Latest e-neuron presentation

Peter Thiel speaks at The National Press Club

Exploring Anarchism with Nathan Goodman; Prison Abolition

Save the Day Remix - The Avengers Unite to Support Trump

My Amazing BUZZFEED Interview w/"Viewtiful/Blockhead" Joe Bernstein!

Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia: The full interview

Milo Yiannopoulos, Steven Crowder and Christina Hoff Sommers at UMass

Social Justice Warriors Get Owned In Epic Rant By Comedian (Crowder)

The US Deep State & neocons bang phony "Russian Threat" drum because it'...

The U.S. should start killing Russians and Iranians in Syria - Mike More...

Kim Kardashin new anti-gun spokesperson?

tom2 • a day ago

Just what we need, another high school dropout, brainwashed by radical leftists, using her celebrity podium to blubber at peaceable, lawful citizens who doubtlessly are better informed. Citing rare catastrophic events and falsely representing them as common has become the leftist daily drill. Every time they hear a gunshot, they begin howling that a hundred million peaceable, lawful citizens who weren't there should be punished with more regulation. The uninformed believe it but most are fed up with this nonsense. For example, the disputed no-fly bill contains this outrageous line: “No district court of the United States or court of appeals of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section…” And the caterwauling drowns out the FBI claim that denying gun sales to suspected terrorists alerts them that they’re being watched. More to the point, denying constitutionally affirmed civil rights through the use of a no-fly list would lead to the next step, a no-railroad list, and then a no driver’s license list and on and on. These laws are absurd and as usual, distractions and non-issues. There is no epidemic. The U.S. is one of the safest nations on the earth. Disarming citizens won’t make us safer and likely would open the door for a spike in crime rates.

What's missing from this particularly ignorant leftist is the data necessary to convince us that more laws will be effective. Instead of blindly accepting what leftists feed us, they need to start dealing with the real problem -- not gun murders -- just murders. Gun homicides are just part of the total reported murders per 100,000 population. In 1993 the number was seven. That number was reduced to 3.8 per 100,000 by 2013. Of 218 nations measured, the U.S. now ranks 98th, about in the middle. Stated another way, your chances of being murdered in the U.S. are 38 thousandths of a percent (.000038). In the U.K., your chances are .8 thousandths of a percent (.000008). That’s a difference of 30 thousandths of a percent, a very small number any way you look at it. Leftists often say your chances of being murdered in the U.S. are almost five times as great as in the U.K. But five times almost nothing is still almost nothing. By the way, over the last 20 years, crime among African-American youth has fallen by 47 percent. That should surprise no one because the vast majority of Americans live in open carry states where all categories of crime are at record lows. In other words this is a non-issue.

Trump is our only hope!

Freedom and liberty as political goals are non starters in late capital b/c difficult to define in positive material terms. You can't make the case that humans have rights and dignity and should not be property to people who are and / or want to be slaves (Hillary voters).

It's similar to the US military's outmoded thinking about destroying the opposing force. The enemy wants to die in the case of Islamic Jihadists, and through death they accomplish their goals.

Through slavery as tax mules, health care over-consumers, and subsidized rentiers of global labor arbitrage the Hillary electorate accomplishes their goals of being *minimally* cared for and, ironically and perversely, over-policed. Agency and dignity not to mention familial and cultural bonds are expendable and discarded in the exchange.

Consider how fast black America lost it's soul, agency, it's family structure, and it's culture during the slow wave social engineering of welfare policies starting in the post war era and culminating in the fast-take-off asymptote of drug war-era mass incarceration. It only takes a generation to lose the memory of family and culture and become property of the state. During Hurricane Katrina the NOLA residents were waiting for someone to rescue them (those rescuers never came), waiting like children.

The state turns adults into children and agency into dependence. That is what the Democratic party is offering in the bargain. Hillary is offering continuation of decreasing living standard, human development, and life support in exchange for your autonomy, agency, and spirit.

What happened to blacks is now happening to whites: state organized economic exclusion, marginalization, over-policing, and cultural and spiritual dispossession. If whites don't vote for #Trump it's pretty much game over. Of course if you think whites deserve to be ghettoized and robbed of their dignity your mean spirited invective speaks to pulling the lever for Hillary as a punitive vote. And there are plenty of idiot whites who believe they have a moral duty to be laid low economically and culturally.

