You think individual left-wing fruitcakes on Ritalin are dangerous? Just wait until left-wing government gets into power without a citizenry that is broadly and heavily armed
Guns Don’t Kill People—Liberals Kill People
By now the reader is well aware of the recent school shooting that took place at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. Another mass shooting, another excuse for the left-wing vultures to prey on the carcasses of the dead. Another opportunity for Pres__ent Obama to grandstand and huff and sigh and affect an air of righteous indignation. Another occasion for left-wingers to roll their eyes and complain about how, even after this shooting, those dastardly right-wingers still won’t support “common sense gun laws.”
The reason we don’t, of course, is because the left-wingers are still making the same old, nonsensical, discredited arguments that they always do. As always, the ideas they’re floating yet again would do nothing to stop a mass shooting such as occurred at UCC. They propose universal background checks after a case in which the shooter passed the stringent background checks that Oregon already imposes. They want to ban “assault rifles” and “high-capacity magazines” in response to a shooting spree which involved neither. They have literally no new ideas for dealing with these mass shootings, so it’s not surprising that normal people will continue to reject their “solutions.” Essentially, the left-wing solution is to punish millions of people who didn’t commit a crime.
But what we need to understand is that those on the Left cannot really bring themselves to deal with these shootings in a rational manner, nor can they really produce reasonable plans for preventing them in the future, simply because the policies and predilections of theliberals themselves are ultimately root causes of these mass shootings.
First and most obvious is the phenomenon of “gun free zones.” Liberals love them. So do mass shooters. Whenever you hear about a mass shooting, before you learn anything else about the situation, you can be guaranteed that the venue where it took place was a gun-free zone. You don’t see mass shootings at gun stores or shooting ranges for the same reason you don’t see doughnut shops setting up franchises inside a Gold’s Gym. The whole environment would render the attempt completely futile. So instead of choosing a tougher nut to crack, people like Chris Harper-Mercer and James Holmes choose places that they can be reasonably certain no one will be likely to shoot back.
The problem, of course, is that this isn’t just a theoretical argument that has no real-world ramifications. People get killed in gun-free zones. And the left-wingers who put those zones into place are directly responsible for the taking of those innocent lives. They enable people like Harper-Mercer to have a target-rich environment. They disable good people from being able to defend themselves and other innocents.
Further, the left-wingers have succeeded in inculcating a lot of folks with the attitude of, “I shouldn’t defend myself, I should just wait for the police to show up.” Let’s remember, though, that even the fastest police response is far slower than a pull of the trigger finger. As Umpqua was the latest to show, a psycho can shoot dozens before the police get there. Gun-free zones only serve to reinforce this sort of counter-productive and dangerous attitude because they instill the false hope that should something happen, the police will be there to do more than just clean up the mess and take statements from the survivors. In most cases, however, they will not, which means that for those present with the shooter, there is no credible means of defending themselves in situ.
More to read found HERE.
- 2 parts gin
- 1 part maraschino liqueur
- 1 part lemon juice
- ½ part violet liqueur
Pour ingredients into an ice-filled shaker and mix well. Strain into a coupe, and garnish with cherries if desired. The violet liqueur gives the drink the look of a clear sky.
LIVE NUDE GIRLS
Along with fake Buddhist monks, selfie-taking tourists, aggressive Elmos, and other modern hustlers:
TIMES SQUAREin the de Blasio era.
In 1981, in an incident that attracted international attention and spurred a citywide existential crisis, a 26-year-old man from Connecticut was set upon, stripped naked, and chased by a jeering, bottle-throwing crowd in Times Square at night — “shadowy figures, drug peddlers, con artists, vagrants,” as the Times would later describe the area’s inhabitants — into a subway station, then onto the tracks, where he died. In 2015, I’m watching the modern-day equivalent of that scenario play out, the only differences being that it’s the middle of the afternoon, no one’s throwing bottles, the victim is not really in mortal danger, and the crowd she’s being set upon by consists of Iron Man, two Minnie Mice, Elsa from Frozen, and Elmo.
I’ve just arrived in Times Square to investigate the seemingly lawless chaos that has, of late, attracted international attention and spurred a citywide — or at least tabloidwide — existential crisis. I’ve been here for exactly one minute. The woman, who made the obvious tactical error of entering Times Square with her phone visibly in hand, now finds herself corralled by costumed cartoon characters looking for tips in exchange for a photo. They encircle her with such familiarity that I honestly wonder for a moment if she’s yet another Minnie, newly arrived and not yet costumed for her shift.
Throughout New York’s history, Times Square has served as a bellwether of the city’s current mood — as well as the perceptions of the city, both for those who live here and those who don’t. Once, Times Square was a high temple of glamour, the glowing heart of a go-go metropolis. Then it, like the city around it, slid into seedy decline. When much of New York was sleazy and dangerous, nowhere seemed sleazier or more dangerous than 42nd Street. And when Times Square came to feel too touristy, it mirrored a parallel worry that New York itself was losing some of its intrinsic grit. Times Square exists less as a crossroads than as a repository for our collective hopes and fears for the city. Now it’s entering a new phase — perhaps the strangest, most inscrutable one yet.
The most commonly voiced description of the New Times Square — the one midwifed into existence in the ’90s by Rudy Giuliani and Michael Eisner; the one that now welcomes more than 39 million tourists a year, roughly equivalent to the population of Poland; the one we associate more with Mickey Mouse than Ratso Rizzo and Carson Daly than Damon Runyon — is “Disneyfied.” This is almost never meant as a compliment. Yet even the area’s most cynical critic could never have envisioned a day when the famously sanitized, corporatized, Disneyfied Times Square would become infamous for a plague of vaguely mangy Disney characters shaking down tourists for money.
And that’s not even to mention the puritan furor over the naked ladies with the painted bosoms.
“I gotta go, I gotta go, guys,” says the woman good-naturedly, still smiling, as she’s pincered between two Minnies. The mute characters paw at her in a kind of creepily adorable pantomime. Iron Man offers to take her picture, as if this were a moment she’d want to cherish. She starts to squirm. “I gotta go,” she says more forcefully, then wriggles free from the scrum. As she hurries north, her eyes turn not to the world-famous gauntlet of towering digital screens overhead but to the five-inch screen clutched in her hand. This is when I realize that this woman must be a native New Yorker. Because as she beetles across the plaza toward her destination, she seems determined to avoid, or at least ignore, whatever it is that Times Square has become.
Continue reading this HERE.
Above found HERE.