes it easier for us to wince and stop trying to answer our opponents with logic and rational explanations, and deal with them where they are: emotionally overwrought and desperate.

    Since they are focused on (their emotional reaction to) the fear (and deaths) of the children in a gun-free shooting gallery, you must answer them with two feeling-linked points: 'yes, we agree: this is horrible, and we (gun owners) are AS horrified as you are; maybe more so because we know effective ways to lessen and even prevent these horrific events!' (Let them know that we, too, are outraged -- anything less leaves us seeming (to "feelers") crass and unfeeling! Yes, that's partly dialectic but it aligns with their primary emotions: you're aligning yourself with their direction, rather than trying to stand against them.)

    Then, try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) leaves the children frantically trying to hide under desks and in schoolroom closets -- and knowing their teachers (adult so-called protectors) cannot do anything to actually protect them! All the children are relying on their teachers; and seeing their teachers terrified and frantic, trying to protect them -- some of them even dying lying on top of the children they were trying to protect -- but nearly completely, close to 100%, UNABLE to -- from the madman who chose to attack the unprotected shooting gallery! (Yes, the brave and amazing gym teacher was able to protect the painfully few children he put his own body over -- but that was SHEER LUCK, nothing even close to "effectively protecting our children"! Once he was dead, the terrified children under him were just as endangered as they were before he gave up his life! Not effective! Braver than hell, a true hero -- but NOT effective for most of the children who died!) (Again; rhetoric, based in truth.)

    (Try to) Get your opponent's feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children -- and maybe a terrified adult or two -- is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.

    You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts — FACTS do not answer their feelings!

    (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day’s book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can’t hear it.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    Instead of trying to “teach them the truth”; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return.
    …you must answer them with two feeling-linked points…
    ….try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) ….
    (Try to) Get your opponent’s feelings….

    Really?
    Why?
    I mean…why do you even need to engage with them?
    That is something of a puzzle for some of us watching all this.

    Is

    anything less leaves us seeming (to “feelers”) crass and unfeeling!

    the reason?

    You, in essence, want to play their game.
    One does that when the opponent has an advantage. Are you guys in that stage/phase?

    You can not win that. Ever.
    You shall lose, just a matter of time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    We need to engage with irrational people who are led too much by their emotions, because there are many such people and many of them VOTE.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @bjondo
    Do people really need an I phone or 400 hp vehicle or a double-scoop ice cream cone?

    Live in an area with lotsa dogs some of ‘em are pit bulls and some of those not of the pit variety are vicious and wandering foxes some of ‘em rabid and some humans of the wild variety. Maybe also rabid.

    I want a fast firing weapon with minimum 30 round clip.

    Regarding a rabid fox: took 2 deputies and a number of rounds to down one recently. Not easy to hit when running. And you don’t want a rabid fox to get close. Never know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    I spent time in rural-ish New Mexico, where there is a plentiful supply of rude, irresponsible morons who let their vicious dogs roam free on the back roads and paths. You need a handgun on you for that alone. My brother-in-law was attacked by a neighbor's dog there and would have been ripped to shreds if he hadn't pulled out his handgun and shot it.

    In rural areas, regular peaceful people need guns mostly to protect against animals -- though also because police can't reach a lot of places quickly enough if called.

    In urban and now many suburban areas, regular peaceful people need guns mostly to protect again human animals. No sense denying it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nope. Won’t work. Can’t work! You’re trying to reason people out of a feeling! Read Chapter 10 of Vox Day’s (exceedingly excellent and educational) book: SJWs Always Lie and learn the difference between dialectic and rhetoric and how and when to use each. You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts — FACTS do not answer their feelings!

    Dr Peter Sandman, in his risk communication teachings, suggested this, my annotations:

    Compassion vs. dispassion. When dealing with a situation, there comes a point where you must stop dealing with the hazard (facts, dialectic) and work with outrage (feelings, rhetoric). There’s a common misconception that engineers and scientists and technologists can’t do it — they retreat further into the tech specs, rather than deal with the emotionalism. But if an engineer’s 18-yr-old daughter comes home in tears from college because she broke up with her boyfriend, the engineer doesn’t say “now, honey, you must realize that the median teenager has an average of 3.7 breakups over the 4 years of college attendance.”

    Teach your engineers when (and how) to address outrage, not just by throwing more technobabble at the outrage.

    And that “‘average # of breakups” (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day’s book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can’t hear it. Instead of trying to “teach them the truth”; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return. That our rhetoric is based in the truth makes it easier for us to wince and stop trying to answer our opponents with logic and rational explanations, and deal with them where they are: emotionally overwrought and desperate.

