The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Stop Fearing Crime and Get Back to Fearing Guns!
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This graph by Ritchie King of Quartz Magazine illustrates what happened to the number of murders in New York City the last time progressives took over the criminal justice system.

From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:

The Left Goes Ballistic
by Steve Sailer
July 27, 2016

At a ceremony for some of the various policemen recently shot by his fellow Black Lives Matter advocates, President Barack Obama described the postapocalyptic hellscape of gun violence that is America today:

We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book…

In contrast, Donald Trump’s nomination acceptance speech was widely criticized as “dark.” … Pundits who, only days before, had been vociferously lamenting the gun crisis rushed to denounce Trump for fearmongering about crime.

After all, law and order is not supposed to be on the agenda for 2016. … You are supposed to be worrying about guns, not crime.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 150 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Steve,

    You are clearly being held captive in some sort of diabolical pundit sweatshop, where the greedy owners are relentlessly speeding up the pace of work until one day you will collapse sallow and emaciated at your keyboard after being forced to produce 35 posts in a single day.

    What can we do? What authorities should we notify? Can you slip us some information as to your whereabouts? Are they monitoring the comments to prevent please for help?

    Oh no! Perhaps I have said too much already and you will be shipped to another location in the back of an unventilated truck padlocked from the outside.

    It’s a pity John Steinbeck isn’t alive to record your plight.

    • LOL: Travis
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @FactsAreImportant

    It would be fun if Steve took a vacation and welcomed an ideological opponent to guest blog here in his stead, with the proviso that they couldn't moderate comments.

    Replies: @FX Enderby, @ic1000, @DCThrowback

  2. A really good synsthesis of some of your themes on guns, crime and the false narrative that dominates public discourse. Several good, pithy lines as well.

  3. @FactsAreImportant
    Steve,

    You are clearly being held captive in some sort of diabolical pundit sweatshop, where the greedy owners are relentlessly speeding up the pace of work until one day you will collapse sallow and emaciated at your keyboard after being forced to produce 35 posts in a single day.

    What can we do? What authorities should we notify? Can you slip us some information as to your whereabouts? Are they monitoring the comments to prevent please for help?

    Oh no! Perhaps I have said too much already and you will be shipped to another location in the back of an unventilated truck padlocked from the outside.

    It's a pity John Steinbeck isn't alive to record your plight.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    It would be fun if Steve took a vacation and welcomed an ideological opponent to guest blog here in his stead, with the proviso that they couldn’t moderate comments.

    • Replies: @FX Enderby
    @Dave Pinsen

    Ron Unz. He would give us hell! But I doubt he has the time.

    , @ic1000
    @Dave Pinsen

    > if Steve took a vacation and welcomed an ideological opponent to guest blog here in his stead...

    Based on some of the stuff that Steve passes, and on the threads that follow other unz.com authors, I don't think I'd be spending much time reading unmoderated comments here.

    , @DCThrowback
    @Dave Pinsen

    Ron already comments here

  4. The Left really does not like the Second Amendment. I am not sure why this is? Maybe because it was designed to protect the American people from the American government. We see in the Federalist papers the importance of limiting the government. [The 2nd amendment was made as a limit on government.] I think since the lefts sees government as the greatest good and people as worthless thus the 2nd amendment must bother them.

    I wanted to mention that I think limited government was foremost in the minds of the founding fathers as the sole way to guarantee freedom.
    They must have taken note that Sparta considered themselves free even though they were not a democracy. {See Herodotus.} The reason is the government was limited by the fact that each of the two kings and the Ephors limited the power of the other.

    • Replies: @Busby
    @avraham

    In general, the progressive impulse; any problem can be fixed if we care enough and impose the right laws. Life as a giant social science experiment. Plus the inability to see beyond the rudimentary cause and effect that more guns in the hand of the public has more than one potential outcome.

    , @Dr. X
    @avraham


    The Left really does not like the Second Amendment. I am not sure why this is? Maybe because it was designed to protect the American people from the American government.
     
    Absolutely. The defining characteristic of the Left is that government is the end-all and the be-all of society. Leftists unquestioningly accept Max Weber's definition of the State as having "a monopoly on the use of violence."

    This appeals particularly to females and minorities, who, like sheep, would be unwilling and/or temperamentally incapable of defending themselves by force of arms even if they were given all the guns in the world, free. They outsource their security, or perceived security, to the government and they trust no one else to possess arms.

    This sheep-like passive mentality also makes a virtue out of disarmament, so gun control for the Left becomes a form of virtue-signaling, no matter what the actual crime rate is in reality as an empirical or objective fact. This was the case in Scandinavian countries and in Canada which have significant gun control laws despite very low crime rates.

    If Hillary gets elected, you can bet good money that she will ban guns. She will justify it the way Obama does -- "it's the right thing to do." Period, end of discussion.

    These people cannot be reasoned with, only defeated. And as the population becomes increasingly minority and increasingly feminized, that will become harder to accomplish.
    , @Tracy
    @avraham


    The Left really does not like the Second Amendment. I am not sure why this is?
     
    Projection. Their own impulses make them unable to trust themselves with regard to violence, so they don't trust you, either. Check out The Psychology of Gun-Haters, written by a psychiatrist.
  5. Lot says:

    We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book

    Some pretty casual lies there. Craigslist San Diego lists about 150 desktops and laptops between $40 and $100. While not state of the art, they are likely multiple times faster than the one Zuck used to setup thefacebook back in 2004. And urban libraries have book give-aways constantly.

    A basic handgun costs about $300, maybe $200 for a functional used one, if you buy legally. But to sell to a black teenager, you’re going to need a big risk premium, so they likely would need to pay $700 or more.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Lot

    The implication seems to be that these criminals would spend their money on things like books if only guns were harder to get.

    , @Wilkey
    @Lot

    "And urban libraries have book give-aways constantly."

    They also have lots and lots of books to borrow, but I defy you to visit any nearby library where there are more people browsing the stacks than there are at the banks of computers, usually engaged in nothing remotely intellectual.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    , @Prof. Woland
    @Lot

    Unless he steals it.

    , @Buffalo Joe
    @Lot

    Lot, I don't think a "Buy a gun, get a book," promotion would draw much interest in some communities and if you buy a gun you can rob a computer pretty easily.

    , @dc.sunsets
    @Lot

    You got this all wrong.

    When a "teen" (cough-cough) grabs some lady's iPhone and beats her half to death for trying to stop him, it's because he's short of a small, touch-screen computer.

    If Obama had a son, and that son needed a small, hand-held computer, no doubt he'd borrow one from the Secret Service...or sign up for an Obamaphone.................

  6. I saw bits and pieces of the DNC. The usual parade of victim narratives, the nosebleed-level arrogance that government intervention in individual affairs at any price and without heed for the consequences is pretty much always a good thing.

    The Democrats views on guns live pretty much in an evidence-free/truth-free zone. The murder rate in the city where I work spiked at around 60/100,000 in the 1990s. (That’s no misprint.) The White-flight suburb immediately adjacent has a population about the same size and has a murder rate of about 1/100,000. (Again, no misprint.) Do Democrats really want a “conversation” about that? I guess not.

  7. @Lot

    We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book
     
    Some pretty casual lies there. Craigslist San Diego lists about 150 desktops and laptops between $40 and $100. While not state of the art, they are likely multiple times faster than the one Zuck used to setup thefacebook back in 2004. And urban libraries have book give-aways constantly.

    A basic handgun costs about $300, maybe $200 for a functional used one, if you buy legally. But to sell to a black teenager, you're going to need a big risk premium, so they likely would need to pay $700 or more.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Wilkey, @Prof. Woland, @Buffalo Joe, @dc.sunsets

    The implication seems to be that these criminals would spend their money on things like books if only guns were harder to get.

  8. Going by the chart, it’s pretty clear that Stop-and-Frisk was the main factor in NY’s dramatic homicide downturn.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @maj

    The real spectacular fall in absolute numbers was during Giuliani's days, but Bloomberg's policies helped drive homicides lower than almost anyone had imagined they could go.

    Replies: @George, @tbraton

    , @Forbes
    @maj

    The actual policy is 'Stop, Question, and Frisk' which contains nuance I won't debate here. Needless to say, SQF deterred carrying guns in public, which had a noticeable effect on the murder/violent crime rate. The interesting consequence of SQF is that NYPD has now set up a tracking system for knife crimes in NYC...

  9. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/obama-refugees-central-america.html?_r=0

    every single one of the most-recommended comments on this story takes a Trumpian line…

    sadly, those commenters still probably won’t vote for Trump…

  10. @maj
    Going by the chart, it's pretty clear that Stop-and-Frisk was the main factor in NY's dramatic homicide downturn.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Forbes

    The real spectacular fall in absolute numbers was during Giuliani’s days, but Bloomberg’s policies helped drive homicides lower than almost anyone had imagined they could go.

    • Replies: @George
    @Steve Sailer

    Crime peaks at the end of (Jewish) Koch's term, drops rapidly during (black) Dinkins and continues to drop more slowly after that.

    But the real issue was the financial crisis, and the building of the suburbs. The financial crisis is mostly run its course by the time Dinkins is is office. It sounds unbelievable now but NY city was considered obsolete. Upstate ny had IBM, Kodak, Xerox, Sperry, GE, ect. NJ had Bell labs. There might be some lesson for California and Silicon valley as it looks liked a financial crisis is brewing.

    Nyc was able to absorb Asian Immigrants who are mostly responsible for the new prosperity.

    The crime waves seem to correspond to Irish / Italian immigration and then Black migration. Mexican migration future crime wave? Watch out? But when and where will it hit?

    Why is prohibition labeled but not War on Drugs?

    Replies: @tbraton, @iSteveFan, @Forbes, @scrivener3

    , @tbraton
    @Steve Sailer

    "but Bloomberg’s policies helped drive homicides lower than almost anyone had imagined they could go."

    I agree that crime continued to go down under Bloomberg, but, apart from Stop and Frisk, weren't his policies a mere continuation of Giuliani's policies?

  11. @Dave Pinsen
    @FactsAreImportant

    It would be fun if Steve took a vacation and welcomed an ideological opponent to guest blog here in his stead, with the proviso that they couldn't moderate comments.

    Replies: @FX Enderby, @ic1000, @DCThrowback

    Ron Unz. He would give us hell! But I doubt he has the time.

  12. They would probably find a way to make a weapon out of a book. They sure ain’t for readin’.

  13. OT: Steve, I wonder Ron Unz has to say about the conflict that has emerged in the Senate race in CA?

    Racially charged feud over Senate race in California spills into Democratic convention

    http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/26/loretta-sanchez-takes-swipe-democratic-insiders-ca/

  14. @Steve Sailer
    @maj

    The real spectacular fall in absolute numbers was during Giuliani's days, but Bloomberg's policies helped drive homicides lower than almost anyone had imagined they could go.

    Replies: @George, @tbraton

    Crime peaks at the end of (Jewish) Koch’s term, drops rapidly during (black) Dinkins and continues to drop more slowly after that.

    But the real issue was the financial crisis, and the building of the suburbs. The financial crisis is mostly run its course by the time Dinkins is is office. It sounds unbelievable now but NY city was considered obsolete. Upstate ny had IBM, Kodak, Xerox, Sperry, GE, ect. NJ had Bell labs. There might be some lesson for California and Silicon valley as it looks liked a financial crisis is brewing.

    Nyc was able to absorb Asian Immigrants who are mostly responsible for the new prosperity.

    The crime waves seem to correspond to Irish / Italian immigration and then Black migration. Mexican migration future crime wave? Watch out? But when and where will it hit?

    Why is prohibition labeled but not War on Drugs?

    • Replies: @tbraton
    @George

    "Crime peaks at the end of (Jewish) Koch’s term, drops rapidly during (black) Dinkins and continues to drop more slowly after that. "

    Not true. A look at the accompanying chart shows that crime in NYC peaked in 1990, Dinkins first year as mayor, and began to decline thereafter, somewhat gradually at first and then much more dramatically. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

    I believe the same thing happened generally across the U.S., so it did not happen just in NYC, although, as I noted before, NYC has experienced a much more dramatic decline than the rest of the U.S. and NYC is now probably the safest large city in the U.S.

    , @iSteveFan
    @George


    Why is prohibition labeled but not War on Drugs?
     
    Whether you like or dislike prohibition, it is different from other government policies in that it was enacted by amending the Constitution. To amend the Constitution is difficult to say the least. Read Article V.

    Likewise, after the negative effects were seen, the Constitution was amended again to repeal it.

    Say what you will about it, but at least its enactment and repeal followed Constitutional processes and followed the will of the people.

    With the US fractured and divided today, I don't think we could pass any Constitutional Amendment.

    , @Forbes
    @George

    Crime peaked during Dinkins' term. NYC financial crisis was during the Ford administration, e.g. tabloid headline: "Ford to City--Drop Dead." Alcohol prohibition and drugs? When were drugs freely consumed without a prohibition?

    Nice try.

    , @scrivener3
    @George

    I do think your facts are wrong. The suburbs existed before 1955 so it was not the building of the burbs that caused the decline in NYC population during this period. Most of the companies you name as evidence that the City was obsolete were homegrown companies outside of the City. Kodak was always a Rodchester Co, Bell labs was formed and always lived in NJ. GE was in Stamford Ct. During my time in the City this period the City was crappy (homeless, dog poop everywhere, lack of public money to maintain things, painted up trains and busses, aggressive panhandlers). Fortune 500 HQ left for Greenwich, Stamford, (Singer, GTE, GE, Duracell, Champion Intl. Conoco) people abandoned a vital city for relative safety in the burbs (Ridgewood, Saddle River).

    Only, the companies that moved to the office parks died. The families that moved to the sterile burbs were bored out of their minds. Children hate the desert that is the NYC burb. You have to get at least 100 miles from Manhattan to have even a stylish pizza/sandwich joint (Morristown has some style, all of Bergen county is a bedroom to Manhattan). I think it was all safety. People will give up a lot to be safe. That plus a short time when taxes were lower in NJ/CT but they quickly realized they could jack up to NY levels and there was a long way to go to get outside of that.

  15. @avraham
    The Left really does not like the Second Amendment. I am not sure why this is? Maybe because it was designed to protect the American people from the American government. We see in the Federalist papers the importance of limiting the government. [The 2nd amendment was made as a limit on government.] I think since the lefts sees government as the greatest good and people as worthless thus the 2nd amendment must bother them.

    I wanted to mention that I think limited government was foremost in the minds of the founding fathers as the sole way to guarantee freedom.
    They must have taken note that Sparta considered themselves free even though they were not a democracy. {See Herodotus.} The reason is the government was limited by the fact that each of the two kings and the Ephors limited the power of the other.

    Replies: @Busby, @Dr. X, @Tracy

    In general, the progressive impulse; any problem can be fixed if we care enough and impose the right laws. Life as a giant social science experiment. Plus the inability to see beyond the rudimentary cause and effect that more guns in the hand of the public has more than one potential outcome.

  16. @Dave Pinsen
    @FactsAreImportant

    It would be fun if Steve took a vacation and welcomed an ideological opponent to guest blog here in his stead, with the proviso that they couldn't moderate comments.

    Replies: @FX Enderby, @ic1000, @DCThrowback

    > if Steve took a vacation and welcomed an ideological opponent to guest blog here in his stead…

    Based on some of the stuff that Steve passes, and on the threads that follow other unz.com authors, I don’t think I’d be spending much time reading unmoderated comments here.

  17. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Of course we can’t focus on crime – that would require acknowledgement of the fact that we have an incredibly violent subset of the population that is willing to use deadly force to resolve minor and petty disputes, and that would cast the left’s favorite class of victims in a negative light. Better to focus on the mechanism used to mete out punishment to one’s transgressors rather than ask why such a noble group of people are so quick to go to Defcon 1 over matters most people would let go.

  18. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s incredible that the president would make such an absurd statement of it being easier to obtain a Glock, a higher end pistol, than a book. It’s as if he were to start babbling about UFOs on national television. The increase in homicide is a black thing but because of that they have to dance all around the subject without ever really spelling it out. Quite simply, the black population has to be sat upon by the police to keep their murder rate down. Without that they just revert back to their original state of tribalism and tribal warfare. Lighten up the police presence and they go out of control much as when power outages automatically lead to looting. It’s just the way they are and they haven’t changed much in all these years.

  19. The vast majority of People of Color agree that gun violence and racism are terrible ills that must be addressed. They also hate Trump and the alt right. Disagree with them all you want but recognize that they will soon be the majority.

  20. David Dinkins always likes to pipe up and claim that the policies that reduced crime actually began in his administration. I forget whether he began stop-and-frisk or whether he hired Bratton and started Compstat. But he invariably writes into newspapers and points that out every time they ran a story about Giuliani cleaning up crime.

    Anyway, the Dems used to use gun control like the Repubs use abortion: an issue they knew they couldn’t win in Congress or the courts, but by screaming about it could rile up the base for cash and votes.