Nevertheless, if you believe humans are not property of the state then you should vote for #Trump and organize clandestine crypto-assassination markets in the event he loses.

Phone replies lend themselves to snarling utterances. The desktop is for civilized debate. Now, what you slaves lack is a master. Soon you shall have one.

"If you think the US military is a paper tiger then you forget how it cut through the very well regarded Iraqi military at the start of that conflict."

Priceless. And when in history again comes such dashing victory over an standing army that was three decades behind at least in technology? No sir. You will have to contend with rough and ready men such as myself when the troubles come. You will throw away these liberal trappings for they are laudanum and baubles invented to make you forget the cold iron hands that rule over you now and in the future.

Vox Rebuttal: Gun Control Propaganda Debunked

"Hillary's America" Trailer

Thoughts on the Civil War...

john smith 1 month ago

The "Late Unpleasantness" was faught for the same reason all wars are faught - resources (money). (1) Federal tariffs on the cash crops of the South funded the Federal government. The South was tired of paying the bill for the entire country. Abolishing slavery without abolishing the tariffs would have bankrupted the South. (2) The professor admits the North grew food crops for local consumption, but doesn't mention the tariffs on the cash crops of the South. (3) Slavery was a dying institution all over the Western world. Even the serfs in Russia had been freed. But the professor fails to mention "indentured servitude", the Yankee version of white slavery. (4) The professor is paid by the Federal government. What other position could he be expected to take? (5) Why is it that modern liberal Americans (the professor is one) cheer the rebellions of abused peoples rising against tyranny all over the world but support the tyranny of the US Federal government? The United States is called the United States for a reason. After the American Revolution, each state was an independent republic. They united under an agreed upon Constitution that severely limited the powers of the Federal Government. The Federal government wanted to exercise powers not granted or prohibited by the Constitution. It is now 2016. The Federal government has intruded into the daily lives of the citizens and dictates how local and state governments operate, all in direct violation of the Constitution. How is this done? It is done with money and the threat of bullets for non-compliance. So, was the South right? Yes it was. Unless you are the type that enjoys bureaucrats in Washington dictating how your local schools are run, which roads get built and which don't, the EPA stopping a local dam project, or the Department of Agriculture stopping you from growing a crop on your land, the list goes on and on. Southerners wanted to be free. Yankees wanted to be ruled. Enjoy your 21st version of slavery. The effort to stop it perished on July 3, 1863.

Strict Scrutiny

Cliff H says:

February 14, 2016 at 15:57

In our nation’s Constitutional history, from ratification of the Bill of Rights until now, not one word of the first ten amendments has been modified, revoked, repealed or revised, so far as I know. SCOTUS may have on many occasions subverted their intent without actually changing their content, but official, legal, Constitutional action has never occurred. It would be a very dangerous precedent to promote such a policy at this time, or at any time.

If any attempt is made at correcting government nullification of the Bill of Rights and the 28 or so enumerated natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights therein it MUST be in the form of a new amendment on the order of “With regards to the first ten amendments to The Constitution of the United States of America; all government entities, bureaus and officials are required to apply strict scrutiny to their interpretation according to the meaning of the language as it was understood at the time of their ratification. Failure to apply such strict scrutiny shall result in the individual and their immediate supervisor being charged with violating their oath of office and upon conviction being removed from their position and barred for life from holding or being appointed to any position paid for by tax payer funds.”

What's unusual?

Michael Zeleny

2/5/2016 5:12 AM CST [Edited]

Clearly you haven’t read the opinion being discussed: 
 
Nothing in Heller suggests that courts considering a Second Amendment challenge must decide whether a weapon is “unusually dangerous.” Moreover, the difficulties that would arise from the application of such a standard are fairly apparent. How is a court to determine which weapons are too dangerous to implicate the Second Amendment? The district court believed that semi-automatic rifles with LCMs are too dangerous based on evidence that they unleash greater destructive force than other firearms and appear to be disproportionately connected to mass shootings. But if the proper judicial standard is to go by total murders committed, then handguns should be considered far more dangerous than semi-automatic rifles. “[M]ost murders in America are committed with handguns. No other weapon is used nearly as often. During 2006, handguns were used in 60% of all murders while long guns . . . were used only in 7%.” Carl T. Bogus, Gun Control & America’s Cities: Public Policy & Politics, 1 Alb. Gov’t L. Rev. 440, 447 (2008) (footnote omitted). And, the use of handguns in the number of overall homicides is out of proportion to the ownership of handguns. See id. at 447 (“[A]mong the 192 million guns in America only 35% are handguns. . . [H]andguns are used in 88% of all firearm murders.” (footnote omitted)). Yet Heller has established that handguns are constitutionally protected and therefore cannot be too dangerous for Second Amendment purposes.  
 