    Since they are focused on (their emotional reaction to) the fear (and deaths) of the children in a gun-free shooting gallery, you must answer them with two feeling-linked points: ‘yes, we agree: this is horrible, and we (gun owners) are AS horrified as you are; maybe more so because we know effective ways to lessen and even prevent these horrific events!’ (Let them know that we, too, are outraged — anything less leaves us seeming (to “feelers”) crass and unfeeling! Yes, that’s partly dialectic but it aligns with their primary emotions: you’re aligning yourself with their direction, rather than trying to stand against them.)

    Then, try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) leaves the children frantically trying to hide under desks and in schoolroom closets — and knowing their teachers (adult so-called protectors) cannot do anything to actually protect them! All the children are relying on their teachers; and seeing their teachers terrified and frantic, trying to protect them — some of them even dying lying on top of the children they were trying to protect — but nearly completely, close to 100%, UNABLE to — from the madman who chose to attack the unprotected shooting gallery! (Yes, the brave and amazing gym teacher was able to protect the painfully few children he put his own body over — but that was SHEER LUCK, nothing even close to “effectively protecting our children”! Once he was dead, the terrified children under him were just as endangered as they were before he gave up his life! Not effective! Braver than hell, a true hero — but NOT effective for most of the children who died!) (Again; rhetoric, based in truth.)

    (Try to) Get your opponent’s feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children — and maybe a terrified adult or two — is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts — FACTS do not answer their feelings!
     

    (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day’s book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can’t hear it.
     
    Couldn't agree more.

    Instead of trying to “teach them the truth”; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return.
    ...you must answer them with two feeling-linked points...
    ....try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) ....
    (Try to) Get your opponent’s feelings....
     
    Really?
    Why?
    I mean...why do you even need to engage with them?
    That is something of a puzzle for some of us watching all this.

    Is

    anything less leaves us seeming (to “feelers”) crass and unfeeling!
     
    the reason?

    You, in essence, want to play their game.
    One does that when the opponent has an advantage. Are you guys in that stage/phase?

    You can not win that. Ever.
    You shall lose, just a matter of time.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    that lying on the floor under a desk... is a proof (way too young) that... the world is a dangerous place

     

    Ah, the memories of a half-century ago, under the desks with one hand on the eyes and the other on the nape. Our school district took these drills very seriously-- we were five miles from Pearl Harbor.
    , @Jonathan Mason

    Get your opponent’s feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children — and maybe a terrified adult or two — is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.
     
    Better still you can protect your children by voting for politicians who are prepared to vote for sensible "people control laws" that will make it harder for bad people and idiots who think that they are living in a video game, or those who have been psychologically damaged in foreign wars, to get their hands on weapons in the first place.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Sage advice, sir.

    Here's another line of argument on gun rights that is both useful and true: without guns, most women have no chance to defend themselves against most men.

    Most of the elderly would also be helpless and could be robbed, tortured, and killed at will, even in their own homes.

    We need to emphasize that guns are the great equalizer that gives weaker, smaller people a fighting chance against aggressors.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Quebecer
    I have no problem with people 'keeping and bearing arms' for self-defence or sporting purposes.

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?

    Do people really need an I phone or 400 hp vehicle or a double-scoop ice cream cone?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bjondo
    Live in an area with lotsa dogs some of 'em are pit bulls and some of those not of the pit variety are vicious and wandering foxes some of 'em rabid and some humans of the wild variety. Maybe also rabid.

    I want a fast firing weapon with minimum 30 round clip.

    Regarding a rabid fox: took 2 deputies and a number of rounds to down one recently. Not easy to hit when running. And you don't want a rabid fox to get close. Never know.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anarchyst
    The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possesses no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on “looks alone” also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.
    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in “gun-free zones”. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes.
    We need to TAKE BACK the argument…
    When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: “a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user. Firearms ARE used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal".
    When the antis attempt to justify their “gun free zones” counter their misguided argument with “you mean, criminal safety zones” or “victim disarmament zones”.
    State that “we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with “gun-free zone” signs”.
    When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: “you mean the most popular rifle of the day, use able by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot”. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made
    many converts this way.
    When the antis state that: “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt with”, counter with “AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered”.
    When the antis state that: “AR-15s are high powered rifles”, correct them by stating that “AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons–NOT “high-powered” by any means”.
    When the antis state that: “you don’e need and AR-15”, counter with, “Who are YOU to consider what I need?”
    When the antis state that: “the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to “weapons of that time period”, state that: “by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only “town-criers” and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment”.
    When the antis state that “only law enforcement and government should possess firearms”, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where “law enforcement” SAT ON THEIR HANDS while children were being murdered, citing “officer safety”, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms.
    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

    Interesting.