    Except now gun owners are beginning to talk about race again, thanks to the BLM movement trying to blame cops and rational people realizing it’s not that once they get the counter argument. So now the Dems screams are just making more people realize they are the Black Party.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @whorefinder

    The NYC crime rate indeed started to dramatically decline in 1991, three years before Giuliani took office. It was Dinkins' "Safe Streets, Safe Cities" program that started the trend.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  21. In the 80’s New York’s reputation was basically as a crime ridded hell hole. Most of the movies that took place in New York at the time were like Fort Apache The Bronx. Would a movie like Escape from New York even make sense today?

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @Mike Zwick

    They could do it in Detroit today, no problem. Heck, they could have done it in Detroit in the 80's as well.

    It's a reminder how quickly places can change with the right (or wrong) policies. And how the wrong policies will continue to be wrong no matter how long you keep them implemented.

  22. @Dave Pinsen
    @FactsAreImportant

    It would be fun if Steve took a vacation and welcomed an ideological opponent to guest blog here in his stead, with the proviso that they couldn't moderate comments.

    Replies: @FX Enderby, @ic1000, @DCThrowback

    Ron already comments here

  23. @Lot

    We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book
     
    Some pretty casual lies there. Craigslist San Diego lists about 150 desktops and laptops between $40 and $100. While not state of the art, they are likely multiple times faster than the one Zuck used to setup thefacebook back in 2004. And urban libraries have book give-aways constantly.

    A basic handgun costs about $300, maybe $200 for a functional used one, if you buy legally. But to sell to a black teenager, you're going to need a big risk premium, so they likely would need to pay $700 or more.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Wilkey, @Prof. Woland, @Buffalo Joe, @dc.sunsets

    “And urban libraries have book give-aways constantly.”

    They also have lots and lots of books to borrow, but I defy you to visit any nearby library where there are more people browsing the stacks than there are at the banks of computers, usually engaged in nothing remotely intellectual.

    • Agree: International Jew
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Wilkey

    Come on now, homeless people need SOMEWHERE to be smelly.

  24. This piece is a great routine with a stunning dismount…

    The main practical reason for why Democrats support gun control laws is in the hope of disarming black criminals. But white Democrats can’t come out and say that they want help from their fellow whites in keeping blacks under control. So they constantly lecture the rest of us that the true danger is those vicious rural straight white men with their hunting rifles.

    Not surprisingly, this Democratic political strategy of insulting potential allies has proved less than all-conquering over the past 50 years. But Democrats would rather die than tell the truth about whom they actually fear.

    Kudos, Mr. Sailer

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    @Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque

    No, this is Steve being disingenuous.

    He doesn't want to consider that the Left would have stuffed him in a camp for kulaks without 200 million guns in the US floating around out there because, gosh darn it, that would be mean.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

  25. Only republicans can fear-monger. Duh!

  26. From the Taki article:

    Hillary invited the mother of would-be cop killer Michael Brown to address the Democratic National Convention on the lessons of Ferguson.

    Lessons of Ferguson:

    If you steal some cigarillos from a store, then don’t walk around holding them openly in your hand.

    If you do walk around holding them openly in your hand, then don’t walk in the middle of the street.

    If a police officer tells you to stop walking in the middle of the street, then don’t punch him in the face.

    If you do punch a police officer in the face, then don’t try to grab his handgun.

    If you do grab his handgun, then don’t put your thumb on the barrel opening, so that a bullet wounds your thumb.

    If your thumb is wounded and if you also are fat, intoxicated and wearing flip-flops, then don’t try to run away.

    If you do run away, then don’t stop and turn around to face the police officer.

    If you do stop and turn around, then don’t yell, “You’re too much of a pussy to shoot me!”

    If you do yell, “You’re too much of a pussy to shoot me,” then don’t charge at the police officer.

    If you do charge at the police officer and he shoots you in your torso, then don’t keep charging until one of the bullets hits you in the forehead.

    • Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...
    @Mike Sylwester

    Mr. Sailer you are commenting under different monikers. Aren't you? Tell the troof. This was awesome at your level of awesome.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @Jack D
    @Mike Sylwester

    Stop slandering this saintly Gentle Giant whose mother is a featured speaker at the DNC. He is a national hero, dontcha know. Maybe someday we will celebrate Michael Brown Day alongside MLK Day. Stop it with your hatefacts, now.

    MB is another one of the sons that Obama wishes he had had. (BTW, it's surprising that Hillary and Bill did not see fit to adopt a few black kids like Chelsea's MIL Marjorie Mezvinsky). Our first black president should have had some black kids.

    https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr06/2013/6/4/16/enhanced-buzz-8564-1370377243-28.jpg?no-auto

    Or maybe it would have been too much work to line the drawers of another child.

    If Obama was a real Big Man like his father, he would surely have had a few sons here and there, but as it is he lives in mortal fear of Michelle who would kick his ass if he tried to sow his seed in another field.

  27. I’ve seen people look at porn at public libraries.

    I look at a lot of porn but never in public places

  28. Bill Clinton disses Barack Obama’s presidency by declaring Hilary the “changemaker” candidate.

  29. Murder rates over time are irrelevant unless improvements in medical care are controlled for. If you held the level of violence the same and had the medical care of 50 years ago the murder rate would be 3-4 times higher.

  30. Let’s put aside a trifling matter such as the Second Amendment for a moment (the Constitution after all is a living document and can be reinterpreted ) and consider gun control as a practical matter.

    Most of the communities that “we” have flooded with guns are also flooded with drugs. These drugs are mostly illegal. Outlawing the manufacturing, importation, possession or sale of these drugs with a variety of state and federal laws, most of which impose penalties at the felony level (i.e. long prison terms) has done little to stop their use, despite a century long “War on Drugs”.

    Drugs can be produced domestically in illegal laboratories and they can be smuggled across the border. Or drugs that are intended for legitimate purposes can be diverted to illicit use. So if you put your finger in the dike, a thousand other holes spring up, driven by the pressure of the public’s demand and willingness to pay for drugs.

    So while this war has not done much to actually reduce the supply of drugs to addicts (while at the same time making it difficult for people in real pain to receive appropriate medication) it has however filled our prisons and created a lucrative black market economy. Prohibiting alcohol had similar “success”.

    But, Obama and the Left want us to try yet another prohibition experiment. They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    @Jack D


    Drugs can be produced domestically in illegal laboratories
     
    Along those lines guns can be produced locally as well. Many of us, myself included, think of guns as being manufactured in big factories. But watch a video sometime showing local gun makers in Pakistan. These guys work out of small, primitive shops and copy name brand guns. It is fascinating to see them make guns in such conditions. If guns were banned in the US, plenty of shade tree mechanics would resort to this.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Tracy

    , @Rosey
    @Jack D

    I have made this argument and the response is always the same: "But it works in [insert socialist paradise here]"!!! This is the leftist go-to argument for any added control on our lives, even things like the government promoting bicycling and mass transit (at the expense, naturally, of automobile infrastructure.) It is especially rife on Reddit where any explanation of our nation's differences (even one as innocuous as its vast size) gets an applauded response of "Murica".

    , @Dr. X
    @Jack D


    Let’s put aside a trifling matter such as the Second Amendment for a moment (the Constitution after all is a living document and can be reinterpreted )
     
    The Bill of Rights is a "trifling matter"? The Constitution is "a living document and can be reinterpreted"?

    Bullshit. What would you say if Obama reinterpteted it to make himself president for life and abolished the two-term limit? What would you say if he abolished Congress? Abolished freedom of the press? Article VI states that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and it was written down in black and white because it means what it says and it says what it means.

    And it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Travis
    @Jack D

    true, prohibition of alcohol and drugs will always fail in our nation, because we give individuals too many legal protections. Legalization should be allowed, could be up to the states like alcohol prohibition. Prohibition existed in some southern states until 1966.

  31. All remaining charges dropped in the Freddie Gray case. Thus endeth one of the worst political prosecutions in U.S. history.

    • Agree: SPMoore8, tbraton, Forbes
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @Percy Gryce

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/charges-dropped-against-3-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case.html?_r=0

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-miller-pretrial-motions-20160727-story.html

  32. Obama’s statement also continues the long (racist) Leftist tradition of not considering blacks as having moral agency. “We” (implicitly whitey) put in front of (black) teens a veritable buffet of low cost Glocks (while at the same time we deprive them of access to books and computers). Forget for a moment that these are all lies and assume their truth for purposes of argument. Apparently, blacks have no role to play – once they are presented with these cheap guns they have no choice but to buy them and pop caps in their bruthas (and the occasional whitey).

    Isn’t this same buffet available to the teens of Bloomfield Hills and Bethesda, only a few short miles from nearby ghettos in Detroit and DC? And don’t white teens have even more access to cash? Why are the prep school boys not shooting each other at a similar rate (or at all)?

  33. “it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book”

    No. I think the president confuses ease with willingness. You can get guns for free at the Public Armory, of course. Oops, that’s books at the Public Library. My bad.

  34. Not normed for population? That’s almost worthless.

  35. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Meanwhile, here is someone who thinks he can use HBD to figure out which companies to short:

    http://gotnews.com/tag/johnson-dollar-diversity-hypothesis/

  36. iSteveFan says:

    This mass incarceration epidemic has an explicit racial bias, as one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime.

    Is this true? Based on this, and excluding women, then 1/6th of blacks will go to prison in their lifetime. That’s about 17 percent. Add in women and it probably hits 20%.

    Do 1 in 5 blacks go to prison sometime during their life? If so, then so much for the retort that 99 percent are good.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    @iSteveFan

    The disconnect between committing a crime and incarceration is strong in Obama's supposition. There's an arrow of cause and effect missing...

    , @ben tillman
    @iSteveFan


    Is this [that one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime] true? Based on this, and excluding women, then 1/6th of blacks will go to prison in their lifetime. That’s about 17 percent. Add in women and it probably hits 20%.
     
    Apparently, the claim was 32% based on 2001 data. The WaPo article below suggests the number should be lower if current data are used, but there's not much critical analysis of the 32% figure itself. Here you go:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/06/16/the-stale-statistic-that-one-in-three-black-males-has-a-chance-of-ending-up-in-jail/

    Replies: @TWS

  37. iSteveFan says:
    @Jack D
    Let's put aside a trifling matter such as the Second Amendment for a moment (the Constitution after all is a living document and can be reinterpreted ) and consider gun control as a practical matter.

    Most of the communities that "we" have flooded with guns are also flooded with drugs. These drugs are mostly illegal. Outlawing the manufacturing, importation, possession or sale of these drugs with a variety of state and federal laws, most of which impose penalties at the felony level (i.e. long prison terms) has done little to stop their use, despite a century long "War on Drugs".

    Drugs can be produced domestically in illegal laboratories and they can be smuggled across the border. Or drugs that are intended for legitimate purposes can be diverted to illicit use. So if you put your finger in the dike, a thousand other holes spring up, driven by the pressure of the public's demand and willingness to pay for drugs.

    So while this war has not done much to actually reduce the supply of drugs to addicts (while at the same time making it difficult for people in real pain to receive appropriate medication) it has however filled our prisons and created a lucrative black market economy. Prohibiting alcohol had similar "success".

    But, Obama and the Left want us to try yet another prohibition experiment. They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @Rosey, @Dr. X, @Travis

    Drugs can be produced domestically in illegal laboratories

    Along those lines guns can be produced locally as well. Many of us, myself included, think of guns as being manufactured in big factories. But watch a video sometime showing local gun makers in Pakistan. These guys work out of small, primitive shops and copy name brand guns. It is fascinating to see them make guns in such conditions. If guns were banned in the US, plenty of shade tree mechanics would resort to this.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @iSteveFan

    In the era of 3D printing, you won't even need rudimentary machine shop tools or skills.

    Also, keep in mind that while drugs get used up, guns have an almost infinite shelf life. Even if not one more Glock was ever produced, there are millions upon millions out there already.

    , @Tracy
    @iSteveFan

    3D printing makes gun control impossible. Check this out: https://www.wired.com/2014/05/3d-printed-guns/

  38. The most deplorable one [AKA "Foourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Hillary Clinton says”

    End the era of mass incarceration

    Isn’t that a little too subtle for the target audience and the words to big.

    I suspect she means “Stop locking up so many violent blacks” but it’s a little racist to say that.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    @The most deplorable one

    "the words to big."
    Is that why you made the word too short?

    Replies: @The most deplorable one

  39. Am I the only one suprised iSteve linked to the Bobby Fuller Four and not The Clash? Ya never can tell can ya?

    • Replies: @Dirk Dagger
    @Dirk Dagger

    Bobby Fuller died in iEsteban's own Los Angeles County under the "mysterious circumstances" as your Miss Marple might say. Could this be related to the misterioso death de Seth Rich? ¿Está ninguna de tu cera de abeja?

  40. Get rid of the 2A and you can get rid of the 1A.

    Take away free speech and self-defense and you have sheep that will be preyed upon by hordes of criminally minded blacks and Mexicans who hate whites.

    A socialists dream, lower class whites being eradicated by people of color.

    If you want ethnic cleansing and a end to America, just listen to white, college educated socialists.

  41. @iSteveFan
    @Jack D


    Drugs can be produced domestically in illegal laboratories
     
    Along those lines guns can be produced locally as well. Many of us, myself included, think of guns as being manufactured in big factories. But watch a video sometime showing local gun makers in Pakistan. These guys work out of small, primitive shops and copy name brand guns. It is fascinating to see them make guns in such conditions. If guns were banned in the US, plenty of shade tree mechanics would resort to this.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Tracy

    In the era of 3D printing, you won’t even need rudimentary machine shop tools or skills.

    Also, keep in mind that while drugs get used up, guns have an almost infinite shelf life. Even if not one more Glock was ever produced, there are millions upon millions out there already.

  42. Why are black men so popular with white British/irish women, like they literally can’t get their hands off them. And a lot of these British women with black men are solid 8s at the very least and 9s. I was in London and I saw a lot of hot and good looking British women with black and Arab/Pakistani men.

    • Replies: @Dirk Dagger
    @Anonymous

    London. Whenever I'm in Clapham/Battersea I try to stop in at Trinity, artful, tradition inspired English cuisine. Prices are good too.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Dirk Dagger
    @Anonymous

    A British (Isles) 8 or 9 is a USA 6 or 7. Hybrid vigor matters. Cleveland, Ohio area has lots of mixed Euro ethnic types (love the Italo-Czech hybrids, yum!) and they are hot. Of course they all leave when they get the chance.

    , @Jack D
    @Anonymous

    Maybe it has something to do with the size of their .... hands, as Trump might say.

    Funny you should say that, because in the US , the white women I see with blacks are usually grossly obese and clearly lower class.

    There is a small group of leftist adventuresses like Obama's mother who are attracted to blacks, but not many. And you can usually tell them by their little brown children alone - black men themselves rarely stick around for long.

    , @peterike
    @Anonymous


    I was in London and I saw a lot of hot and good looking British women with black and Arab/Pakistani men.

     

    The majority of those women are working girls, you imbecile. "Escorting" has become an incredibly widespread phenomenon, and men of color with money know just what they want, which is white women, every time.
    , @Trelane
    @Anonymous

    It's called hypogamy--when a woman marries down (normally, women aspire to marry up, which is called hypergamy and is, as Mr. Spock would remind us, quite logical).

    Your question is a very good one however and I congratulate you on your first post here. We don't know why a small fraction of white women are attracted to black males. In nature, hypogamy is very unusual. For example the coyote (Canis latrans) female occasionally mates the male gray wolf (Canis lupus) but the female wolf never mates the male coyote, which is a different sex, species and (possibly) genus.

    We simply do not know why the white female mates the black male. Perhaps such miscegenation is an example of recapitulation to ontogeny (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny). Others have suggested atavism (the tendency to revert to ancestral type) as a reasonable explanation. Paleostasis (the opposite of neoteny) is sometimes mentioned as non-trivially causal. We simply don't know. Who knows why anyone loves anyone else?

  43. OT: The mother in law of the head of formula one racing has been kidnapped in Brazil. They want ransom money. Reminds me of the ransom of Red Chief.

  44. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    In the era of 3D printing, you won’t even need rudimentary machine shop tools or skills.

    This is simply not true.

    Barrels cannot currently be produced using 3D printing and will probably require laser sintering techniques and expensive starting materials.

    Moreover, Defense Distributed has switched from 3D printing to a custom, open-source form of a mini-mill CNC machine.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @The most deplorable one

    Ok, a home mini mill instead of a printer. The point is that in the not too distant future you will still be able to build (all the parts needed for) a weapon at home by pressing a button and without a lot of machining skills.