Furthermore, Heller refers to “dangerous” and “unusual” conjunctively, suggesting that even a dangerous weapon may enjoy constitutional protection if it is widely employed for lawful purposes, i.e., not unusual.  

Something is rotten in the SCOTUS

brettbellmore

2/5/2016 5:12 AM CST

Of course, the Heller "typically possessed" standard has a serious problem with it:  
 
For some 70 years prior to the Heller case, the Supreme court routinely refused to take any case where the 2nd amendment was so much as mentioned. During that time, a large number of laws accumulated, which would likely never have survived had the 2nd amendment been actively enforced by the Court. 
 
So the current facts on the ground, the types of guns that it is common or uncommon to own, is actually a result of laws whose constitutionality the Court was refusing to review! It's rather as though the Court had declared that segregation was presumptively ok because it was traditional, and ignored that it had only had the chance to become 'traditional' because the Court wasn't enforcing the 14th amendment all that time. 
 
It's quite possible that, were it not for all those laws the Court was refusing to review, short barreled shotguns would be the preferred home defense weapon, and people would typically own whatever the common battle rifle of the US military was. Likely, even.

It's all there...

MostConservativePatriot

2/5/2016 1:30 PM CST

No, what really needs to happen is Argentina style Dirty War tactics. If liberal judges knew that if they made anti-Constitutional rulings, they'd be picked up by the military in the middle of the night and thrown into the ocean from planes, they'd stop their BS in a heartbeat.

he people of this nation are too intelligent...

Winthrop Staples

 is a trusted commenter Newbury Park, CA 10 hours ago

Yes, the people of this nation are too intelligent to believe the scapegoating of gun ownership most of this nation's problems propaganda of the New York Times. Nations in Northern Europe have high gun ownership rates & a small fraction of our murder rates. Next we need to kill the fantasy that the rest of the nation's problems are due to evil white people being racist and xenophobes. Then perhaps we'll be able to deal with reality, attack the real causes, like the criminal rigging of our economy and society of our 1% sending most manufacturing jobs to our sworn enemy China, and failed corrupt states like Mexico, and importing 10's of millions of illiterate immigrants and paying them 1/3 of a living wage, so killing wages for citizens also. And our media advertising 24/7 indoctrinating our citizens to be emotion driven super-selfish gluttons driven insane by a continual diet of hyper violent video games, explosion/kill a minute films, prescription drugs and continual encouragement to claim some kind of disability to avoid adult responsibility, to act out "do what you feel", obsess about what you feel, instead of exercising reason and self control, acting like adults ... because this all make us vulnerable consumers of flimsy breaks, is out of style in a week high profit margin junk made overseas by the equivalent of slaves. Brain washing us all into perpetual adolescents also enables our elites to justify defying the popular will and interest regarding these many issues.

Domestic abusers? What about due process?

arriba65 • 13 hours ago

Anything that makes it harder for domestic abusers to get guns is a good thing. That's one of my biggest beefs with NRA - they actually try to protect the gun "rights" of domestic abusers! That and allowing those on no-fly list to buy guns. If the problem is people not guns, let's focus on the people.

14  

•

Reply

•

Share › 

• 

  Nathan Brittles  arriba65 • 12 hours ago

  You are not being honest here. [liberals rarely are when the discussion turns to guns ].

  The NRA has no problem with the denial of weapons to CONVICTED domestic abusers. This is a far cry from ACCUSED domestic abusers who , under due process, have the right to see their guilt or innocence that would either allow or deny their gun rights, heard by a court.
  This is the same sort of Kafkaesque crap being peddled in liberal states such as California. While being merely accused of a crime [ and especially with hate crimes, and those of rape, how many of these have ended up being false allegations? ] you are stripped of your gun rights and there is no quick or sudden re-establishment of these now-abridged 2nd Amendment rights but a long and red-tape-strewn road in getting them restored.
  That state does not stop there. You can be accused of a mental illness by even a family member [ a bill to include ''co-workers'' was stalled by a lineup of what few moderate Democrats and Republicans the state even has left ], which allows police to strip you of your 2nd rights even without the findings of an expert physician qualified as a mental health professional. It is a hysterical attempt to deny guns to the law abiding who have not been found guilty of having committed any crime, or suffer any debilitating mental condition. Upon this then, does the NRA oppose such tactics used by liberal blue states.