    One element is missing from your well thought out attempt to reason with “progs” (save the fact that reason has no relevance to them).

    Hunting, self-defense, comparisons etc. all fine points, but not The Point, as I understand the 2nd.

    Granted, I am not an American but I do know something about the topic/subject, and that’s the very reason I look up to that achievement in “Colonies” there.

    So…why don’t you guys bring that point as the very first point in any…ahm…discussion with “progs”?

    Now, I do have a decent theory, but I’d really like to hear you guys first.
    One theory with two, say, groups.
    One group doesn’t want to bring that up because….say…..they aren’t onto it, on the contrary actually.
    The another group, well, I do get why they don’t want to bring that up ,just for a different reason. Like….”you know why, don’t play dumb”.

    And, that is the thing, isn’t it?
    Would be funny if it wasn’t serious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    I purposely left out the one real reason for the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny as many left-wing liberals (who cannot be reasoned with), all of a sudden now, are taking the side of government, insisting that only police and other government types should be allowed to have firearms. These left-wing types will make the accusation that "one wants to overthrow the government". Maybe not such a bad idea, BUT, in polite company...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Excellent article.

    I would add that those who want to disarm “the people” in America are communists. Put simply, communism is a Satanic political ideology whereby the “state” = “god”, and “the people” exist only at the discretion of the state, and their proper place is to serve the state. The concept of individual God-given natural rights, such as the right to exist and the right to defend that existence, the right to own property (particularly residential property), etc., are an abomination to those who seek to disarm us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Quebecer
    Please enlighten me 'Igor', and I'm not saying this in a sarcatic tone.

    I will be the first to admit I know little about guns in the context of self-defence,
    as do most Canadians.

    My father used to own a Lee-Enfield .303 bolter, with a 10-round magazine.
    It looked mighty 'serious', and I do think brandishing this in a robber's face would
    provide enough of a deterrent.

    You as a Canadian should look into Ernst Zundel, a great Canadian-German, then think about what you said in your comment.
    We’re free to talk about subjects like Ernst talked about in America, because of the 2nd amendment.
    Without fear of being thrown in jail for it.
    Without the 2nd amendment there is no freedom. You’re welcome anti-gun America.
    You should also read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn if you want to know why we defend the 2nd amend.
    Funny how its mostly dual Israeli citizens and “Jews” that push so damn hard for gun control. You would think they’re planning another Bolshevik revolution….
    Just remember, criminals don’t follow the law. Look at Mexico. If citizens shouldn’t have them, then the military shouldn’t either.
    Plus all of theses shootings are false flags, fake, same thing they do overseas, attack and kill civilians then blame it on Assad, or whoever is the target at the time. All false flags. Look into it and you’ll understand.
    Mossad Black Ops and False Flags

    http://whale.to/b/mossad_black_ops.html

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The American revolution was fought with flintlocks. The civil war was fought with percussion cap and ball rifles. So what is your point? Guns “like the AR-15″ are semi-automatic weapons and no different than any semi-automatic firearm. If you put a hood scoop and a loud exhaust on your car it’s the same car, it just looks faster.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I don’t oppose taking guns from the mentally ill…
    AIPAC, other Jewish lobbies support arming terrorists to overthrow govts. they don’t like, support throwing people in jail that wish to debate certain issues, clearly they are mentally ill, no guns for them.
    Politicians in DC are trying to start a war with nuclear Russia, so obviously they’re mentally ill, we should confiscate all their weapons also.
    The FBI can’t seem to do anything right, mentally ill, take their guns.
    CIA/Mossad/MIC killed 3000 Americans on 9/11, that tells me they’re mentally ill, take their guns now.
    We should also be given the ability to spy on all these folks, since they’re all criminally insane, just to be sure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Igor Stravinsky

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?
     
    Do you really need to have an opinion on a subject about which you are so uninformed?

    Please enlighten me ‘Igor’, and I’m not saying this in a sarcatic tone.

    I will be the first to admit I know little about guns in the context of self-defence,
    as do most Canadians.