    Or maybe mills will be pre-programmed not to print guns. Try making a copy or scan of US currency on your all in one printer/scanner and see what happens.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @The most deplorable one

  45. Steve,

    Curious to get your take on what drove rising American crime in the first half of the 20th century. The standard answer is prohibition, but that doesn’t seem to cover the whole issue. For one thing crime started rising well before the Volstead Act, with the trend clearly taking hold as early as 1905. For another crime fell after the 21st amendment, but to nowhere near 1900 levels. Even as late as 1941 homicides were much more common than they were in 1918.

    I haven’t seen a satisfying explanation, and was genuinely curious if you had any thoughts.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Doug

    The turn of the century was the era of the great Ellis Island immigration wave. A lot of the immigrants were more violent than previous Americans - you had the Italian Mafia, etc. Prohibition gave these criminal gangs a new and lucrative business but they existed already running protection rackets, illegal gambling dens, etc.

  46. @Doug
    Steve,

    Curious to get your take on what drove rising American crime in the first half of the 20th century. The standard answer is prohibition, but that doesn't seem to cover the whole issue. For one thing crime started rising well before the Volstead Act, with the trend clearly taking hold as early as 1905. For another crime fell after the 21st amendment, but to nowhere near 1900 levels. Even as late as 1941 homicides were much more common than they were in 1918.

    I haven't seen a satisfying explanation, and was genuinely curious if you had any thoughts.

    Replies: @Jack D

    The turn of the century was the era of the great Ellis Island immigration wave. A lot of the immigrants were more violent than previous Americans – you had the Italian Mafia, etc. Prohibition gave these criminal gangs a new and lucrative business but they existed already running protection rackets, illegal gambling dens, etc.

  47. I’ve noticed a new and disturbing trend among American leftists – they start out with an utterly false premise – “it’s easier for a teen to buy a gun than a book” and reason from there (so of course any conclusion that they reach must also be wrong) but they are now completely unafraid of being contradicted. We saw this the other day when Ellison retconned George Wallace as a Republican. I suppose this is a sign of their confidence in being in total command of the MSM (the CNN reporter interviewing him did not correct Ellison).

    • Replies: @Forbes
    @Jack D

    I'd guess Ellison's retconning of Wallace as a Rep is merely Dem party social conditioning that racists are Reps. Ellison was 9 y/o when Wallace was shot in '72--I doubt he has specific memory of Wallace. Ellison merely drinks the Kool-Aid.

    I've a lefty-lawyer friend here in NYC whose explanation of the Rep domination in the South is because all the racists left the Dem party. A convenient, evidence-free rationalization.

  48. You wrote in the article:

    The main practical reason for why Democrats support gun control laws is in the hope of disarming black criminals. But white Democrats can’t come out and say that they want help from their fellow whites in keeping blacks under control.

    This isn’t the first time you’ve made this contention, and I’m still unable to wrap my mind around the political mechanics of it. Why should Democrats (or their rough equivalents who aren’t Democrats) think they need help from “their fellow whites” to do what they could easily (and in some cases, are) doing on their own without anyone’s help? Are we to think that Michael Bloomberg wishes the NYPD could SQF some street corner Jamal in Harlem but isn’t allowed to do so because Billy Bob from West Virginia belongs to the NRA?

    As far as this business about how it’s easier to buy a Glock than a computer, I’ll just link to my relatively unique response to it rather than cutting and pasting so much.

    https://countenance.wordpress.com/2016/07/13/glock-stock-and-barrel/

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @countenance

    This has nothing to do with the practical mechanics of governing and everything to do with appealing to the Democrat base (blacks, young urban hipsters) and swing voters - nice white suburban ladies. In blacktopias such as DC, there are already strict gun laws. A somewhat practical anti-gun issue is that guns keep coming in anyway because people buy them in Billy Bob country and bring them to the city, but that's not really the point.

    It's unusual that Obama even spoke about pistols in an urban setting at all. The risk from guns is usually portrayed as being from right wing mass shooter type guys - a KKK boogeyman is going to get an "assault weapon" (a scary LOOKING long gun) and use it to lynch black people and gays and shoot up black churches and movie theaters and such. Never mind that for each such actual incident of Billy Bob going postal there are hundreds of cases of urban blacks shooting each other with handguns (and increasingly cases of Muslims and BLM types going postal instead) - as long as we stay focused on the image of imaginary straight white lower class male Nazi Billy Bob (who isn't voting Democrat anyway) the Coalition of the Fringes is unanimously in favor of taking away his long gun (or at least making it look less scary or work less well).

    Replies: @countenance

    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @countenance


    This isn’t the first time you’ve made this contention, and I’m still unable to wrap my mind around the political mechanics of it.
     
    If Steve realizes that the Left’s (Democrats, if you must) motivation on guns isn’t crime control, but ideological STATE CONTROL over all of us, he is being far too coy.

    Jack Hanson said it best in this comment (#66):

    It’s why the inventor of “Occam’s Butterknife” comes up with a triple bankshot 3D chess theory on why liberal whites want to take your guns. The idea that the Left wants to stuff him in a camp with the rest of us kulaks is incomprehensible to him.
     
    The Left wants to ban ‘black rifles’ because they are free citizens’ most effective tool to resist a top-down Police State suspension of civil liberties. Once people acquiesce to AR bans, the push will be to ban (statistically deadlier) handguns.

    Look what just happened in Massachusetts: Bull dyke AG Maura Healey unilaterally (and vaguely) redefined what a prohibited “assault weapon” is, and effectively banned semi-auto rifles (and possibly mag-fed handguns) in the state.

    I’m not sure if Steve’s getting the “big picture” motivation with the Left's guns and immigration policy. It’s bitter resentment. And the resentful misfits have gotten into power in many places and want to use the State to stick it to the rest of us “normals.” It will lead to war.

    Perhaps publicly, honestly musing on why the Left really wants to disarm the citizenry is too “dark” an exercise for iSteve posts. It would mean calling out groups and naming names far more explicitly than Steve (to his credit) already does.
  49. The Bloomberg experience seems to indicate that strict gun laws can reduce crime…but only if you’re willing to throw a lot of young black men in jail for violating gun laws.

  50. @Jack D
    Let's put aside a trifling matter such as the Second Amendment for a moment (the Constitution after all is a living document and can be reinterpreted ) and consider gun control as a practical matter.

    Most of the communities that "we" have flooded with guns are also flooded with drugs. These drugs are mostly illegal. Outlawing the manufacturing, importation, possession or sale of these drugs with a variety of state and federal laws, most of which impose penalties at the felony level (i.e. long prison terms) has done little to stop their use, despite a century long "War on Drugs".

    Drugs can be produced domestically in illegal laboratories and they can be smuggled across the border. Or drugs that are intended for legitimate purposes can be diverted to illicit use. So if you put your finger in the dike, a thousand other holes spring up, driven by the pressure of the public's demand and willingness to pay for drugs.

    So while this war has not done much to actually reduce the supply of drugs to addicts (while at the same time making it difficult for people in real pain to receive appropriate medication) it has however filled our prisons and created a lucrative black market economy. Prohibiting alcohol had similar "success".

    But, Obama and the Left want us to try yet another prohibition experiment. They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @Rosey, @Dr. X, @Travis

    I have made this argument and the response is always the same: “But it works in [insert socialist paradise here]”!!! This is the leftist go-to argument for any added control on our lives, even things like the government promoting bicycling and mass transit (at the expense, naturally, of automobile infrastructure.) It is especially rife on Reddit where any explanation of our nation’s differences (even one as innocuous as its vast size) gets an applauded response of “Murica”.

  51. @Steve Sailer
    @maj

    The real spectacular fall in absolute numbers was during Giuliani's days, but Bloomberg's policies helped drive homicides lower than almost anyone had imagined they could go.

    Replies: @George, @tbraton

    “but Bloomberg’s policies helped drive homicides lower than almost anyone had imagined they could go.”

    I agree that crime continued to go down under Bloomberg, but, apart from Stop and Frisk, weren’t his policies a mere continuation of Giuliani’s policies?

  52. @maj
    Going by the chart, it's pretty clear that Stop-and-Frisk was the main factor in NY's dramatic homicide downturn.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Forbes

    The actual policy is ‘Stop, Question, and Frisk’ which contains nuance I won’t debate here. Needless to say, SQF deterred carrying guns in public, which had a noticeable effect on the murder/violent crime rate. The interesting consequence of SQF is that NYPD has now set up a tracking system for knife crimes in NYC…

  53. @iSteveFan

    This mass incarceration epidemic has an explicit racial bias, as one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime.
     
    Is this true? Based on this, and excluding women, then 1/6th of blacks will go to prison in their lifetime. That's about 17 percent. Add in women and it probably hits 20%.

    Do 1 in 5 blacks go to prison sometime during their life? If so, then so much for the retort that 99 percent are good.

    Replies: @Forbes, @ben tillman

    The disconnect between committing a crime and incarceration is strong in Obama’s supposition. There’s an arrow of cause and effect missing…

  54. @avraham
    The Left really does not like the Second Amendment. I am not sure why this is? Maybe because it was designed to protect the American people from the American government. We see in the Federalist papers the importance of limiting the government. [The 2nd amendment was made as a limit on government.] I think since the lefts sees government as the greatest good and people as worthless thus the 2nd amendment must bother them.

    I wanted to mention that I think limited government was foremost in the minds of the founding fathers as the sole way to guarantee freedom.
    They must have taken note that Sparta considered themselves free even though they were not a democracy. {See Herodotus.} The reason is the government was limited by the fact that each of the two kings and the Ephors limited the power of the other.

    Replies: @Busby, @Dr. X, @Tracy

    The Left really does not like the Second Amendment. I am not sure why this is? Maybe because it was designed to protect the American people from the American government.

    Absolutely. The defining characteristic of the Left is that government is the end-all and the be-all of society. Leftists unquestioningly accept Max Weber’s definition of the State as having “a monopoly on the use of violence.”

    This appeals particularly to females and minorities, who, like sheep, would be unwilling and/or temperamentally incapable of defending themselves by force of arms even if they were given all the guns in the world, free. They outsource their security, or perceived security, to the government and they trust no one else to possess arms.

    This sheep-like passive mentality also makes a virtue out of disarmament, so gun control for the Left becomes a form of virtue-signaling, no matter what the actual crime rate is in reality as an empirical or objective fact. This was the case in Scandinavian countries and in Canada which have significant gun control laws despite very low crime rates.

    If Hillary gets elected, you can bet good money that she will ban guns. She will justify it the way Obama does — “it’s the right thing to do.” Period, end of discussion.

    These people cannot be reasoned with, only defeated. And as the population becomes increasingly minority and increasingly feminized, that will become harder to accomplish.

  55. @Jack D
    Let's put aside a trifling matter such as the Second Amendment for a moment (the Constitution after all is a living document and can be reinterpreted ) and consider gun control as a practical matter.

    Most of the communities that "we" have flooded with guns are also flooded with drugs. These drugs are mostly illegal. Outlawing the manufacturing, importation, possession or sale of these drugs with a variety of state and federal laws, most of which impose penalties at the felony level (i.e. long prison terms) has done little to stop their use, despite a century long "War on Drugs".

    Drugs can be produced domestically in illegal laboratories and they can be smuggled across the border. Or drugs that are intended for legitimate purposes can be diverted to illicit use. So if you put your finger in the dike, a thousand other holes spring up, driven by the pressure of the public's demand and willingness to pay for drugs.

    So while this war has not done much to actually reduce the supply of drugs to addicts (while at the same time making it difficult for people in real pain to receive appropriate medication) it has however filled our prisons and created a lucrative black market economy. Prohibiting alcohol had similar "success".

    But, Obama and the Left want us to try yet another prohibition experiment. They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @Rosey, @Dr. X, @Travis

    Let’s put aside a trifling matter such as the Second Amendment for a moment (the Constitution after all is a living document and can be reinterpreted )

    The Bill of Rights is a “trifling matter”? The Constitution is “a living document and can be reinterpreted”?

    Bullshit. What would you say if Obama reinterpteted it to make himself president for life and abolished the two-term limit? What would you say if he abolished Congress? Abolished freedom of the press? Article VI states that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and it was written down in black and white because it means what it says and it says what it means.

    And it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Dr. X

    I was being sarcastic, but the truth is that for most of the 2oth century, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted by the S. Ct. as providing for a "well regulated Militia" only and not granting an individual right - the 2nd Amendment meant only that there was a Constitutional right for each state to form a militia (national guard) which could not be abolished by Federal law. And with one more leftist judge on the S. Ct. it could be interpreted that way again (DC vs. Heller was 5 to 4). As a practical matter, the words of the Constitution really are subject to considerable interpretation whether we believe them to be sacred or not. Even if you believe in "original intent", that only shifts the debate to what the original intent was, which is not always clear.

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger, @Joe Stalin, @guest, @scrivener3

  56. @Jack D
    I've noticed a new and disturbing trend among American leftists - they start out with an utterly false premise - "it's easier for a teen to buy a gun than a book" and reason from there (so of course any conclusion that they reach must also be wrong) but they are now completely unafraid of being contradicted. We saw this the other day when Ellison retconned George Wallace as a Republican. I suppose this is a sign of their confidence in being in total command of the MSM (the CNN reporter interviewing him did not correct Ellison).

    Replies: @Forbes

    I’d guess Ellison’s retconning of Wallace as a Rep is merely Dem party social conditioning that racists are Reps. Ellison was 9 y/o when Wallace was shot in ’72–I doubt he has specific memory of Wallace. Ellison merely drinks the Kool-Aid.

    I’ve a lefty-lawyer friend here in NYC whose explanation of the Rep domination in the South is because all the racists left the Dem party. A convenient, evidence-free rationalization.

  57. OT, but the Times is disgracing itself again in its attack on Trump, pretending that what looks to be nothing but sarcasm from Trump was meant with the utmost seriousness.

    I commented on the article (under the handle frankly0):

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html?comments#permid=19293080

    The commenters themselves go crazy with accusations of “treason”.

    Boy, those latest polls really get the Times and their target audience into a frenzy.

    • Replies: @Flip
    @candid_observer

    It is amazing to open the NYT and see all these heavily biased "news" articles. I really ought to stop giving them my money.

    , @Jack D
    @candid_observer

    Stirring up fake controversies by taking quotes out of context is a Leftist speciality but it doesn't seem to work on Trump at all. But that doesn't stop the Left from trying again and again. The NYTimes news pages no longer even pretend to be impartial.

    Something you have to understand (and which the reporter surely understands but pretends not to) is that Hillary's email server has been offline and scrubbed for a long time now. So the only way the Russians could leak the contents is if they hacked it when it was still on line. So, even taking Trump's remarks in a serious light and not as a joke as clearly intended (according to the NYT readers, sarcasm and humor are not permitted in Presidential candidates) it's not possible that Trump is appealing for the Russians to conduct FUTURE espionage on Hillary.

    At worst, he is telling Putin to release what he already has "and he would be rewarded by the American press". The latter is what REALLY drove the NYT into a frenzy. Traditionally, yes, juice revelations about a presidential candidate are exactly what the press wants - they would be orgasmic if someone were to leak something truly incriminating about Trump. Normally they would give their eye teeth to break a scandal - since Watergate this has been the dream of every political reporter. But, in this case, the LAST thing that they want is to be forced to print something that would torpedo Hillary's candidacy. I would even bet that they would suddenly get ethical qualms and find some reason why they couldn't even print these stories (but the cat would be out of the bag anyway - they no longer have the monopoly).

    Replies: @candid_observer, @Chrisnonymous

    , @Jack D
    @candid_observer

    BTW, on the theory that all publicity is good publicity, Trump has blasted the DNC off the top position of the NY Times web page. Instead of talking about Hillary (and Bill's highly selective hagiography) everyone is talking about Trump again. So maybe the man is crazy like a fox.

    Replies: @candid_observer, @Boomstick, @Flip

  58. Say, what ever happened to BLM? Haven’t heard a peep out of them since their meet at the White House. Obama got them to stand down or did the media stop covering them? I wonder what deals were made, what it cost, and when they’ll be back. After the convention or after the election?

    Near as I can tell, BLM stands for Bureau of Land Management again.

  59. One murder per day is a dubious measure, across 200+ years of New York City history, since that rate is detached from the city’s population, and thus from its actual murder rate. Notice that the upsurge in killing that peaked during the few years in which Prohibition and the Great Depression overlapped began just before the end of the 19th Century. On New Year’s Day 1898, consolidation went into effect, joining the four outer boroughs with Manhatten, which alone had been New York City, prior to that year. New York City was an utterly different place, in size and scope, before and after that New Year’s Day.

    http://nymag.com/news/features/greatest-new-york/70466/

    It would be very instructive to compare the Census breakdowns of the city’s racial and ethnic composition, across this historical period, with this graph of the city’s number of annual homicides. (Also, of course, it should be noted that not all homicides are murders….)

  60. @countenance
    You wrote in the article:

    The main practical reason for why Democrats support gun control laws is in the hope of disarming black criminals. But white Democrats can’t come out and say that they want help from their fellow whites in keeping blacks under control.