Liberal anti-reciprocity ...

Nathan Brittles  MZale • 12 hours ago

Possibly it is due to the fact that you are engaging in a false comparison. This is not about ''cargo shorts'' or ''Va Beach''. It is about the ability to transport a weapon legally purchased by a licenced and law-abiding gun owner through another state, or retain it while on all from a visit or vacation, to a move to another state, without fear of arrest or the imprisonment that can and does accompany such weapons transfers across state lines.
Foolishly, liberals, who demanded reciprocity from all from gay marriage [ before its decision at the national level by the USSC ], to legalized marijuana and abortion, would deny it simply based on their own gun hangups which illogically and always, begin with ''NRA'' instead of finding ways to deny thugs these weapons beyond slapping them on the wrist and turning them loose back into society.
Liberals lose their argument because they go after the law-abiding and not the criminal, whom they could care less about where reducing their numbers is concerned.

Gutless coward Liberals rejoice at Bundy arrest #Oregonstandoff

E T

1:08 AM CST

Tough case. Public buildings are open to the public, and these were reportedly unlocked. There is no such crime as "breaking and entering" in Oregon. It doesn't even become trespassing until they are asked to leave. Once they are trespassed, it might be stretched to burglary; assuming the purpose of the burgle was to trespass, or vandalize the building by laying out bedrolls. 
 
It reminds me of all those people who get arrested and beaten for nothing but "resisting arrest." 
 
I would have felt much better if they were arrested for something other than "disobeying the gubment." I'm a firm supporter of the "no harm-no crime" doctrine of administering justice. In this case, it appears that the only measurable harm they caused was in the form of added government expenditures towards trying to control the situation. When the basis for accounting their actual harm caused is the government saying "look what you've made us do," it feels like the government is partially at fault for allowing/causing their actions to have such measurable consequences. 
 
For the record, I share some of their sentiments regarding the need for publicly held lands to be available for the people to use in a prosperous manner, but think this particular course of action was a poor choice in venue and timing. People should be able to harvest lumber from forests, instead of paying to try putting out forest fires. People should be able to use viable grasslands for forage to raise food animals, but they should severely limit access of hoofed animal herds to naturally flowing stream banks; instead opting for stock ponds and reservoirs served by pumps or diversion ditches. 
 
They might have done better to pick a place closer to population density, in a warmer season, and for a much more defensible instigating factor than the Hammonds' arson case. Land use rights is an important and relevant issue if we wish not to be enslaved by corporate oligarchs controlling the means of production.

Australia Parliament Member Discusses Gun Confiscation - Now is the Time...

Episode #6: Weed, Questions and Build Party Info

ALL CALLED TO ACTION: All able body men and women come to Burns, Oregon ...

"Dear Friends:" Ammon Bundy Responds to Stewart Rhodes' Statement Re: Th...

Saudi executions spark unrest in comments

generalwarrant
5:33 AM CST
Notwithstanding the war criminal state of Israel, as the United States supports this scum sucking regime of chromosomally aberrant pond scum, if there is any doubt now the psychopathic war criminals running the USG have finally proved once and for all, that evil exists because good men don't kill their government officials perpetrating it, this story should remove it from your brain. As for the pathetic, shameless citizenry of the United States of Depravity.. you will eventually reap the consequences of your failure to face the reality of what is taking place in this nation. The Framers would spit in your face for wasting the lives of those who have fought over the decades for those values enshrined in the very document you've allowed this present government to burn to ashes. Shame on you. Shame on this nation. And shame on humanity for not rising up collectively to remove from this planet that strain of human stench that continues to perpetrate religious tyranny no less evil than any in history. For this nation, to continue to support these barbaric pigs, by virtue of the labor of the taxpayers, I'd submit this nation has become a desert of morally destitute 
cowards. I'm ashamed to be counted as an ..American.