Bookmarks:
Wrong-headed on gun control • Fox News anchor: I didn’t know it was criminal to be a Christian • Hacking for dollars: (1) Spy agencies patronize them. (2) Open for business, online
“The argument against common-sense gun control crumbles”
A lapse in the system allowed Dylann Roof to buy his gun.
From this, the Washington Post concludes that gun ownership needs to be more tightly restricted.
Nonsense.
No change in the law would have kept Roof from obtaining a gun.
The fault lies not with the law, nor the system, but Roof, Roof alone.
Related: Courage to walk unarmed
Fox News anchor: I didn’t know it was criminal to be a Christian
Gretchen Carlson fails to allege that anyone ever alleged it was.
Hacking for dollars:
(1) What it took for Ethiopia to lose access to hacking tools it used against journalists in the U.S.
(2) This 25-Year-Old Vietnamese Man Stole the Identities of Nearly 200 Million Americans
I’m not real confident in that “200 million” figure. A Google on “fullz,” however, finds an alarming number of criminals who are peddling such information openly online.
Originally posted 2015-07-27.
The Homeless Blogger 
Absolutely! Sadly, this is the mantra you hear every time guns are in the news. They don’t want tighter gun laws; they want to ban them altogether. The Left knows that’s political suicide right now, but that’s their goal nonetheless.
I disagree about the gun grab — nobody I know of but Beto has endorsed it in recent years — but thank you for the comment.
There were numerous articles about this over the years. Their initial stance was a gun ban, but they kept getting shellacked in elections, so reality forced them to adjust their stance. I readily acknowledge that most mainstream Democrats give lip service to gun rights (as Obama gave lip service to traditional marriage), but their heart is always in the gun ban direction.
For example, you will hear even today incessant cries to ban “assault weapons” when the data shows that the 9mm is the weapon of choice for most mass murders. So, follow the logic. If the Democrats want to ban a weapon that is NOT used most of the time in mass shootings, what sense then can be made of their insistence that they don’t want to ban handguns? Why wouldn’t they want to ban a weapon that’s used most of the time to commit murder and is used in mass shootings? And therein we arrive at the answer: Because it’s politically untenable. If they’ll ban something that’s not the top killer, there is no reasonable doubt that they’d ban the other if they could get away with it.
Two points.
First, in presuming to know where “their heart is always in,” you presume, in effect, to read minds. On The William Tell Show, I will discourage this.
9. Don’t presume to be a mind reader.
Second, there has been a demographic shift. Up to and including Stephen Paddock, mass shootings were principally about a white man killing a bunch of other white people; and the weapon of choice, as in the hands of Adam Lanza and Nick Cruz, was unquestionably the “assault rifle.” But the total deaths from those events never compared to the carnage on our streets.
Since Paddock, mass shootings, defined as events in which four or more people are shot, have become more and more a black issue. And the 9 mm may be the weapon of choice for those. However, these people are still bringing “assault weapons” to picnics and birthday parties.
Nobody thinks they’re going to disarm the ghetto.
I “presume” to know where their heart is based on their past statements on the matter. As I stated, the shift has been documented and the assertion is further reinforced by their approach to “assault” weapons. It’s called connecting the dots.
Furthermore, it’s incongruous to invite comments when you tell people that their comments are not welcome. It’s one thing to ask for evidence supporting a claim and to then conclude that a claim is unsupported by said evidence. But when you tell me that my claim amounts to mind-reading and that you discourage that kind of post, it’s no wonder you have very little traffic here.
So, in keeping with your wishes, this will be my last post on your site. Have fun.
I have always valued all our interactions, here and elsewhere, and hope they may continue. May God prosper you in all your endeavors.
I’m only replying because it seems you didn’t understand me. Given what I consider your unreasonable regulation of your blog, I will not ever be commenting here again. Your house, your rules. I will comment elsewhere.
You’re welcome here anytime.