    This isn't the first time you've made this contention, and I'm still unable to wrap my mind around the political mechanics of it. Why should Democrats (or their rough equivalents who aren't Democrats) think they need help from "their fellow whites" to do what they could easily (and in some cases, are) doing on their own without anyone's help? Are we to think that Michael Bloomberg wishes the NYPD could SQF some street corner Jamal in Harlem but isn't allowed to do so because Billy Bob from West Virginia belongs to the NRA?

    As far as this business about how it's easier to buy a Glock than a computer, I'll just link to my relatively unique response to it rather than cutting and pasting so much.

    https://countenance.wordpress.com/2016/07/13/glock-stock-and-barrel/

    Replies: @Jack D, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    This has nothing to do with the practical mechanics of governing and everything to do with appealing to the Democrat base (blacks, young urban hipsters) and swing voters – nice white suburban ladies. In blacktopias such as DC, there are already strict gun laws. A somewhat practical anti-gun issue is that guns keep coming in anyway because people buy them in Billy Bob country and bring them to the city, but that’s not really the point.

    It’s unusual that Obama even spoke about pistols in an urban setting at all. The risk from guns is usually portrayed as being from right wing mass shooter type guys – a KKK boogeyman is going to get an “assault weapon” (a scary LOOKING long gun) and use it to lynch black people and gays and shoot up black churches and movie theaters and such. Never mind that for each such actual incident of Billy Bob going postal there are hundreds of cases of urban blacks shooting each other with handguns (and increasingly cases of Muslims and BLM types going postal instead) – as long as we stay focused on the image of imaginary straight white lower class male Nazi Billy Bob (who isn’t voting Democrat anyway) the Coalition of the Fringes is unanimously in favor of taking away his long gun (or at least making it look less scary or work less well).

    • Replies: @countenance
    @Jack D

    I definitely understand the diversionary nature of the whole thing. Bloomberg wants to disarm Jamal in Harlem, but he knows that Jamal's grandmother votes. That's why he blames Billy Bob in West Virginia, because Billy Bob does not have New York City franchise rights.

    All I'm wondering is, per SS's contention, why all these white urban liberals are upset at Billy Bob for not doing something they can and are doing themselves. Maybe though I answered my own question: They know they're doing it, and they know that their doing it makes Jamal's grandmother upset, so they offload the blame on Billy Bob so that Jamal's grandmother will blame Billy Bob and not urban white liberals.

  61. @iSteveFan

    This mass incarceration epidemic has an explicit racial bias, as one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime.
     
    Is this true? Based on this, and excluding women, then 1/6th of blacks will go to prison in their lifetime. That's about 17 percent. Add in women and it probably hits 20%.

    Do 1 in 5 blacks go to prison sometime during their life? If so, then so much for the retort that 99 percent are good.

    Replies: @Forbes, @ben tillman

    Is this [that one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime] true? Based on this, and excluding women, then 1/6th of blacks will go to prison in their lifetime. That’s about 17 percent. Add in women and it probably hits 20%.

    Apparently, the claim was 32% based on 2001 data. The WaPo article below suggests the number should be lower if current data are used, but there’s not much critical analysis of the 32% figure itself. Here you go:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/06/16/the-stale-statistic-that-one-in-three-black-males-has-a-chance-of-ending-up-in-jail/

    • Replies: @TWS
    @ben tillman

    Jail isn't prison. Prison is for felons. Jail is for anyone arrested for any reason even if they are bailed out that same day and never see the inside again.

    Replies: @ben tillman

  62. Steve, on this issue you are spectacularly wrong. The elites who run NYC don’t want, and have never wanted, low crime and a crackdown on Black crime that drives most crime.

    This is because they are mostly transient renters. Sure Jay Z and Taylor Swift have multimillion penthouses, but most are either the Ezra Klein transient renters or various entertainment/info personalities moving from city to city. The real money is absentee — Chinese and Russian oligarchs putting money into hard -to-seize real estate. Meanwhile White Flight was a huge godsend to the creative people, who were able to live frankly degenerate lives without rebuke by a White middle class.

    This is why various lower-tier celebrities are openly rooting for a return to Taxi Driver NYC — it made renting cheaper. And if crime gets too bad, they’ll just move — to DC, to London, to LA.

    You IMHO are penciling in the dynamic of LA — where celebrities actually own (and often buy/sell) luxury properties and things like the attack on NCIS actress Pauly Perrette at her Hollywood Hills mansion by some homeless person creates a big city crackdown. While South Central is essentially a no-police zone.

    Orwell had it right — the purpose of torture is torture, the purpose of power is power. The purpose of Gun Control is disarming Whites in rural places. Because they are the natural and eternal enemies of rich White urban liberals who make their money by hereditary government networks. After all there are plenty of means to disarm Blacks such as Stop and Frisk which the people who actually RUN NYC — Di Blasio, Al Sharpton, various Black/NuYoRican Gangs, the glitterati, the NYT, all detest. And ended. Rudy represented the revolt of the Outer Boroughs, but that’s over with demographic change and the Caribbean immavasion tidal wave.

    Again, people who write for the NYT or form the lower tier infotainment/government sector, need high Black crime in NYC to keep rents low. The collision between absentee foreign oligarchs seeing their property investments drop in titanic ways vs. the US elites should be interesting. I am more and more convinced the Jefferson’s insight that property owners had a permanent interest in not degrading their nation was wise, vs. Hamilton’s nomadic urbanites with no skin in the property game. Because they move so much.

  63. As a long time Chicago resident and attorney, politicians want to disarm white Republicans and legal gun owners. They have no intention of taking away all the illegal guns used by their allies in the gangs, both Black and Hispanic. In Chicago, gangs donate money to politicians….
    And that is all there is to it.

  64. This could be the stupidest chart I’ve ever seen.

    Whatever the object, you can not compare a musket murder in a small European village called Manhattan with an uzi drive-by in a black ghetto 200 years later.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    Why not?

  65. @candid_observer
    OT, but the Times is disgracing itself again in its attack on Trump, pretending that what looks to be nothing but sarcasm from Trump was meant with the utmost seriousness.

    I commented on the article (under the handle frankly0):

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html?comments#permid=19293080

    The commenters themselves go crazy with accusations of "treason".

    Boy, those latest polls really get the Times and their target audience into a frenzy.

    Replies: @Flip, @Jack D, @Jack D

    It is amazing to open the NYT and see all these heavily biased “news” articles. I really ought to stop giving them my money.

  66. @candid_observer
    OT, but the Times is disgracing itself again in its attack on Trump, pretending that what looks to be nothing but sarcasm from Trump was meant with the utmost seriousness.

    I commented on the article (under the handle frankly0):

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html?comments#permid=19293080

    The commenters themselves go crazy with accusations of "treason".

    Boy, those latest polls really get the Times and their target audience into a frenzy.

    Replies: @Flip, @Jack D, @Jack D

    Stirring up fake controversies by taking quotes out of context is a Leftist speciality but it doesn’t seem to work on Trump at all. But that doesn’t stop the Left from trying again and again. The NYTimes news pages no longer even pretend to be impartial.

    Something you have to understand (and which the reporter surely understands but pretends not to) is that Hillary’s email server has been offline and scrubbed for a long time now. So the only way the Russians could leak the contents is if they hacked it when it was still on line. So, even taking Trump’s remarks in a serious light and not as a joke as clearly intended (according to the NYT readers, sarcasm and humor are not permitted in Presidential candidates) it’s not possible that Trump is appealing for the Russians to conduct FUTURE espionage on Hillary.

    At worst, he is telling Putin to release what he already has “and he would be rewarded by the American press”. The latter is what REALLY drove the NYT into a frenzy. Traditionally, yes, juice revelations about a presidential candidate are exactly what the press wants – they would be orgasmic if someone were to leak something truly incriminating about Trump. Normally they would give their eye teeth to break a scandal – since Watergate this has been the dream of every political reporter. But, in this case, the LAST thing that they want is to be forced to print something that would torpedo Hillary’s candidacy. I would even bet that they would suddenly get ethical qualms and find some reason why they couldn’t even print these stories (but the cat would be out of the bag anyway – they no longer have the monopoly).

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    @Jack D

    Yeah, Trump's statement


    “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press”
     
    really makes it clear that he was being sarcastic.

    Or do they believe that he meant even that literally?

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Jack D

    Yet, when I read about this on CNN, I had to get almost to the end of the article to find out what Trump really said. The press may be wrong, but the way they're reporting it makes it appear to be a serious issue for Trump.

    Trump needs to be aware of how his comments are going to get spun. He is in a competition for a handful of wishy-washies now--he shouldn't count on a Repub base that will dismiss media spin.

  67. @Jack D
    @countenance

    This has nothing to do with the practical mechanics of governing and everything to do with appealing to the Democrat base (blacks, young urban hipsters) and swing voters - nice white suburban ladies. In blacktopias such as DC, there are already strict gun laws. A somewhat practical anti-gun issue is that guns keep coming in anyway because people buy them in Billy Bob country and bring them to the city, but that's not really the point.

    It's unusual that Obama even spoke about pistols in an urban setting at all. The risk from guns is usually portrayed as being from right wing mass shooter type guys - a KKK boogeyman is going to get an "assault weapon" (a scary LOOKING long gun) and use it to lynch black people and gays and shoot up black churches and movie theaters and such. Never mind that for each such actual incident of Billy Bob going postal there are hundreds of cases of urban blacks shooting each other with handguns (and increasingly cases of Muslims and BLM types going postal instead) - as long as we stay focused on the image of imaginary straight white lower class male Nazi Billy Bob (who isn't voting Democrat anyway) the Coalition of the Fringes is unanimously in favor of taking away his long gun (or at least making it look less scary or work less well).

    Replies: @countenance

    I definitely understand the diversionary nature of the whole thing. Bloomberg wants to disarm Jamal in Harlem, but he knows that Jamal’s grandmother votes. That’s why he blames Billy Bob in West Virginia, because Billy Bob does not have New York City franchise rights.

    All I’m wondering is, per SS’s contention, why all these white urban liberals are upset at Billy Bob for not doing something they can and are doing themselves. Maybe though I answered my own question: They know they’re doing it, and they know that their doing it makes Jamal’s grandmother upset, so they offload the blame on Billy Bob so that Jamal’s grandmother will blame Billy Bob and not urban white liberals.

  68. You give shitlibs too much credit (something I’ve noticed in previous posts), it is genuine fear and loathing of the unreconstructed white conservatives that is driving their hostility to gun ownership. White/Jewish liberals can easily escape from “minority” crime, and they know deep down that the perpetrating classes are not a threat to their power in the same way that non-PC whites are (see the KKKrazy Glue and the on-demand media attention given to irrelevant David Duke).

  69. @candid_observer
    OT, but the Times is disgracing itself again in its attack on Trump, pretending that what looks to be nothing but sarcasm from Trump was meant with the utmost seriousness.

    I commented on the article (under the handle frankly0):

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html?comments#permid=19293080

    The commenters themselves go crazy with accusations of "treason".

    Boy, those latest polls really get the Times and their target audience into a frenzy.

    Replies: @Flip, @Jack D, @Jack D

    BTW, on the theory that all publicity is good publicity, Trump has blasted the DNC off the top position of the NY Times web page. Instead of talking about Hillary (and Bill’s highly selective hagiography) everyone is talking about Trump again. So maybe the man is crazy like a fox.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    @Jack D

    That's a good point.

    And not only are they talking about Trump, they are also talking about what Trump correctly describes as Hillary's "33,000 illegally deleted emails".

    How does that conversation turn into a win for Clinton?

    They're so desperate to gotcha Trump that they don't realize they're most likely really damaging their own candidate. The email thing did a huge number on Clinton's polls. They're going to go out of their way to bring it up again?

    , @Boomstick
    @Jack D

    He smacked the reporters around in that press conference. His instinct is to constantly attack. The debates will be very interesting. I don't think Hillary's AI decision tree can be programmed extensively enough to appear extemporaneous, and I suspect she'll fall back to point and sputter mode.

    , @Flip
    @Jack D

    "Clown genius" per Scott Adams.

  70. @countenance
    You wrote in the article:

    The main practical reason for why Democrats support gun control laws is in the hope of disarming black criminals. But white Democrats can’t come out and say that they want help from their fellow whites in keeping blacks under control.

    This isn't the first time you've made this contention, and I'm still unable to wrap my mind around the political mechanics of it. Why should Democrats (or their rough equivalents who aren't Democrats) think they need help from "their fellow whites" to do what they could easily (and in some cases, are) doing on their own without anyone's help? Are we to think that Michael Bloomberg wishes the NYPD could SQF some street corner Jamal in Harlem but isn't allowed to do so because Billy Bob from West Virginia belongs to the NRA?

    As far as this business about how it's easier to buy a Glock than a computer, I'll just link to my relatively unique response to it rather than cutting and pasting so much.

    https://countenance.wordpress.com/2016/07/13/glock-stock-and-barrel/

    Replies: @Jack D, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    This isn’t the first time you’ve made this contention, and I’m still unable to wrap my mind around the political mechanics of it.

    If Steve realizes that the Left’s (Democrats, if you must) motivation on guns isn’t crime control, but ideological STATE CONTROL over all of us, he is being far too coy.

    Jack Hanson said it best in this comment (#66):

    It’s why the inventor of “Occam’s Butterknife” comes up with a triple bankshot 3D chess theory on why liberal whites want to take your guns. The idea that the Left wants to stuff him in a camp with the rest of us kulaks is incomprehensible to him.

    The Left wants to ban ‘black rifles’ because they are free citizens’ most effective tool to resist a top-down Police State suspension of civil liberties. Once people acquiesce to AR bans, the push will be to ban (statistically deadlier) handguns.

    Look what just happened in Massachusetts: Bull dyke AG Maura Healey unilaterally (and vaguely) redefined what a prohibited “assault weapon” is, and effectively banned semi-auto rifles (and possibly mag-fed handguns) in the state.

    I’m not sure if Steve’s getting the “big picture” motivation with the Left’s guns and immigration policy. It’s bitter resentment. And the resentful misfits have gotten into power in many places and want to use the State to stick it to the rest of us “normals.” It will lead to war.

    Perhaps publicly, honestly musing on why the Left really wants to disarm the citizenry is too “dark” an exercise for iSteve posts. It would mean calling out groups and naming names far more explicitly than Steve (to his credit) already does.

  71. @Jack D
    @candid_observer

    BTW, on the theory that all publicity is good publicity, Trump has blasted the DNC off the top position of the NY Times web page. Instead of talking about Hillary (and Bill's highly selective hagiography) everyone is talking about Trump again. So maybe the man is crazy like a fox.

    Replies: @candid_observer, @Boomstick, @Flip

    That’s a good point.

    And not only are they talking about Trump, they are also talking about what Trump correctly describes as Hillary’s “33,000 illegally deleted emails”.

    How does that conversation turn into a win for Clinton?

    They’re so desperate to gotcha Trump that they don’t realize they’re most likely really damaging their own candidate. The email thing did a huge number on Clinton’s polls. They’re going to go out of their way to bring it up again?

  72. @Jack D
    @candid_observer

    BTW, on the theory that all publicity is good publicity, Trump has blasted the DNC off the top position of the NY Times web page. Instead of talking about Hillary (and Bill's highly selective hagiography) everyone is talking about Trump again. So maybe the man is crazy like a fox.

    Replies: @candid_observer, @Boomstick, @Flip

    He smacked the reporters around in that press conference. His instinct is to constantly attack. The debates will be very interesting. I don’t think Hillary’s AI decision tree can be programmed extensively enough to appear extemporaneous, and I suspect she’ll fall back to point and sputter mode.

  73. @Jack D
    @candid_observer

    Stirring up fake controversies by taking quotes out of context is a Leftist speciality but it doesn't seem to work on Trump at all. But that doesn't stop the Left from trying again and again. The NYTimes news pages no longer even pretend to be impartial.

    Something you have to understand (and which the reporter surely understands but pretends not to) is that Hillary's email server has been offline and scrubbed for a long time now. So the only way the Russians could leak the contents is if they hacked it when it was still on line. So, even taking Trump's remarks in a serious light and not as a joke as clearly intended (according to the NYT readers, sarcasm and humor are not permitted in Presidential candidates) it's not possible that Trump is appealing for the Russians to conduct FUTURE espionage on Hillary.

    At worst, he is telling Putin to release what he already has "and he would be rewarded by the American press". The latter is what REALLY drove the NYT into a frenzy. Traditionally, yes, juice revelations about a presidential candidate are exactly what the press wants - they would be orgasmic if someone were to leak something truly incriminating about Trump. Normally they would give their eye teeth to break a scandal - since Watergate this has been the dream of every political reporter. But, in this case, the LAST thing that they want is to be forced to print something that would torpedo Hillary's candidacy. I would even bet that they would suddenly get ethical qualms and find some reason why they couldn't even print these stories (but the cat would be out of the bag anyway - they no longer have the monopoly).