    My father used to own a Lee-Enfield .303 bolter, with a 10-round magazine.
    It looked mighty ‘serious’, and I do think brandishing this in a robber’s face would
    provide enough of a deterrent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @redmudhooch
    You as a Canadian should look into Ernst Zundel, a great Canadian-German, then think about what you said in your comment.
    We're free to talk about subjects like Ernst talked about in America, because of the 2nd amendment.
    Without fear of being thrown in jail for it.
    Without the 2nd amendment there is no freedom. You're welcome anti-gun America.
    You should also read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn if you want to know why we defend the 2nd amend.
    Funny how its mostly dual Israeli citizens and "Jews" that push so damn hard for gun control. You would think they're planning another Bolshevik revolution....
    Just remember, criminals don't follow the law. Look at Mexico. If citizens shouldn't have them, then the military shouldn't either.
    Plus all of theses shootings are false flags, fake, same thing they do overseas, attack and kill civilians then blame it on Assad, or whoever is the target at the time. All false flags. Look into it and you'll understand.
    Mossad Black Ops and False Flags
    http://whale.to/b/mossad_black_ops.html
    , @RadicalCenter
    Doesn't sound like a good firearm for defense inside a home or other short-range situation / enclosed space. Shotgun would seem to be better for that, generally. But I'll defer to real firearms experts and shooters here.

    Your country, too, used to be a wonderful place. Even relatively recently I spent most of my time living in BC for two years and loved it, on balance.

    Let's hope the USA and Canada turn things around in time.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Quebecer
    I have no problem with people 'keeping and bearing arms' for self-defence or sporting purposes.

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?

    Do you really need to have an opinion on a subject about which you are so uninformed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quebecer
    Please enlighten me 'Igor', and I'm not saying this in a sarcatic tone.

    I will be the first to admit I know little about guns in the context of self-defence,
    as do most Canadians.

    My father used to own a Lee-Enfield .303 bolter, with a 10-round magazine.
    It looked mighty 'serious', and I do think brandishing this in a robber's face would
    provide enough of a deterrent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I have no problem with people ‘keeping and bearing arms’ for self-defence or sporting purposes.

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Igor Stravinsky

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?
     
    Do you really need to have an opinion on a subject about which you are so uninformed?
    , @bjondo
    Do people really need an I phone or 400 hp vehicle or a double-scoop ice cream cone?
    , @El Dato

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter
     
    That's the "Wehrmacht" and it also had horse-drawn carriages, "tanks" that would not withstand a sneeze by a lightly armed individual today, shitty crypto (on a level that modern governments today would LOVE to impose on the citizenry), barely any radio communication and not enough gear for the Russian Winter.

    But what has that to do with anything?

    Oh hey, no wait: Jimbo's Stupendous Stash Of Scrambled Info has this to say about the 30's submachine gun:


    At the outbreak of World War II, the majority of German soldiers carried either Karabiner 98k rifles or MP 40s, both of which were regarded as the standard weapons of choice for an infantryman.

    However, later experience with Soviet tactics, such as the Battle of Stalingrad where entire Russian units armed with submachine guns outgunned their German counterparts in short range urban combat, caused a shift in tactics, and by the end of the war the MP 40 and its derivatives were being issued to entire assault platoons on a limited basis. Starting in 1943, the German Army moved to replace both the Karabiner 98k rifle and MP 40 with the new, revolutionary StG 44. By the end of World War II (which ended in 1945), an estimated 1.1 million MP 40s had been produced of all variants.
     

    BRRRTTTT! So you be wrong.
    , @RadicalCenter
    If the police have it -- which they do -- then yes, regular citizens need it to defend themselves as well. Or are the lives of police officers worth more than our lives?

    If gangs have such firearms -- which they do -- then again yes, regular citizens need it to defend themselves.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possesses no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on “looks alone” also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.
    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in “gun-free zones”. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes.
    We need to TAKE BACK the argument…
    When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: “a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user. Firearms ARE used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal”.
    When the antis attempt to justify their “gun free zones” counter their misguided argument with “you mean, criminal safety zones” or “victim disarmament zones”.
    State that “we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with “gun-free zone” signs”.
    When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: “you mean the most popular rifle of the day, use able by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot”. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made
    many converts this way.
    When the antis state that: “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt with”, counter with “AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered”.
    When the antis state that: “AR-15s are high powered rifles”, correct them by stating that “AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons–NOT “high-powered” by any means”.
    When the antis state that: “you don’e need and AR-15”, counter with, “Who are YOU to consider what I need?”
    When the antis state that: “the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to “weapons of that time period”, state that: “by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only “town-criers” and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment”.
    When the antis state that “only law enforcement and government should possess firearms”, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where “law enforcement” SAT ON THEIR HANDS while children were being murdered, citing “officer safety”, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms.
    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

    Read More
    • Agree: E. Rekshun
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Interesting.

    One element is missing from your well thought out attempt to reason with "progs" (save the fact that reason has no relevance to them).

    Hunting, self-defense, comparisons etc. all fine points, but not The Point, as I understand the 2nd.