    Replies: @candid_observer, @Chrisnonymous

    Yeah, Trump’s statement

    “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press”

    really makes it clear that he was being sarcastic.

    Or do they believe that he meant even that literally?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @candid_observer

    Yes, exactly. Although if Hillary was a Republican they WOULD literally reward anyone willing to leak dirt even if it damaged US interests (see Abu Ghraib, etc.) in this case the only "reward" Putin could expect would be to be viciously attacked in the US press for meddling in Trump's favor. He has already been accused of doing this but were he to leak the State Dept. emails the volume of the howls would increase to 11.

    Replies: @candid_observer

  74. @Mike Zwick
    In the 80's New York's reputation was basically as a crime ridded hell hole. Most of the movies that took place in New York at the time were like Fort Apache The Bronx. Would a movie like Escape from New York even make sense today?

    Replies: @whorefinder

    They could do it in Detroit today, no problem. Heck, they could have done it in Detroit in the 80’s as well.

    It’s a reminder how quickly places can change with the right (or wrong) policies. And how the wrong policies will continue to be wrong no matter how long you keep them implemented.

  75. @candid_observer
    @Jack D

    Yeah, Trump's statement


    “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press”
     
    really makes it clear that he was being sarcastic.

    Or do they believe that he meant even that literally?

    Replies: @Jack D

    Yes, exactly. Although if Hillary was a Republican they WOULD literally reward anyone willing to leak dirt even if it damaged US interests (see Abu Ghraib, etc.) in this case the only “reward” Putin could expect would be to be viciously attacked in the US press for meddling in Trump’s favor. He has already been accused of doing this but were he to leak the State Dept. emails the volume of the howls would increase to 11.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    @Jack D

    There's a good discussion of this event here:

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/27/dumb-media-play-right-into-trumps-hands-on-russian-hacking/

    Here's what Trump said a bit later, in further clarification:


    ‘They [the Russians] probably have them. I’d like to have them released. It gives me no pause, if they have them, they have them,’ Trump added later when asked if his comments were inappropriate. ‘If Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean to be honest with you, I’d love to see them.’
     
    How does a reporter hear that, and then pretend that Trump was imploring Russia to go out and hack Hillary's now scrubbed server for her now deleted emails?

    The dishonesty of these people -- the very people who can't stop talking about Trump's "lying" -- takes one's breath away.

    Replies: @Forbes, @Jack D

  76. Please legalize marijuana . Then the welfare money won’t be enough to live on. If some people are using a harder drug, that’s ok. They won’t be with us for long.

  77. @Anonymous
    Why are black men so popular with white British/irish women, like they literally can't get their hands off them. And a lot of these British women with black men are solid 8s at the very least and 9s. I was in London and I saw a lot of hot and good looking British women with black and Arab/Pakistani men.

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger, @Dirk Dagger, @Jack D, @peterike, @Trelane

    London. Whenever I’m in Clapham/Battersea I try to stop in at Trinity, artful, tradition inspired English cuisine. Prices are good too.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Dirk Dagger

    What is British cuisine? Haggis, fish and chips, and mystery meat pies?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Dirk Dagger

  78. @Jack D
    Let's put aside a trifling matter such as the Second Amendment for a moment (the Constitution after all is a living document and can be reinterpreted ) and consider gun control as a practical matter.

    Most of the communities that "we" have flooded with guns are also flooded with drugs. These drugs are mostly illegal. Outlawing the manufacturing, importation, possession or sale of these drugs with a variety of state and federal laws, most of which impose penalties at the felony level (i.e. long prison terms) has done little to stop their use, despite a century long "War on Drugs".

    Drugs can be produced domestically in illegal laboratories and they can be smuggled across the border. Or drugs that are intended for legitimate purposes can be diverted to illicit use. So if you put your finger in the dike, a thousand other holes spring up, driven by the pressure of the public's demand and willingness to pay for drugs.

    So while this war has not done much to actually reduce the supply of drugs to addicts (while at the same time making it difficult for people in real pain to receive appropriate medication) it has however filled our prisons and created a lucrative black market economy. Prohibiting alcohol had similar "success".

    But, Obama and the Left want us to try yet another prohibition experiment. They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    Replies: @iSteveFan, @Rosey, @Dr. X, @Travis

    true, prohibition of alcohol and drugs will always fail in our nation, because we give individuals too many legal protections. Legalization should be allowed, could be up to the states like alcohol prohibition. Prohibition existed in some southern states until 1966.

  79. @Jack D
    @candid_observer

    Yes, exactly. Although if Hillary was a Republican they WOULD literally reward anyone willing to leak dirt even if it damaged US interests (see Abu Ghraib, etc.) in this case the only "reward" Putin could expect would be to be viciously attacked in the US press for meddling in Trump's favor. He has already been accused of doing this but were he to leak the State Dept. emails the volume of the howls would increase to 11.

    Replies: @candid_observer

    There’s a good discussion of this event here:

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/27/dumb-media-play-right-into-trumps-hands-on-russian-hacking/

    Here’s what Trump said a bit later, in further clarification:

    ‘They [the Russians] probably have them. I’d like to have them released. It gives me no pause, if they have them, they have them,’ Trump added later when asked if his comments were inappropriate. ‘If Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean to be honest with you, I’d love to see them.’

    How does a reporter hear that, and then pretend that Trump was imploring Russia to go out and hack Hillary’s now scrubbed server for her now deleted emails?

    The dishonesty of these people — the very people who can’t stop talking about Trump’s “lying” — takes one’s breath away.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    @candid_observer


    when asked if his comments were inappropriate
     
    Media doesn't even try to hide their bias. Trump continues to befuddle the media because he doesn't play by their script.
    , @Jack D
    @candid_observer

    I agree with most of that Federalist piece, except at the beginning where she accuses Trump of having "praised" Putin, that he wouldn't honor our NATO commitments, etc. Most of these are just more cases where the media twisted Trump's words. He has stated that he has never met Putin. Regarding NATO, he was trying to emphasize that other countries should not be free riders under the defense umbrella that the US taxpayers pay for - this seems reasonable enough to me. Mr. Trump will gladly let members play golf on his golf courses BUT ONLY IF THEY HAVE PAID THEIR DUES.

    But the part at the end, where Trump accuses the media of having a wish to "save" Hillary - that is spot on. He caught them red handed and they know it and are ashamed and the shame is expressed as anger.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson, @Bill Jones

  80. @Jack D
    @candid_observer

    BTW, on the theory that all publicity is good publicity, Trump has blasted the DNC off the top position of the NY Times web page. Instead of talking about Hillary (and Bill's highly selective hagiography) everyone is talking about Trump again. So maybe the man is crazy like a fox.

    Replies: @candid_observer, @Boomstick, @Flip

    “Clown genius” per Scott Adams.

  81. @Lot

    We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book
     
    Some pretty casual lies there. Craigslist San Diego lists about 150 desktops and laptops between $40 and $100. While not state of the art, they are likely multiple times faster than the one Zuck used to setup thefacebook back in 2004. And urban libraries have book give-aways constantly.

    A basic handgun costs about $300, maybe $200 for a functional used one, if you buy legally. But to sell to a black teenager, you're going to need a big risk premium, so they likely would need to pay $700 or more.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Wilkey, @Prof. Woland, @Buffalo Joe, @dc.sunsets

    Unless he steals it.

  82. @George
    @Steve Sailer

    Crime peaks at the end of (Jewish) Koch's term, drops rapidly during (black) Dinkins and continues to drop more slowly after that.

    But the real issue was the financial crisis, and the building of the suburbs. The financial crisis is mostly run its course by the time Dinkins is is office. It sounds unbelievable now but NY city was considered obsolete. Upstate ny had IBM, Kodak, Xerox, Sperry, GE, ect. NJ had Bell labs. There might be some lesson for California and Silicon valley as it looks liked a financial crisis is brewing.

    Nyc was able to absorb Asian Immigrants who are mostly responsible for the new prosperity.

    The crime waves seem to correspond to Irish / Italian immigration and then Black migration. Mexican migration future crime wave? Watch out? But when and where will it hit?

    Why is prohibition labeled but not War on Drugs?

    Replies: @tbraton, @iSteveFan, @Forbes, @scrivener3

    “Crime peaks at the end of (Jewish) Koch’s term, drops rapidly during (black) Dinkins and continues to drop more slowly after that. ”

    Not true. A look at the accompanying chart shows that crime in NYC peaked in 1990, Dinkins first year as mayor, and began to decline thereafter, somewhat gradually at first and then much more dramatically. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

    I believe the same thing happened generally across the U.S., so it did not happen just in NYC, although, as I noted before, NYC has experienced a much more dramatic decline than the rest of the U.S. and NYC is now probably the safest large city in the U.S.

  83. iSteveFan says:
    @George
    @Steve Sailer

    Crime peaks at the end of (Jewish) Koch's term, drops rapidly during (black) Dinkins and continues to drop more slowly after that.

    But the real issue was the financial crisis, and the building of the suburbs. The financial crisis is mostly run its course by the time Dinkins is is office. It sounds unbelievable now but NY city was considered obsolete. Upstate ny had IBM, Kodak, Xerox, Sperry, GE, ect. NJ had Bell labs. There might be some lesson for California and Silicon valley as it looks liked a financial crisis is brewing.

    Nyc was able to absorb Asian Immigrants who are mostly responsible for the new prosperity.

    The crime waves seem to correspond to Irish / Italian immigration and then Black migration. Mexican migration future crime wave? Watch out? But when and where will it hit?

    Why is prohibition labeled but not War on Drugs?

    Replies: @tbraton, @iSteveFan, @Forbes, @scrivener3

    Why is prohibition labeled but not War on Drugs?

    Whether you like or dislike prohibition, it is different from other government policies in that it was enacted by amending the Constitution. To amend the Constitution is difficult to say the least. Read Article V.

    Likewise, after the negative effects were seen, the Constitution was amended again to repeal it.

    Say what you will about it, but at least its enactment and repeal followed Constitutional processes and followed the will of the people.

    With the US fractured and divided today, I don’t think we could pass any Constitutional Amendment.

  84. @George
    @Steve Sailer

    Crime peaks at the end of (Jewish) Koch's term, drops rapidly during (black) Dinkins and continues to drop more slowly after that.

    But the real issue was the financial crisis, and the building of the suburbs. The financial crisis is mostly run its course by the time Dinkins is is office. It sounds unbelievable now but NY city was considered obsolete. Upstate ny had IBM, Kodak, Xerox, Sperry, GE, ect. NJ had Bell labs. There might be some lesson for California and Silicon valley as it looks liked a financial crisis is brewing.

    Nyc was able to absorb Asian Immigrants who are mostly responsible for the new prosperity.

    The crime waves seem to correspond to Irish / Italian immigration and then Black migration. Mexican migration future crime wave? Watch out? But when and where will it hit?

    Why is prohibition labeled but not War on Drugs?

    Replies: @tbraton, @iSteveFan, @Forbes, @scrivener3

    Crime peaked during Dinkins’ term. NYC financial crisis was during the Ford administration, e.g. tabloid headline: “Ford to City–Drop Dead.” Alcohol prohibition and drugs? When were drugs freely consumed without a prohibition?

    Nice try.

  85. @whorefinder
    David Dinkins always likes to pipe up and claim that the policies that reduced crime actually began in his administration. I forget whether he began stop-and-frisk or whether he hired Bratton and started Compstat. But he invariably writes into newspapers and points that out every time they ran a story about Giuliani cleaning up crime.

    Anyway, the Dems used to use gun control like the Repubs use abortion: an issue they knew they couldn't win in Congress or the courts, but by screaming about it could rile up the base for cash and votes.

    Except now gun owners are beginning to talk about race again, thanks to the BLM movement trying to blame cops and rational people realizing it's not that once they get the counter argument. So now the Dems screams are just making more people realize they are the Black Party.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    The NYC crime rate indeed started to dramatically decline in 1991, three years before Giuliani took office. It was Dinkins’ “Safe Streets, Safe Cities” program that started the trend.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    But the decline in homicides stalled out in Dinkins' last year, 1993.

    Dinkins' 4 years were the top 4 most homicidal on record.

    Replies: @PiltdownMan

  86. Crime also dropped significantly in almost all Democrat run liberal enclaves like San Francisco and elsewhere at the same time New York’s rate was dropping under “tough on crime” Republican mayors. (Well, Bloomberg WAS a Republican).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    NYC dropped earlier, faster, further.

    Chicago didn't spike as high during the crack years, but is now much more homicidal than New York.

    Keep in mind that Bratton worked in three cities that have done well: Boston, New York, Los Angeles, and now back in New York. He's a very smart guy who is a real cop as well.

    The liberal white Democratic mayor of L.A., Jim Hahn, who fired LAPD's black police chief to hire Bratton paid for it with his career by breaking up his white-black coalition that had held off Villaraigosa in 2001. But, thanks Mr. Hahn, you did the right thing even if it made you a one term mayor.

  87. @Mike Sylwester
    From the Taki article:

    Hillary invited the mother of would-be cop killer Michael Brown to address the Democratic National Convention on the lessons of Ferguson.

     

    Lessons of Ferguson:

    If you steal some cigarillos from a store, then don't walk around holding them openly in your hand.

    If you do walk around holding them openly in your hand, then don't walk in the middle of the street.

    If a police officer tells you to stop walking in the middle of the street, then don't punch him in the face.

    If you do punch a police officer in the face, then don't try to grab his handgun.

    If you do grab his handgun, then don't put your thumb on the barrel opening, so that a bullet wounds your thumb.

    If your thumb is wounded and if you also are fat, intoxicated and wearing flip-flops, then don't try to run away.

    If you do run away, then don't stop and turn around to face the police officer.

    If you do stop and turn around, then don't yell, "You're too much of a pussy to shoot me!"

    If you do yell, "You're too much of a pussy to shoot me," then don't charge at the police officer.

    If you do charge at the police officer and he shoots you in your torso, then don't keep charging until one of the bullets hits you in the forehead.

    Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is..., @Jack D

    Mr. Sailer you are commenting under different monikers. Aren’t you? Tell the troof. This was awesome at your level of awesome.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @The preferred nomenclature is...

    No, it's not me.

    Mike Sylwester is a fine commenter.

  88. @candid_observer
    @Jack D

    There's a good discussion of this event here:

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/27/dumb-media-play-right-into-trumps-hands-on-russian-hacking/

    Here's what Trump said a bit later, in further clarification:


    ‘They [the Russians] probably have them. I’d like to have them released. It gives me no pause, if they have them, they have them,’ Trump added later when asked if his comments were inappropriate. ‘If Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean to be honest with you, I’d love to see them.’
     
    How does a reporter hear that, and then pretend that Trump was imploring Russia to go out and hack Hillary's now scrubbed server for her now deleted emails?

    The dishonesty of these people -- the very people who can't stop talking about Trump's "lying" -- takes one's breath away.

    Replies: @Forbes, @Jack D

    when asked if his comments were inappropriate

    Media doesn’t even try to hide their bias. Trump continues to befuddle the media because he doesn’t play by their script.

  89. Polls showing Trump ahead at 46 percent mean that almost half the country’s voters are ignoring utterly the 24/7, wall to wall demonization of the candidate. That means they’re ignoring media. That means that for half the country, media no longer sets parameters of social discourse, nor decides what’s politically valid and what’s Nazi.

    THAT has thrown them into this rather amusing meltdown. They’re panicked they’re losing us. But as with all else, that happened long ago – and media just now is catching up.

    Die in the dark, cockroaches.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
  90. @Mike Sylwester
    From the Taki article:

    Hillary invited the mother of would-be cop killer Michael Brown to address the Democratic National Convention on the lessons of Ferguson.

     

    Lessons of Ferguson:

    If you steal some cigarillos from a store, then don't walk around holding them openly in your hand.

    If you do walk around holding them openly in your hand, then don't walk in the middle of the street.

    If a police officer tells you to stop walking in the middle of the street, then don't punch him in the face.

    If you do punch a police officer in the face, then don't try to grab his handgun.

    If you do grab his handgun, then don't put your thumb on the barrel opening, so that a bullet wounds your thumb.

    If your thumb is wounded and if you also are fat, intoxicated and wearing flip-flops, then don't try to run away.

    If you do run away, then don't stop and turn around to face the police officer.

    If you do stop and turn around, then don't yell, "You're too much of a pussy to shoot me!"

    If you do yell, "You're too much of a pussy to shoot me," then don't charge at the police officer.

    If you do charge at the police officer and he shoots you in your torso, then don't keep charging until one of the bullets hits you in the forehead.

    Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is..., @Jack D

    Stop slandering this saintly Gentle Giant whose mother is a featured speaker at the DNC. He is a national hero, dontcha know. Maybe someday we will celebrate Michael Brown Day alongside MLK Day. Stop it with your hatefacts, now.

    MB is another one of the sons that Obama wishes he had had. (BTW, it’s surprising that Hillary and Bill did not see fit to adopt a few black kids like Chelsea’s MIL Marjorie Mezvinsky). Our first black president should have had some black kids.

    https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr06/2013/6/4/16/enhanced-buzz-8564-1370377243-28.jpg?no-auto

    Or maybe it would have been too much work to line the drawers of another child.

    If Obama was a real Big Man like his father, he would surely have had a few sons here and there, but as it is he lives in mortal fear of Michelle who would kick his ass if he tried to sow his seed in another field.

  91. Dirk Dagger [AKA "Chico Caldera"] says: • Website
    @Dirk Dagger
    Am I the only one suprised iSteve linked to the Bobby Fuller Four and not The Clash? Ya never can tell can ya?

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger

    Bobby Fuller died in iEsteban’s own Los Angeles County under the “mysterious circumstances” as your Miss Marple might say. Could this be related to the misterioso death de Seth Rich? ¿Está ninguna de tu cera de abeja?

  92. @Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque
    This piece is a great routine with a stunning dismount...


    The main practical reason for why Democrats support gun control laws is in the hope of disarming black criminals. But white Democrats can’t come out and say that they want help from their fellow whites in keeping blacks under control. So they constantly lecture the rest of us that the true danger is those vicious rural straight white men with their hunting rifles.

    Not surprisingly, this Democratic political strategy of insulting potential allies has proved less than all-conquering over the past 50 years. But Democrats would rather die than tell the truth about whom they actually fear.



    Kudos, Mr. Sailer

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

    No, this is Steve being disingenuous.

    He doesn’t want to consider that the Left would have stuffed him in a camp for kulaks without 200 million guns in the US floating around out there because, gosh darn it, that would be mean.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Jack Hanson

    I’ve got your back, Jack. See my comment at 6:20 pm GMT.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

  93. @Dr. X
    @Jack D


    Let’s put aside a trifling matter such as the Second Amendment for a moment (the Constitution after all is a living document and can be reinterpreted )
     
    The Bill of Rights is a "trifling matter"? The Constitution is "a living document and can be reinterpreted"?

    Bullshit. What would you say if Obama reinterpteted it to make himself president for life and abolished the two-term limit? What would you say if he abolished Congress? Abolished freedom of the press? Article VI states that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and it was written down in black and white because it means what it says and it says what it means.

    And it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Replies: @Jack D

    I was being sarcastic, but the truth is that for most of the 2oth century, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted by the S. Ct. as providing for a “well regulated Militia” only and not granting an individual right – the 2nd Amendment meant only that there was a Constitutional right for each state to form a militia (national guard) which could not be abolished by Federal law. And with one more leftist judge on the S. Ct. it could be interpreted that way again (DC vs. Heller was 5 to 4). As a practical matter, the words of the Constitution really are subject to considerable interpretation whether we believe them to be sacred or not. Even if you believe in “original intent”, that only shifts the debate to what the original intent was, which is not always clear.

    • Replies: @Dirk Dagger
    @Jack D

    You're a putz. Nino Scalia had it right:


    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

     

    Everything before the comma (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) is an explanation for everything after the comma: Thus "[a] well regulated militia" is not a legal requirement on its own, but the justification for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." This is simple grammar, and frankly, if the issue weren't so politicized, obvious.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @Joe Stalin
    @Jack D

    If you are referring to the US vs. Miller, which involved a short-barrel shotgun, the USSC said no evidence was presented supporting the contention of such weapons being useful in a military type scenario.

    Why?

    Because Miller had DIED before the decision.

    And note that the Federal statutes for Class 3 weapons were under taxing powers; I believe there was an admission on the part of some AG around the time that they couldn't ban guns.

    , @guest
    @Jack D

    It recognizes an individual right in order that militias may be well regulated. If SCOTUS didn't recognize that, that's because its justices were ignorant or liars.

    , @scrivener3
    @Jack D

    I get it. When it says "Congress shall make no law" the intent is unclear. When it says "to regulate commerce among the several States" it clearly means to regulate farmer Jones slaughtering a pig in his back yard.

  94. @Lot

    We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book
     
    Some pretty casual lies there. Craigslist San Diego lists about 150 desktops and laptops between $40 and $100. While not state of the art, they are likely multiple times faster than the one Zuck used to setup thefacebook back in 2004. And urban libraries have book give-aways constantly.

    A basic handgun costs about $300, maybe $200 for a functional used one, if you buy legally. But to sell to a black teenager, you're going to need a big risk premium, so they likely would need to pay $700 or more.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Wilkey, @Prof. Woland, @Buffalo Joe, @dc.sunsets

    Lot, I don’t think a “Buy a gun, get a book,” promotion would draw much interest in some communities and if you buy a gun you can rob a computer pretty easily.

  95. @Anonymous
    Why are black men so popular with white British/irish women, like they literally can't get their hands off them. And a lot of these British women with black men are solid 8s at the very least and 9s. I was in London and I saw a lot of hot and good looking British women with black and Arab/Pakistani men.

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger, @Dirk Dagger, @Jack D, @peterike, @Trelane

    A British (Isles) 8 or 9 is a USA 6 or 7. Hybrid vigor matters. Cleveland, Ohio area has lots of mixed Euro ethnic types (love the Italo-Czech hybrids, yum!) and they are hot. Of course they all leave when they get the chance.

  96. @Anonymous
    Why are black men so popular with white British/irish women, like they literally can't get their hands off them. And a lot of these British women with black men are solid 8s at the very least and 9s. I was in London and I saw a lot of hot and good looking British women with black and Arab/Pakistani men.

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger, @Dirk Dagger, @Jack D, @peterike, @Trelane

    Maybe it has something to do with the size of their …. hands, as Trump might say.

    Funny you should say that, because in the US , the white women I see with blacks are usually grossly obese and clearly lower class.

    There is a small group of leftist adventuresses like Obama’s mother who are attracted to blacks, but not many. And you can usually tell them by their little brown children alone – black men themselves rarely stick around for long.

  97. @Jack D
    @Dr. X

    I was being sarcastic, but the truth is that for most of the 2oth century, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted by the S. Ct. as providing for a "well regulated Militia" only and not granting an individual right - the 2nd Amendment meant only that there was a Constitutional right for each state to form a militia (national guard) which could not be abolished by Federal law. And with one more leftist judge on the S. Ct. it could be interpreted that way again (DC vs. Heller was 5 to 4). As a practical matter, the words of the Constitution really are subject to considerable interpretation whether we believe them to be sacred or not. Even if you believe in "original intent", that only shifts the debate to what the original intent was, which is not always clear.

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger, @Joe Stalin, @guest, @scrivener3

    You’re a putz. Nino Scalia had it right:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Everything before the comma (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) is an explanation for everything after the comma: Thus “[a] well regulated militia” is not a legal requirement on its own, but the justification for “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” This is simple grammar, and frankly, if the issue weren’t so politicized, obvious.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Dirk Dagger

    The point of the Second Amendment as conceived in the 1700s is that you are allowed to have your own militia, which can potentially do battle with the federal government's army if it becomes overbearing, as long as it is well-regulated (i.e., your boys don't rape and pillage after drill practice). Militias are like the enforcement clause for the First Amendment.

    In practice, the militia amendment got repealed in 1865.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @Dr. X, @Jack D, @Dirk Dagger, @Jenner Ickham Errican

  98. @The most deplorable one

    In the era of 3D printing, you won’t even need rudimentary machine shop tools or skills.
     
    This is simply not true.

    Barrels cannot currently be produced using 3D printing and will probably require laser sintering techniques and expensive starting materials.

    Moreover, Defense Distributed has switched from 3D printing to a custom, open-source form of a mini-mill CNC machine.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Ok, a home mini mill instead of a printer. The point is that in the not too distant future you will still be able to build (all the parts needed for) a weapon at home by pressing a button and without a lot of machining skills.

    Or maybe mills will be pre-programmed not to print guns. Try making a copy or scan of US currency on your all in one printer/scanner and see what happens.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Jack D

    Supposedly, Australia will jail you if your computer has been programmed to make a plastic gun. But then again, Aus makes it illegal for you to have body armor, just like the People's Republic of Connecticut. Something I hear has something to do with an armored outlaw named Ned Kelly...

    Check YT for various plastic guns people have constructed. Americans can buy kits with molds, reinforcing metal parts and resins to make LEGALLY AR-15 lower receivers. Unfortunately, some AR-15 rifle kit suppliers won't sell to you if you live in the People's Republic of New York. You'll have to find some other state to send those parts, or start collecting parts one at a time. The unregistered AR-15 is the greatest impediment to tyranny ever, feared especially by the Brady Campaign.

    , @The most deplorable one
    @Jack D

    Indeed, so being able to build your own such mini mill will become important, and today, the end-mill in the Ghost Gunner can only deal with aluminum (which is OK for an AR-15 lower, but you need to buy the upper, which includes the barrel, the bolt-carrier group, and get a buffer spring, trigger group, etc) so you would need a different set of parts to work with steel billet.

  99. That reminds of the wonderful “Liberals with guns” conversation from the Ted Flicker film “The President’s Analyst,” that the miracle of YT allows us to view:

  100. @George
    @Steve Sailer

    Crime peaks at the end of (Jewish) Koch's term, drops rapidly during (black) Dinkins and continues to drop more slowly after that.

    But the real issue was the financial crisis, and the building of the suburbs. The financial crisis is mostly run its course by the time Dinkins is is office. It sounds unbelievable now but NY city was considered obsolete. Upstate ny had IBM, Kodak, Xerox, Sperry, GE, ect. NJ had Bell labs. There might be some lesson for California and Silicon valley as it looks liked a financial crisis is brewing.

    Nyc was able to absorb Asian Immigrants who are mostly responsible for the new prosperity.

    The crime waves seem to correspond to Irish / Italian immigration and then Black migration. Mexican migration future crime wave? Watch out? But when and where will it hit?

    Why is prohibition labeled but not War on Drugs?

    Replies: @tbraton, @iSteveFan, @Forbes, @scrivener3

    I do think your facts are wrong. The suburbs existed before 1955 so it was not the building of the burbs that caused the decline in NYC population during this period. Most of the companies you name as evidence that the City was obsolete were homegrown companies outside of the City. Kodak was always a Rodchester Co, Bell labs was formed and always lived in NJ. GE was in Stamford Ct. During my time in the City this period the City was crappy (homeless, dog poop everywhere, lack of public money to maintain things, painted up trains and busses, aggressive panhandlers). Fortune 500 HQ left for Greenwich, Stamford, (Singer, GTE, GE, Duracell, Champion Intl. Conoco) people abandoned a vital city for relative safety in the burbs (Ridgewood, Saddle River).

    Only, the companies that moved to the office parks died. The families that moved to the sterile burbs were bored out of their minds. Children hate the desert that is the NYC burb. You have to get at least 100 miles from Manhattan to have even a stylish pizza/sandwich joint (Morristown has some style, all of Bergen county is a bedroom to Manhattan). I think it was all safety. People will give up a lot to be safe. That plus a short time when taxes were lower in NJ/CT but they quickly realized they could jack up to NY levels and there was a long way to go to get outside of that.

  101. @Jack D
    @The most deplorable one

    Ok, a home mini mill instead of a printer. The point is that in the not too distant future you will still be able to build (all the parts needed for) a weapon at home by pressing a button and without a lot of machining skills.

    Or maybe mills will be pre-programmed not to print guns. Try making a copy or scan of US currency on your all in one printer/scanner and see what happens.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @The most deplorable one

    Supposedly, Australia will jail you if your computer has been programmed to make a plastic gun. But then again, Aus makes it illegal for you to have body armor, just like the People’s Republic of Connecticut. Something I hear has something to do with an armored outlaw named Ned Kelly…

    Check YT for various plastic guns people have constructed. Americans can buy kits with molds, reinforcing metal parts and resins to make LEGALLY AR-15 lower receivers. Unfortunately, some AR-15 rifle kit suppliers won’t sell to you if you live in the People’s Republic of New York. You’ll have to find some other state to send those parts, or start collecting parts one at a time. The unregistered AR-15 is the greatest impediment to tyranny ever, feared especially by the Brady Campaign.

  102. I have made this argument and the response is always the same: “But it works in [insert socialist paradise here]“!!! This is the leftist go-to argument for any added control on our lives, even things like the government promoting bicycling and mass transit (at the expense, naturally, of automobile infrastructure.) It is especially rife on Reddit where any explanation of our nation’s differences (even one as innocuous as its vast size) gets an applauded response of “Murica”.

    “But it doesn’t work in [insert Latin American country, etc., here] !!! You lefties need to forget about Sweden. You rejected Sweden a loooong time ago, when you decided to embrace third world diversity*. Look to Latin America, West Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa for your models. I mean, that’s where you’re getting your demographics, no?

    America doesn’t look like Sweden. At all. And you guys don’t want it to. So, why are you using it as your model now?”

    * “Third World Diversity,” I kinda like that. Seems much more accurate description of what leftists really mean by “diversity.” It’s not like actual diversity, as seen among European peoples, means anything to them. “Third World Diversity” is like saying “NAM,” but people can instantly see your meaning.

    The Bill of Rights is a “trifling matter”?

    Sarcasm, friend, sarcasm. Jack D only pivots to leftism when he’s defending his Tribe. Otherwise, he’s solid.

    Stirring up fake controversies by taking quotes out of context is a Leftist speciality but it doesn’t seem to work on Trump at all. But that doesn’t stop the Left from trying again and again. The NYTimes news pages no longer even pretend to be impartial.

    They’re desperate. Trump’s actually leading in the national polls now (maybe that means it’s time to focus the Narrative on swing state polls?), so look for the desperation to increase.

    BTW, on the theory that all publicity is good publicity, Trump has blasted the DNC off the top position of the NY Times web page. Instead of talking about Hillary (and Bill’s highly selective hagiography) everyone is talking about Trump again. So maybe the man is crazy like a fox.

    Yyyep. And I like how he said Hillary hasn’t given a press conference in 2xx days. He should keep bringing this up, contrasting how steadfastly she ducks the press, while he is probably the most media-accessible nominee in history.

  103. @Jack D
    @Dr. X

    I was being sarcastic, but the truth is that for most of the 2oth century, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted by the S. Ct. as providing for a "well regulated Militia" only and not granting an individual right - the 2nd Amendment meant only that there was a Constitutional right for each state to form a militia (national guard) which could not be abolished by Federal law. And with one more leftist judge on the S. Ct. it could be interpreted that way again (DC vs. Heller was 5 to 4). As a practical matter, the words of the Constitution really are subject to considerable interpretation whether we believe them to be sacred or not. Even if you believe in "original intent", that only shifts the debate to what the original intent was, which is not always clear.

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger, @Joe Stalin, @guest, @scrivener3

    If you are referring to the US vs. Miller, which involved a short-barrel shotgun, the USSC said no evidence was presented supporting the contention of such weapons being useful in a military type scenario.

    Why?

    Because Miller had DIED before the decision.

    And note that the Federal statutes for Class 3 weapons were under taxing powers; I believe there was an admission on the part of some AG around the time that they couldn’t ban guns.

  104. Or maybe mills will be pre-programmed not to print guns. Try making a copy or scan of US currency on your all in one printer/scanner and see what happens.

    Counterfeit currency and counterfeit guns are radically different concepts. You can design all the new currency you want, but it won’t spend well. Guns, on the other hand…

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Svigor

    "You want a 3-d printed gun for Christmas? You'll put your eye out with that thing!"

  105. “Look at Sweden!!!”

    “No, you look at Sweden, you ofay white racist. Why are u ofay cracker racists always using Sweden as ur model? Racist racists!”

  106. @Jack D
    @Dr. X

    I was being sarcastic, but the truth is that for most of the 2oth century, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted by the S. Ct. as providing for a "well regulated Militia" only and not granting an individual right - the 2nd Amendment meant only that there was a Constitutional right for each state to form a militia (national guard) which could not be abolished by Federal law. And with one more leftist judge on the S. Ct. it could be interpreted that way again (DC vs. Heller was 5 to 4). As a practical matter, the words of the Constitution really are subject to considerable interpretation whether we believe them to be sacred or not. Even if you believe in "original intent", that only shifts the debate to what the original intent was, which is not always clear.

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger, @Joe Stalin, @guest, @scrivener3

    It recognizes an individual right in order that militias may be well regulated. If SCOTUS didn’t recognize that, that’s because its justices were ignorant or liars.

  107. @candid_observer
    @Jack D

    There's a good discussion of this event here:

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/27/dumb-media-play-right-into-trumps-hands-on-russian-hacking/

    Here's what Trump said a bit later, in further clarification:


    ‘They [the Russians] probably have them. I’d like to have them released. It gives me no pause, if they have them, they have them,’ Trump added later when asked if his comments were inappropriate. ‘If Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean to be honest with you, I’d love to see them.’
     