    Granted, I am not an American but I do know something about the topic/subject, and that's the very reason I look up to that achievement in "Colonies" there.

    So...why don't you guys bring that point as the very first point in any...ahm...discussion with "progs"?

    Now, I do have a decent theory, but I'd really like to hear you guys first.
    One theory with two, say, groups.
    One group doesn't want to bring that up because....say.....they aren't onto it, on the contrary actually.
    The another group, well, I do get why they don't want to bring that up ,just for a different reason. Like...."you know why, don't play dumb".

    And, that is the thing, isn't it?
    Would be funny if it wasn't serious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thank you for this thorough, cogent argument. QED.

    Carroll Quigley, the Georgetown professor, wrote that the times of greatest freedom were those when the populace had weapons commensurate with what their governors had.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Your country is toast.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Last Friday, a federal grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C., indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian corporations for conspiracy and for using false instruments and computer hacking so as to influence the American presidential election in 2016. The indictment alleges a vast, organized and professional effort, funded by tens of millions of dollars, whereby...
  • Judge, I used to be a fan. No longer! You have become a useful idiot for the Neoconservative traitors to this country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @exiled off mainstreet
    I am disappointed at the judge buying into this story and accepting the integrity of this corrupt out of control deep state unit.

    Justin Raimondo makes Napolitano look like a 1st class sucker.

    ‘Mueller’s Fraudulent Indictment
    The Internet Research Agency: clickbait farm or KGB plot?’

    https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2018/02/21/muellers-fraudulent-indictment/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The judge is yet another regime’s idiot monkey. I used to read an odd article by him, but not any more. But his is a wonderful reflection on the state of US judiciary – totally corrupt and/or shit stupid, just like everything else in the country.

    Stop spewing stupidities monkey!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Why can’t we just be a normal country again?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Giuseppe

    However, because the American intelligence community has done similar “disinformation” projects in foreign countries (though not on this scale), these defendants and these indictments will go nowhere.
     
    Off the top of my head; Mossadegh, democratically elected leader of Iran, ousted in a CIA coup that installed the Shah; CIA coup in Chile that ousted democratically elected Allende and installed the dictator Pinochet; CIA coup in Ukraine several years ago that ousted democratically elected Yanukovich and installed puppets Poro and Yats; CIA involvement Chechnya, with the Contras in Nicaragua, recently in the coup in Honduras, CIA in the Bay of Pigs, CIA funding their activities and bribes through the illicit drug trade, the Color Revolutions, NGO's, unsuccessful coup sometime back in Venezuela, and efforts there being renewed now, not to mention clandestine involvement we will never hear of all over the world...etc. etc. etc.

    No, not on this scale at all.

    You forgot Bosnia and Kosovo, and also the whole Arab Spring–Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and the gem of them all, Syria. And how about Obama lecturing the British to reject Brexit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Eloquent brutal putdown, wow! I’ve long followed and admired Judge Napolitano, but I’m deeply disappointed in him, and surprised.

    Thanks. Several of us here have gradually realized that Mr. Napolitano is no longer doing admirable work. I have been voicing my suspicion since comment #1 to his column of 11/2/17. It has been both fun and infuriating to look for and call out the slithery support for the Establishment’s demonization of Russia, and his ancillary propagandandizing for bad actors in Washington who actually have been “meddling” in the 2016 election and since.

    To the extent of the power they wish to wield, democratic rulers must have problems to solve, crises to avert, and enemies from whom to purportedly protect their subjects. “Judge” (aka “Freedom Watcher” here at Unz Review) knows that, and he’s willing to help and to subordinate his supposed Constitutional principles in order to retain his role in the Beltway Follies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • However, because the American intelligence community has done similar “disinformation” projects in foreign countries (though not on this scale), these defendants and these indictments will go nowhere.

    Off the top of my head; Mossadegh, democratically elected leader of Iran, ousted in a CIA coup that installed the Shah; CIA coup in Chile that ousted democratically elected Allende and installed the dictator Pinochet; CIA coup in Ukraine several years ago that ousted democratically elected Yanukovich and installed puppets Poro and Yats; CIA involvement Chechnya, with the Contras in Nicaragua, recently in the coup in Honduras, CIA in the Bay of Pigs, CIA funding their activities and bribes through the illicit drug trade, the Color Revolutions, NGO’s, unsuccessful coup sometime back in Venezuela, and efforts there being renewed now, not to mention clandestine involvement we will never hear of all over the world…etc. etc. etc.

    No, not on this scale at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran800
    You forgot Bosnia and Kosovo, and also the whole Arab Spring--Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and the gem of them all, Syria. And how about Obama lecturing the British to reject Brexit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.