    How does a reporter hear that, and then pretend that Trump was imploring Russia to go out and hack Hillary's now scrubbed server for her now deleted emails?

    The dishonesty of these people -- the very people who can't stop talking about Trump's "lying" -- takes one's breath away.

    Replies: @Forbes, @Jack D

    I agree with most of that Federalist piece, except at the beginning where she accuses Trump of having “praised” Putin, that he wouldn’t honor our NATO commitments, etc. Most of these are just more cases where the media twisted Trump’s words. He has stated that he has never met Putin. Regarding NATO, he was trying to emphasize that other countries should not be free riders under the defense umbrella that the US taxpayers pay for – this seems reasonable enough to me. Mr. Trump will gladly let members play golf on his golf courses BUT ONLY IF THEY HAVE PAID THEIR DUES.

    But the part at the end, where Trump accuses the media of having a wish to “save” Hillary – that is spot on. He caught them red handed and they know it and are ashamed and the shame is expressed as anger.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    @Jack D

    You have the remember that The Federalist is the back bench for the next crop of neocons waiting for David Brock and George Will to die so they can slide into those lucrative spots.

    Its alllllll broken clock there. Their hysteria over Trump has to be seen to be believed.

    , @Bill Jones
    @Jack D

    Just who is NATO defending Europe from?

    The most aggressive nation on the planet is the USA, which already occupies Europe.

  108. @Jack D
    @Dr. X

    I was being sarcastic, but the truth is that for most of the 2oth century, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted by the S. Ct. as providing for a "well regulated Militia" only and not granting an individual right - the 2nd Amendment meant only that there was a Constitutional right for each state to form a militia (national guard) which could not be abolished by Federal law. And with one more leftist judge on the S. Ct. it could be interpreted that way again (DC vs. Heller was 5 to 4). As a practical matter, the words of the Constitution really are subject to considerable interpretation whether we believe them to be sacred or not. Even if you believe in "original intent", that only shifts the debate to what the original intent was, which is not always clear.

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger, @Joe Stalin, @guest, @scrivener3

    I get it. When it says “Congress shall make no law” the intent is unclear. When it says “to regulate commerce among the several States” it clearly means to regulate farmer Jones slaughtering a pig in his back yard.

  109. @Anonymous
    Why are black men so popular with white British/irish women, like they literally can't get their hands off them. And a lot of these British women with black men are solid 8s at the very least and 9s. I was in London and I saw a lot of hot and good looking British women with black and Arab/Pakistani men.

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger, @Dirk Dagger, @Jack D, @peterike, @Trelane

    I was in London and I saw a lot of hot and good looking British women with black and Arab/Pakistani men.

    The majority of those women are working girls, you imbecile. “Escorting” has become an incredibly widespread phenomenon, and men of color with money know just what they want, which is white women, every time.

  110. Slightly off topic, but a delicious thread from a DC neighborhood blog here. White gay guy gets sucker-punched by young black male, commenters trip all over themselves trying to be politically correct.

  111. @Svigor

    Or maybe mills will be pre-programmed not to print guns. Try making a copy or scan of US currency on your all in one printer/scanner and see what happens.
     
    Counterfeit currency and counterfeit guns are radically different concepts. You can design all the new currency you want, but it won't spend well. Guns, on the other hand...

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    “You want a 3-d printed gun for Christmas? You’ll put your eye out with that thing!”

  112. @avraham
    The Left really does not like the Second Amendment. I am not sure why this is? Maybe because it was designed to protect the American people from the American government. We see in the Federalist papers the importance of limiting the government. [The 2nd amendment was made as a limit on government.] I think since the lefts sees government as the greatest good and people as worthless thus the 2nd amendment must bother them.

    I wanted to mention that I think limited government was foremost in the minds of the founding fathers as the sole way to guarantee freedom.
    They must have taken note that Sparta considered themselves free even though they were not a democracy. {See Herodotus.} The reason is the government was limited by the fact that each of the two kings and the Ephors limited the power of the other.

    Replies: @Busby, @Dr. X, @Tracy

    The Left really does not like the Second Amendment. I am not sure why this is?

    Projection. Their own impulses make them unable to trust themselves with regard to violence, so they don’t trust you, either. Check out The Psychology of Gun-Haters, written by a psychiatrist.

  113. Jack Hanson says:
    @Jack D
    @candid_observer

    I agree with most of that Federalist piece, except at the beginning where she accuses Trump of having "praised" Putin, that he wouldn't honor our NATO commitments, etc. Most of these are just more cases where the media twisted Trump's words. He has stated that he has never met Putin. Regarding NATO, he was trying to emphasize that other countries should not be free riders under the defense umbrella that the US taxpayers pay for - this seems reasonable enough to me. Mr. Trump will gladly let members play golf on his golf courses BUT ONLY IF THEY HAVE PAID THEIR DUES.

    But the part at the end, where Trump accuses the media of having a wish to "save" Hillary - that is spot on. He caught them red handed and they know it and are ashamed and the shame is expressed as anger.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson, @Bill Jones

    You have the remember that The Federalist is the back bench for the next crop of neocons waiting for David Brock and George Will to die so they can slide into those lucrative spots.

    Its alllllll broken clock there. Their hysteria over Trump has to be seen to be believed.

  114. @Dirk Dagger
    @Jack D

    You're a putz. Nino Scalia had it right:


    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

     

    Everything before the comma (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) is an explanation for everything after the comma: Thus "[a] well regulated militia" is not a legal requirement on its own, but the justification for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." This is simple grammar, and frankly, if the issue weren't so politicized, obvious.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    The point of the Second Amendment as conceived in the 1700s is that you are allowed to have your own militia, which can potentially do battle with the federal government’s army if it becomes overbearing, as long as it is well-regulated (i.e., your boys don’t rape and pillage after drill practice). Militias are like the enforcement clause for the First Amendment.

    In practice, the militia amendment got repealed in 1865.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
    @Steve Sailer


    The point of the Second Amendment as conceived in the 1700s is that you are allowed to have your own militia
     
    Well, so that states can have their own militias. Remember, under the Articles of Confederation the state were practically sovereign, and during the Constitutional Convention they were afraid that the new government would do the same thing the Redcoats did when Gen. Gage declared martial law in Boston.

    which can potentially do battle with the federal government’s army if it becomes overbearing
     
    Correct. Madison said so explicitly in Federalist #46.

    In practice, the militia amendment got repealed in 1865.

     

    Correct again. The Confederacy simply claimed that they were following in the footsteps of Madison, Jefferson and Washington, and Lincoln sent Sherman to Atlanta to "persuade" them otherwise.

    However, none of this directly addresses the matter of the individual right to bear arms. It does certainly exist -- militia is a plural noun in Latin, and it connotes an assemblage of armed individuals. The Supreme Court made this point in U.S. v. Miller, when it ruled that a militia was a body of citizens 'acting in concert" with "arms supplied by themselves."

    The Founders did want individuals forming units and taking military action without the direction of state governments, but the certainly expected them to be armed with military-quality weaponry for defense of the state and of themselves.
    , @Dr. X
    @Steve Sailer


    The point of the Second Amendment as conceived in the 1700s is that you are allowed to have your own militia
     
    Well, so that states can have their own militias. Remember, under the Articles of Confederation the state were practically sovereign, and during the Constitutional Convention they were afraid that the new government would do the same thing the Redcoats did when Gen. Gage declared martial law in Boston.

    which can potentially do battle with the federal government’s army if it becomes overbearing
     
    Correct. Madison said so explicitly in Federalist #46.

    In practice, the militia amendment got repealed in 1865.

     

    Correct again. The Confederacy simply claimed that they were following in the footsteps of Madison, Jefferson and Washington, and Lincoln sent Sherman to Atlanta to "persuade" them otherwise.

    However, none of this directly addresses the matter of the individual right to bear arms. It does certainly exist -- militia is a plural noun in Latin, and it connotes an assemblage of armed individuals. The Supreme Court made this point in U.S. v. Miller, when it ruled that a militia was a body of citizens 'acting in concert" with "arms supplied by themselves."

    The Founders did not individuals forming units and taking military action without the direction of state governments, but the certainly expected them to be armed with military-quality weaponry for defense of the state and of themselves.
    , @Jack D
    @Steve Sailer

    In Heller, the S. Ct. held that the prefatory clause (the militia part) announces a purpose, but does not limit the second part, that creates the operative right. So as of this moment (until the next time the Court majority tips the other way) it doesn't make any difference whether they were thinking of militias or bananas - you can skip reading the militia part and skip directly to "the right of the people".

    BUT that's not how it was interpreted for most of the 20th century. In the '34 Miller case , the Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed off] shotgun.... has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

    If you have nothing better to do, read the Heller decision:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

    Personally, I find the majority holding persuasive, but you can see how it could go the other way. As a practical matter, all it will take is one more leftist on the court.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets

    , @Dirk Dagger
    @Steve Sailer

    I get it now. The amendment clearly states ", the right of the states and/or their well-regulated militias to keep and bear arms …" but crazy activists like Nino interpret ", the right of the states and/or their well-regulated militias" as "the right of the people" ignoring the original language. Was the comma in the original amendment or did Scalia add that too? Damned revisionist!

    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Steve Sailer


    In practice, the militia amendment got repealed in 1865.
     
    Not sure this is quite accurate. The various CSA militias were ultimately defeated, true, but the concept and existence of “the militia” cannot be revoked. It is a latent ‘citizen’s force’ that may come to the fore (preferably in well-regulated fashion) if need be. Militias can form sua sponte and need not be commissioned by a higher authority.

    Theoretically, any contemporary civil war would be waged everywhere in the US (no quaint North vs. South), and would feature mutinies/purges/coups within the US military and other Federal/State forces. (How deep is Deep State? That’s one way to find out.) Ad-hoc civilian militias would have a big role in the hypothetical donnybrook, especially by holding local territory. Even in occupied territory, underground militias can run damaging ops.

    In short: The militia is, practically speaking, all able-bodied citizens (of age) in good standing. That means you, Steve.

    The fact that there are still free-minded men and women in America, many quite handily armed, is a huge deterrent (as of now) to the Powers That Be who would like to escalate their domestic policies from “Nudge” to Shove to …
  115. @The preferred nomenclature is...
    @Mike Sylwester

    Mr. Sailer you are commenting under different monikers. Aren't you? Tell the troof. This was awesome at your level of awesome.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    No, it’s not me.

    Mike Sylwester is a fine commenter.

  116. @iSteveFan
    @Jack D


    Drugs can be produced domestically in illegal laboratories
     
    Along those lines guns can be produced locally as well. Many of us, myself included, think of guns as being manufactured in big factories. But watch a video sometime showing local gun makers in Pakistan. These guys work out of small, primitive shops and copy name brand guns. It is fascinating to see them make guns in such conditions. If guns were banned in the US, plenty of shade tree mechanics would resort to this.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Tracy

    3D printing makes gun control impossible. Check this out: https://www.wired.com/2014/05/3d-printed-guns/

  117. @Anonymous
    Crime also dropped significantly in almost all Democrat run liberal enclaves like San Francisco and elsewhere at the same time New York's rate was dropping under "tough on crime" Republican mayors. (Well, Bloomberg WAS a Republican).

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    NYC dropped earlier, faster, further.

    Chicago didn’t spike as high during the crack years, but is now much more homicidal than New York.

    Keep in mind that Bratton worked in three cities that have done well: Boston, New York, Los Angeles, and now back in New York. He’s a very smart guy who is a real cop as well.

    The liberal white Democratic mayor of L.A., Jim Hahn, who fired LAPD’s black police chief to hire Bratton paid for it with his career by breaking up his white-black coalition that had held off Villaraigosa in 2001. But, thanks Mr. Hahn, you did the right thing even if it made you a one term mayor.

  118. @Anonymous
    @whorefinder

    The NYC crime rate indeed started to dramatically decline in 1991, three years before Giuliani took office. It was Dinkins' "Safe Streets, Safe Cities" program that started the trend.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    But the decline in homicides stalled out in Dinkins’ last year, 1993.

    Dinkins’ 4 years were the top 4 most homicidal on record.

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    @Steve Sailer

    The reality of crime statistics aside, one of David Dinkins's accomplishments towards the end of his tenure was finally getting the New York State legislature to earmark taxes for the hiring of 7,220 police officers.

    Bill Bratton benefited considerably from this 25% increase—much of which happened at the start of Bratton's tenure. Giuliani benefited from Bratton's brilliant innovations in policing. And few remembered that it was Dinkins who had already done the heavy political lifting, and so Rudy Giuliani got the credit for the work of both, in the minds of New York voters and nationally.

    A benefit of being a Chief Executive is that you can surf on the wave of the good work of subordinates and predecessors, all the way to glory. Nice work if you can get it.

  119. @ben tillman
    @iSteveFan


    Is this [that one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime] true? Based on this, and excluding women, then 1/6th of blacks will go to prison in their lifetime. That’s about 17 percent. Add in women and it probably hits 20%.
     
    Apparently, the claim was 32% based on 2001 data. The WaPo article below suggests the number should be lower if current data are used, but there's not much critical analysis of the 32% figure itself. Here you go:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/06/16/the-stale-statistic-that-one-in-three-black-males-has-a-chance-of-ending-up-in-jail/

    Replies: @TWS

    Jail isn’t prison. Prison is for felons. Jail is for anyone arrested for any reason even if they are bailed out that same day and never see the inside again.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @TWS

    You're right. Good point.

  120. Used to comment on a pro-2nd Amendment Web site. The rough consensus I saw among pro-gun folks was that anti-gunners will continue to attempt “constructive disenfranchisement” of people of 2nd Amendment liberties, without risking an actual debate on abolition and confiscation of firearms. By “constructive disenfranchisement” I’m thinking cumbersome regulations, onerous taxes, fees, and other costs, demonization of gun owners, etc. IOW-the usual array of smother state tactics.

    I suggested, maybe, a campaign to emphasize the positive aspects of America’s unique gun culture. Civic empowerment, historical interest, and–duh–lawful self-defense against assailants, etc. Who wouldn’t want a tool that would allow the innocent homeowner or pedestrian the opportunity to lawfully defend against a motivated assailant?

  121. @Jack D
    @candid_observer

    Stirring up fake controversies by taking quotes out of context is a Leftist speciality but it doesn't seem to work on Trump at all. But that doesn't stop the Left from trying again and again. The NYTimes news pages no longer even pretend to be impartial.

    Something you have to understand (and which the reporter surely understands but pretends not to) is that Hillary's email server has been offline and scrubbed for a long time now. So the only way the Russians could leak the contents is if they hacked it when it was still on line. So, even taking Trump's remarks in a serious light and not as a joke as clearly intended (according to the NYT readers, sarcasm and humor are not permitted in Presidential candidates) it's not possible that Trump is appealing for the Russians to conduct FUTURE espionage on Hillary.

    At worst, he is telling Putin to release what he already has "and he would be rewarded by the American press". The latter is what REALLY drove the NYT into a frenzy. Traditionally, yes, juice revelations about a presidential candidate are exactly what the press wants - they would be orgasmic if someone were to leak something truly incriminating about Trump. Normally they would give their eye teeth to break a scandal - since Watergate this has been the dream of every political reporter. But, in this case, the LAST thing that they want is to be forced to print something that would torpedo Hillary's candidacy. I would even bet that they would suddenly get ethical qualms and find some reason why they couldn't even print these stories (but the cat would be out of the bag anyway - they no longer have the monopoly).

    Replies: @candid_observer, @Chrisnonymous

    Yet, when I read about this on CNN, I had to get almost to the end of the article to find out what Trump really said. The press may be wrong, but the way they’re reporting it makes it appear to be a serious issue for Trump.

    Trump needs to be aware of how his comments are going to get spun. He is in a competition for a handful of wishy-washies now–he shouldn’t count on a Repub base that will dismiss media spin.

  122. Who knew it was easier for a teenager to steal a gun than an ipad or a book?

  123. @Dirk Dagger
    @Anonymous

    London. Whenever I'm in Clapham/Battersea I try to stop in at Trinity, artful, tradition inspired English cuisine. Prices are good too.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    What is British cuisine? Haggis, fish and chips, and mystery meat pies?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Anonymous

    Haggis is Scottish, fish and chips is Portuguese (Sephardic) - same place that the Japanese got tempura. The Brits can keep mystery meat pies. Nowadays British cuisine is chicken tikka masala (invented in Britain).

    , @Dirk Dagger
    @Anonymous

    Jellied eels and Spotted Dick are two of the glories of this earth.

  124. @Steve Sailer
    @Dirk Dagger

    The point of the Second Amendment as conceived in the 1700s is that you are allowed to have your own militia, which can potentially do battle with the federal government's army if it becomes overbearing, as long as it is well-regulated (i.e., your boys don't rape and pillage after drill practice). Militias are like the enforcement clause for the First Amendment.

    In practice, the militia amendment got repealed in 1865.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @Dr. X, @Jack D, @Dirk Dagger, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    The point of the Second Amendment as conceived in the 1700s is that you are allowed to have your own militia

    Well, so that states can have their own militias. Remember, under the Articles of Confederation the state were practically sovereign, and during the Constitutional Convention they were afraid that the new government would do the same thing the Redcoats did when Gen. Gage declared martial law in Boston.

    which can potentially do battle with the federal government’s army if it becomes overbearing

    Correct. Madison said so explicitly in Federalist #46.

    In practice, the militia amendment got repealed in 1865.

    Correct again. The Confederacy simply claimed that they were following in the footsteps of Madison, Jefferson and Washington, and Lincoln sent Sherman to Atlanta to “persuade” them otherwise.

    However, none of this directly addresses the matter of the individual right to bear arms. It does certainly exist — militia is a plural noun in Latin, and it connotes an assemblage of armed individuals. The Supreme Court made this point in U.S. v. Miller, when it ruled that a militia was a body of citizens ‘acting in concert” with “arms supplied by themselves.”

    The Founders did want individuals forming units and taking military action without the direction of state governments, but the certainly expected them to be armed with military-quality weaponry for defense of the state and of themselves.

  125. @Steve Sailer
    @Dirk Dagger

    The point of the Second Amendment as conceived in the 1700s is that you are allowed to have your own militia, which can potentially do battle with the federal government's army if it becomes overbearing, as long as it is well-regulated (i.e., your boys don't rape and pillage after drill practice). Militias are like the enforcement clause for the First Amendment.

    In practice, the militia amendment got repealed in 1865.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @Dr. X, @Jack D, @Dirk Dagger, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    The point of the Second Amendment as conceived in the 1700s is that you are allowed to have your own militia

    Well, so that states can have their own militias. Remember, under the Articles of Confederation the state were practically sovereign, and during the Constitutional Convention they were afraid that the new government would do the same thing the Redcoats did when Gen. Gage declared martial law in Boston.

    which can potentially do battle with the federal government’s army if it becomes overbearing

    Correct. Madison said so explicitly in Federalist #46.

    In practice, the militia amendment got repealed in 1865.

    Correct again. The Confederacy simply claimed that they were following in the footsteps of Madison, Jefferson and Washington, and Lincoln sent Sherman to Atlanta to “persuade” them otherwise.

    However, none of this directly addresses the matter of the individual right to bear arms. It does certainly exist — militia is a plural noun in Latin, and it connotes an assemblage of armed individuals. The Supreme Court made this point in U.S. v. Miller, when it ruled that a militia was a body of citizens ‘acting in concert” with “arms supplied by themselves.”

    The Founders did not individuals forming units and taking military action without the direction of state governments, but the certainly expected them to be armed with military-quality weaponry for defense of the state and of themselves.

  126. @Steve Sailer
    @Dirk Dagger

    The point of the Second Amendment as conceived in the 1700s is that you are allowed to have your own militia, which can potentially do battle with the federal government's army if it becomes overbearing, as long as it is well-regulated (i.e., your boys don't rape and pillage after drill practice). Militias are like the enforcement clause for the First Amendment.

    In practice, the militia amendment got repealed in 1865.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @Dr. X, @Jack D, @Dirk Dagger, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    In Heller, the S. Ct. held that the prefatory clause (the militia part) announces a purpose, but does not limit the second part, that creates the operative right. So as of this moment (until the next time the Court majority tips the other way) it doesn’t make any difference whether they were thinking of militias or bananas – you can skip reading the militia part and skip directly to “the right of the people”.

    BUT that’s not how it was interpreted for most of the 20th century. In the ’34 Miller case , the Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed off] shotgun…. has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

    If you have nothing better to do, read the Heller decision:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

    Personally, I find the majority holding persuasive, but you can see how it could go the other way. As a practical matter, all it will take is one more leftist on the court.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    @Jack D

    The 9 (or 8, or 21) black-robed clowns can opine that the law of gravity has been repealed, but that won't make it so.

    The gun thing is over. If a leftist government actually attempted to impose an Aussie style confiscation there is little doubt that they'd redefine civil (and uncivil) disobedience. It would eventually cause the dissolution of the USA all by itself (I think the race thing will do that anyway, but then that's just me.)

    Public attacks on the Second are just Kabuki Theater....it stuffs money into campaign coffers on both sides (and it's the raison d' etre of the NRA nowadays) but that's all it does. As a practical matter, there are simply too many guns, that have literally centuries of utility, in the USA (and the world.) Add in 3D printing and the whole thing is one big joke.

  127. @Anonymous
    @Dirk Dagger

    What is British cuisine? Haggis, fish and chips, and mystery meat pies?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Dirk Dagger

    Haggis is Scottish, fish and chips is Portuguese (Sephardic) – same place that the Japanese got tempura. The Brits can keep mystery meat pies. Nowadays British cuisine is chicken tikka masala (invented in Britain).

  128. @The most deplorable one
    Hillary Clinton says"

    End the era of mass incarceration
     
    Isn't that a little too subtle for the target audience and the words to big.

    I suspect she means "Stop locking up so many violent blacks" but it's a little racist to say that.

    Replies: @Bill Jones

    “the words to big.”
    Is that why you made the word too short?

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    @Bill Jones

    Well, in my case it was a spelling mistake caused by lack of time.

    I imagine that Hillary can afford high-priced help to come up with her political messages, but some how they don't seem to understand who they are communicating with.

  129. I used up my free visits to the Baltimore Sun website following the Freddie Gray trials, but last week their police chief made some startling comments on guns in Baltimore. First, illegal possession of a gun in Baltimore is a misdemeanor. Secondly, last year there were 822 arrests for possession of a gun in Baltimore, of those only 52 were found guilty. The 52 who were found guilty were sentenced to a total of 186 years in prison, 121 of those years were suspended. The actual total number of years served by the 52 guilty of possessing a gun was 65 years. So on average about a year in prison for illegal possession of a gun in Baltimore. We don’t need more gun laws, we need better enforcement of existing gun laws.

  130. @Jack D
    @candid_observer

    I agree with most of that Federalist piece, except at the beginning where she accuses Trump of having "praised" Putin, that he wouldn't honor our NATO commitments, etc. Most of these are just more cases where the media twisted Trump's words. He has stated that he has never met Putin. Regarding NATO, he was trying to emphasize that other countries should not be free riders under the defense umbrella that the US taxpayers pay for - this seems reasonable enough to me. Mr. Trump will gladly let members play golf on his golf courses BUT ONLY IF THEY HAVE PAID THEIR DUES.

    But the part at the end, where Trump accuses the media of having a wish to "save" Hillary - that is spot on. He caught them red handed and they know it and are ashamed and the shame is expressed as anger.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson, @Bill Jones

    Just who is NATO defending Europe from?

    The most aggressive nation on the planet is the USA, which already occupies Europe.

  131. @Anonymous
    This could be the stupidest chart I've ever seen.

    Whatever the object, you can not compare a musket murder in a small European village called Manhattan with an uzi drive-by in a black ghetto 200 years later.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Why not?

  132. @Lot

    We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book
     
    Some pretty casual lies there. Craigslist San Diego lists about 150 desktops and laptops between $40 and $100. While not state of the art, they are likely multiple times faster than the one Zuck used to setup thefacebook back in 2004. And urban libraries have book give-aways constantly.

    A basic handgun costs about $300, maybe $200 for a functional used one, if you buy legally. But to sell to a black teenager, you're going to need a big risk premium, so they likely would need to pay $700 or more.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Wilkey, @Prof. Woland, @Buffalo Joe, @dc.sunsets

    You got this all wrong.

    When a “teen” (cough-cough) grabs some lady’s iPhone and beats her half to death for trying to stop him, it’s because he’s short of a small, touch-screen computer.

    If Obama had a son, and that son needed a small, hand-held computer, no doubt he’d borrow one from the Secret Service…or sign up for an Obamaphone……………..

  133. @Steve Sailer
    @Dirk Dagger

    The point of the Second Amendment as conceived in the 1700s is that you are allowed to have your own militia, which can potentially do battle with the federal government's army if it becomes overbearing, as long as it is well-regulated (i.e., your boys don't rape and pillage after drill practice). Militias are like the enforcement clause for the First Amendment.

    In practice, the militia amendment got repealed in 1865.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @Dr. X, @Jack D, @Dirk Dagger, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I get it now. The amendment clearly states “, the right of the states and/or their well-regulated militias to keep and bear arms …” but crazy activists like Nino interpret “, the right of the states and/or their well-regulated militias” as “the right of the people” ignoring the original language. Was the comma in the original amendment or did Scalia add that too? Damned revisionist!

  134. @Jack D
    @Steve Sailer

    In Heller, the S. Ct. held that the prefatory clause (the militia part) announces a purpose, but does not limit the second part, that creates the operative right. So as of this moment (until the next time the Court majority tips the other way) it doesn't make any difference whether they were thinking of militias or bananas - you can skip reading the militia part and skip directly to "the right of the people".

    BUT that's not how it was interpreted for most of the 20th century. In the '34 Miller case , the Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed off] shotgun.... has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

    If you have nothing better to do, read the Heller decision:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

    Personally, I find the majority holding persuasive, but you can see how it could go the other way. As a practical matter, all it will take is one more leftist on the court.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets

    The 9 (or 8, or 21) black-robed clowns can opine that the law of gravity has been repealed, but that won’t make it so.

    The gun thing is over. If a leftist government actually attempted to impose an Aussie style confiscation there is little doubt that they’d redefine civil (and uncivil) disobedience. It would eventually cause the dissolution of the USA all by itself (I think the race thing will do that anyway, but then that’s just me.)

    Public attacks on the Second are just Kabuki Theater….it stuffs money into campaign coffers on both sides (and it’s the raison d’ etre of the NRA nowadays) but that’s all it does. As a practical matter, there are simply too many guns, that have literally centuries of utility, in the USA (and the world.) Add in 3D printing and the whole thing is one big joke.

  135. @Jack Hanson
    @Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque

    No, this is Steve being disingenuous.

    He doesn't want to consider that the Left would have stuffed him in a camp for kulaks without 200 million guns in the US floating around out there because, gosh darn it, that would be mean.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I’ve got your back, Jack. See my comment at 6:20 pm GMT.

    • Agree: Jack Hanson
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Thank bruh, just saw that.

    Steve likes to sit on approving my comments until a hot topic cools down a bit for reasons known only to him while approving "tiny duck" as fast as possible.

  136. You have to realize by now that if you continue to let the facts get in the way of the message you are never going to meet Krugman on the upper east side while getting your morning Starbucks.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Bill Jones

    Upper West Side ...

  137. @Bill Jones
    You have to realize by now that if you continue to let the facts get in the way of the message you are never going to meet Krugman on the upper east side while getting your morning Starbucks.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Upper West Side …

  138. @Anonymous
    Why are black men so popular with white British/irish women, like they literally can't get their hands off them. And a lot of these British women with black men are solid 8s at the very least and 9s. I was in London and I saw a lot of hot and good looking British women with black and Arab/Pakistani men.

    Replies: @Dirk Dagger, @Dirk Dagger, @Jack D, @peterike, @Trelane

    It’s called hypogamy–when a woman marries down (normally, women aspire to marry up, which is called hypergamy and is, as Mr. Spock would remind us, quite logical).

    Your question is a very good one however and I congratulate you on your first post here. We don’t know why a small fraction of white women are attracted to black males. In nature, hypogamy is very unusual. For example the coyote (Canis latrans) female occasionally mates the male gray wolf (Canis lupus) but the female wolf never mates the male coyote, which is a different sex, species and (possibly) genus.

    We simply do not know why the white female mates the black male. Perhaps such miscegenation is an example of recapitulation to ontogeny (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny). Others have suggested atavism (the tendency to revert to ancestral type) as a reasonable explanation. Paleostasis (the opposite of neoteny) is sometimes mentioned as non-trivially causal. We simply don’t know. Who knows why anyone loves anyone else?

  139. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Jack Hanson

    I’ve got your back, Jack. See my comment at 6:20 pm GMT.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

    Thank bruh, just saw that.

    Steve likes to sit on approving my comments until a hot topic cools down a bit for reasons known only to him while approving “tiny duck” as fast as possible.

  140. @Steve Sailer
    @Dirk Dagger

    The point of the Second Amendment as conceived in the 1700s is that you are allowed to have your own militia, which can potentially do battle with the federal government's army if it becomes overbearing, as long as it is well-regulated (i.e., your boys don't rape and pillage after drill practice). Militias are like the enforcement clause for the First Amendment.

    In practice, the militia amendment got repealed in 1865.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @Dr. X, @Jack D, @Dirk Dagger, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    In practice, the militia amendment got repealed in 1865.

    Not sure this is quite accurate. The various CSA militias were ultimately defeated, true, but the concept and existence of “the militia” cannot be revoked. It is a latent ‘citizen’s force’ that may come to the fore (preferably in well-regulated fashion) if need be. Militias can form sua sponte and need not be commissioned by a higher authority.

    Theoretically, any contemporary civil war would be waged everywhere in the US (no quaint North vs. South), and would feature mutinies/purges/coups within the US military and other Federal/State forces. (How deep is Deep State? That’s one way to find out.) Ad-hoc civilian militias would have a big role in the hypothetical donnybrook, especially by holding local territory. Even in occupied territory, underground militias can run damaging ops.

    In short: The militia is, practically speaking, all able-bodied citizens (of age) in good standing. That means you, Steve.

    The fact that there are still free-minded men and women in America, many quite handily armed, is a huge deterrent (as of now) to the Powers That Be who would like to escalate their domestic policies from “Nudge” to Shove to …

  141. @Wilkey
    @Lot

    "And urban libraries have book give-aways constantly."

    They also have lots and lots of books to borrow, but I defy you to visit any nearby library where there are more people browsing the stacks than there are at the banks of computers, usually engaged in nothing remotely intellectual.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    Come on now, homeless people need SOMEWHERE to be smelly.

  142. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the republic"] says:
    @Jack D
    @The most deplorable one

    Ok, a home mini mill instead of a printer. The point is that in the not too distant future you will still be able to build (all the parts needed for) a weapon at home by pressing a button and without a lot of machining skills.

    Or maybe mills will be pre-programmed not to print guns. Try making a copy or scan of US currency on your all in one printer/scanner and see what happens.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @The most deplorable one

    Indeed, so being able to build your own such mini mill will become important, and today, the end-mill in the Ghost Gunner can only deal with aluminum (which is OK for an AR-15 lower, but you need to buy the upper, which includes the barrel, the bolt-carrier group, and get a buffer spring, trigger group, etc) so you would need a different set of parts to work with steel billet.

  143. In Heller, the S. Ct. held that the prefatory clause (the militia part) announces a purpose, but does not limit the second part, that creates the operative right.

    What with, you know, that being the way the Amendment works in plain English and all.

    • Replies: @guest
    @Svigor

    You expect justices to read Plain English? What are they, normal human beings? Law school cured them of that.

  144. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Bill Jones
    @The most deplorable one

    "the words to big."
    Is that why you made the word too short?

    Replies: @The most deplorable one

    Well, in my case it was a spelling mistake caused by lack of time.

    I imagine that Hillary can afford high-priced help to come up with her political messages, but some how they don’t seem to understand who they are communicating with.

  145. @Anonymous
    @Dirk Dagger

    What is British cuisine? Haggis, fish and chips, and mystery meat pies?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Dirk Dagger

    Jellied eels and Spotted Dick are two of the glories of this earth.

  146. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    But the decline in homicides stalled out in Dinkins' last year, 1993.

    Dinkins' 4 years were the top 4 most homicidal on record.

    Replies: @PiltdownMan

    The reality of crime statistics aside, one of David Dinkins’s accomplishments towards the end of his tenure was finally getting the New York State legislature to earmark taxes for the hiring of 7,220 police officers.

    Bill Bratton benefited considerably from this 25% increase—much of which happened at the start of Bratton’s tenure. Giuliani benefited from Bratton’s brilliant innovations in policing. And few remembered that it was Dinkins who had already done the heavy political lifting, and so Rudy Giuliani got the credit for the work of both, in the minds of New York voters and nationally.

    A benefit of being a Chief Executive is that you can surf on the wave of the good work of subordinates and predecessors, all the way to glory. Nice work if you can get it.

  147. @Svigor

    In Heller, the S. Ct. held that the prefatory clause (the militia part) announces a purpose, but does not limit the second part, that creates the operative right.
     
    What with, you know, that being the way the Amendment works in plain English and all.

    Replies: @guest

    You expect justices to read Plain English? What are they, normal human beings? Law school cured them of that.

  148. @TWS
    @ben tillman

    Jail isn't prison. Prison is for felons. Jail is for anyone arrested for any reason even if they are bailed out that same day and never see the inside again.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    You’re right. Good point.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS