[Update - Andy:] The New York Times story appears to be untrue. I know, I know ... I can't believe it either.

So instead he bought the one weapon specifically endorsed by Joe Biden--- a pump-action shotgun.

Not even the dreaded "semi-automatic" variety.

The gunman who killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday test fired an AR-15 assault rifle at a Virginia gun store last week but was stopped from buying one because state law there prohibits the sale of such weapons to out-of-state buyers, according to two senior law enforcement officials.

Instead, the gunman, Aaron Alexis of Texas, bought a law-enforcement-style shotgun – an 870 Remington pump – and used it on Monday as he rampaged through the Navy facility, said the officials, who requested anonymity because of the continuing investigation.

He entered the facility with the gun broken in half in a bag, then assembled it in a bathroom.

I got tipped to this the other day by someone who says he works there -- he says the security there is very lax. No metal detectors, for example.

The left is determined to make ever tragedy an indictment of their political enemies, and a validation of their worldview. That's why these massacres are so quickly politicized.

Sheriff Joe's urging to "Buy a shotgun" never made a lick of sense from a crime-reduction standpoint, since, in his own narrative, The shotgun was a deadlier weapon and, ergo, a more useful weapon for mass shooting.

So here we are. The killer ultimately took Sheriff Joe's advice and got a shotgun.

The left's argument makes no sense. What they want is a full confiscation of all guns -- that's the only way their rhetoric makes sense. But they can't do that all in one step, so they have to pick out the Scary Guns and condition the public to accept Prohibition one model at a time.

But Sheriff Joe is right -- a shotgun is a better close-quarters massacre weapon than a rifle.

So why are we talking about AR-15's, again?

Oh right. Because the left wants to pretend it just wants to get rid of The Ugly Guns. Until the public is ready to give up the others as well.

Posted by: Ace at 03:47 PM | Comments (130)
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.

@comradearthur notes that the voyou had 14 charges to his name, and I think he was only 19 years old. He says that that should put him in a special legal class -- "Outlaw."

I kind of like that idea, except for the drawback that people might start shooting in more gray-area situations figuring, "Hey, maybe I'll get lucky and it'll turn out this guy is officially Outlaw."

Anyway, here's AP's story (in English).

Jewelers in southern France say they're being targeted as never before and lack the resources to protect themselves.

"It was a difficult situation. I don't know how I would have reacted myself. I don't endorse what he did, but he had been beaten and threatened with death," Yan Turk, the son of the jeweler, told the Nice Matin paper. "We've had it with being targeted by robbers."

The young man killed, 19-year-old Anthony Asli, had been in trouble as a juvenile and was freed about a month ago from his most recent stint in detention, shedding his own electronic bracelet and moving in with a longtime girlfriend who is pregnant with their child. Asli's family described him as impressionable and immature.

"The family's not condoning the robbery. They're not condoning it and they're not excusing it. It was Anthony's fault. But did he deserve to die in these conditions?" their lawyer, Olivier Castellacci, said Tuesday. "We don't have, in France, the notion of taking justice into your own hands. The family is revolted by that."

But France has seen a spate of high-profile jewelry thefts lately, and Castellacci said the mobilization in support of the jeweler is a reflection of unease with increasing violence.

The robbery was carried out with a shotgun, he said. It wasn't clear whether Asli and the accomplice both had firearms.

Yeah the family is going on a press tour saying how terrible it is that the jeweler isn't behind bars yet (he's under house arrest, with electronic surveillance).

I guess I understand that... as it's their family they're talking about. But there is an awful lot of anger at the jeweler for, let's face it, taking care of a problem of a longstanding and chronic nature.

The article mentions another jewelry heist that took place this past summer, in Cannes. That robbery was more successful and lucrative -- to the tune of $136 million.

A state prosecutor says the organizer of a diamond exhibit and sale has more than doubled the estimated value of diamond jewelry stolen in a brazen weekend heist at a luxury hotel on the French Riviera — to some $136 million.

The elevated value of the jewels taken has caused some in the French press to dub it the "Heist of the Century."

Police had previously said Sunday's theft at the Carlton Intercontinental Hotel had netted euro40 million ($53 million) in loot — even at that level, one of biggest jewelry heists in recent years.

Assistant prosecutor Philippe Vique said the Dubai-based organizer of the diamond show has raised the value based on a more complete inventory.

Mm-hm.

Not only that, but earlier, during the actual Cannes film festival, thieves stole over $1 million in jewelry intended to be worn by visiting celebrities from a hotel safe.

There's even a gang of East Europeans called the Pink Panther gang stealing gems left and right.

So it's open season on French jewelers. But then someone painted a sign that said "Thug Season" and everyone goes crazy over it.

The odd thing is that these cases always seem to attract too much prosecutorial attention and interest. If there had been no shooting, and if the thugs were simply caught, they probably would have been jailed for like six months.

And the jeweler knows this. And he's watching his money go riding down the street on a scooter.

So he shoots the punk, to keep his money from being stolen, and now he's facing the kissing cousin of a murder rap.

Personally I think fleeing this sort of crime constitutes a continuation of the crime and the law of self-defense should continue to apply. It's silly to think that people will not shoot a fleeing robber escaping with their hard earned money-- especially after that robber just used a shotgun to force the victim to open a safe.

Laws should be written in comportment with human behavior. It is normal human behavior to shoot a fleeing punk in this situation. The law should therefore bless it.

The law should not be an ass.

The law should be written to make sense to the common man, not the exceptional one. Perhaps an exceptional man places so much value on the life of the man who just beat him, threatened him with a shotgun, and stole his fortune that he would rather let a fleeing robber escape than fire a shot at him.

But the common man doesn't feel this way. And the law should demand a basic level of good behavior, not a heroic level.

Posted by: Ace at 03:09 PM | Comments (159)
Post contains 858 words, total size 5 kb.

One thing people keep saying is that there has been nothing advanced to suggest that anything in the op-ed was false.

Ermmm... Maybe. I don't know. But the provenance of it is looking worse and worse.

Yet O'Bagy was fired last week from the Institute for the Study of War after the think tank alleged she lied about her education credentials. The institute claimed O'Bagy did not have a Ph.D. degree from Georgetown University as she had claimed.

O'Bagy reportedly countered that she had defended her dissertation, and was simply waiting for the university to confer the degree.

But in a statement to The Daily Beast, O'Bagy reportedly admitted she was never enrolled in that program. She apparently applied to a joint master's/Ph.D. program, but was not accepted. She was only in the master's program.

"I would like to deeply apologize to every person with whom I have worked, who has read and depended upon my research, and to the general public," O'Bagy said in a statement. "While I have made many mistakes and showed extremely poor judgment, I most particularly regret my public misrepresentation of my educational status and not immediately disclosing that I had not been awarded a doctorate in May 2013."

Uhhh... you were more than "not awarded a doctorate." You weren't even in a doctoral program.

Why would you be awarded a doctorate if you weren't even in a doctoral program? Do they sometimes award them by sweepstakes?

Should I check my mail? Might I already be a winner?

I'm beginning to suspect that -- please, sit down, or at least lean over a soft surface -- the political/media class attracts a serious number of bullshit artists.

Oh by the way I have a Ph.D. I just thought I should let everyone know that.

It's from a small college in the Niagra Falls area. You wouldn't know it.

I wasn't actually enrolled in any Ph.D. program but they just sort of gave it to me because, and here I quote the sheepskin verbatim, "Dude, You Brought It." But in like Latin and stuff.

Posted by: Ace at 02:22 PM | Comments (222)
Post contains 389 words, total size 2 kb.

And the victim killed by an AR-15 turns out to have been the killer, Aaron Alexis, killed by the only thing capable of stopping a determined man with a gun, which is another man with a gun.

And when I say "man" I don't just mean men; I also mean older teenaged boys.

Read the article to see that it now appears that the only weapon Alexis arrived with was the shotgun -- Joe Biden's preferred weapon. Perhaps Alexis heeded his sage advice and bought a shotgun.

Again, as Joe Biden urged. Biden also talked up the fact that shotguns have more killing power at the typical range of actual shooting encounters.

It is now believed the pistols were acquired from the base. I don't know if he broke into the Magazine or killed a guard or what.

Thanks to Dr. Spank, or, as I know him, "internet pervert."

Posted by: Ace at 01:36 PM | Comments (183)
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

Over at Breitbart I noted that Hugh Jackman mentioned politics -- Syria -- briefly without going all partisan and sneery about it.

On the other hand, there are the self-vaunted pudits of the (supposed) center-right.

Honestly people can disagree and not have bitter feelings about it so long as there's not a lot of sneering and demeaning smuggled in under the pretense that "politics" is being discussed. I know I'm a dog with a bone, but it's usually not politics at all. Politics doesn't require that you hate and demean... ego, emotion, and a desire to validate one's class (and by so doing, validate oneself) require that.

David Brooks and David Frum are not on the right. That doesn't mean they have nothing to contribute, of course. They do. And David Frum frequently surprises lately with his level-headed case against Amnesty.

But I do think both men are rather more invested in their former positions of Patrician Privilege than in actual politics, at least vis-a-vis their relentless hostility to the Not Quite Our Class, Dear Tea Party. (Actually the Tea Party is wealthier than the average American, if we're talking class; but then, class is more than money. It's an adherence to a particular code of class values and a rooting interest in a particular Tribe's dominance over other Tribes.)

Both men, I assume, are capable of expressing their opinions without sneering; but the sneering is important to them, and indeed more important than any mere political dispute under discussion.

Over at NRO, Democrats are claiming that top GOP officers privately say the Tea Party is "crazy." I am nearly certain that they're telling the truth. What we have here is a clash on a more fundamental and important level than politics. One tribe is asserting its fundamental fitness to rule and another tribe is asking where the victories are, if that's the case. (I get asked that a lot myself when I stick up for an Establishment pick like Romney.)

I think there's one way out of this, though it will not be taken by either side, because both tribes frankly loathe each other (more than they loathe Democrats).

The Establishment -- the In-Tribe -- has to be less condescending with the Tea Party. When I say "condescending," I mean this: I don't believe the Establishment is being fully candid about their goals and beliefs because they think the crazies of the Tea Party couldn't handle the truth.

So there is a condescending sort of "yes yes of course dear" attitude in public, whereas in private they tear their hair out about the silliness of these ruffians and scoundrels.

If the Establishment doesn't wish to do certain things -- if they think certain policies are too extreme or unwise or would cause too much genuine harm -- they should do the Tea Party the honor of treating them like thinking adults and say so and explain why.

It is true, for example, that LIVs (including some Lower-Information Tea Partiers) think that cutting the overseas aid budget will have a big effect on the budget. There are all sorts of untrue things that people believe. They always have and they always will.

Prior to 2012 it was an article of faith with many that we could have deficit reduction without some kind of entitlement reform. (I don't know if that belief has actually gone away or simply isn't ventured publicly much any longer.)

To the extent that the Tea Party and Establishment are divided over such false beliefs, Then let's discuss them honestly so that the False Beliefs can either be dispelled or, who knows, perhaps proven true. Maybe the Establishment is wrong about some things.

On the other side of the ledger, the Tea Party could sort of tamp down on the whole Righteous Wrath thing. Even though I've moved from "more Establishment" to "more Tea Party" over the past year, I still find the Tea Party's frequently self-flatteries no less objectionable than David Brooks'.

We should be arguing about what is best for the country, not Who's Got The Best Tribe. To the extent that the one devolves into the other, we should really all try to get back on track with the important thing.

Posted by: Ace at 12:27 PM | Comments (416)
Post contains 729 words, total size 5 kb.

I didn't know this was a day, actually.

But now that I've heard "Constitution Day" I'm wondering why we don't make it an official holiday. Give the federal bureaucracy an extra day off (and maybe don't give them as big of raise in recognition for that).

And then citizens can privately lobby their employers to elevate Constitution Day to a "real holiday" and give them the day off.

Put it in August, a month with no holidays.

I know this is Symbolic but symbolic is not synonymous with "without effect." There is something to be said for elevating the Constitution higher in what might be termed the American Secular Pantheon. We essentially get days off to recognize the contributions of our Secular Saints (Washington, Lincoln, MLK, Jr., the signatories of the Declaration of Independence). And if we're recognizing the Saints of American Republican Democracy, we should also formally recognize their creed.

Our creed.

Plus, frankly, the liberals will hate it, and that's a useful lesson to them, because liberals have to start asking themselves, one of these days, when they went from celebrating the Constitution to despising it, and why they did so, and what that makes them now.

If we can't stick in another paid federal holiday -- Cannibalize Labor Day. Oh man would that set off a firestorm of dishonest argumentation. On one hand the Smart Set Liberals would attempt to denigrate the push for a Constitution Day by saying "this is all silly partisan symbolism aimed at validating a particular worldview" and in their next breath they'd scream about how we're destroying the Symbolism of Labor Day.

I always hate-laugh at that argument. With one fist they club you with the demeaning attack that you're basically mischievous and ill-mannered children too smitten with symbolic gestures. But with the fist they cling desperately to their own symbolic validations.

But, as Michael Barone recently wrote (I think quoting someone else), "All proceduralist arguments are fundamentally dishonest, including this one."

This is kind of a silly idea but why not? Let's take the Constitution seriously.

Today is Constitution Day Because They Signed It Today: Okay, fine, I don't think that really matters, but in that case move Labor day to the middle of August, and make the Monday after the second Tuesday in September Constitution Day. That'll get you close to the 17th.

Posted by: Ace at 11:07 AM | Comments (293)
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.

The slowest boats on the river eventually make the shore.

"'We have a health system that, in terms of costs, is really out of control,' he said. 'And if you take this line and you project what has been happening into the future, we will get less and less competitive. So we need something else.'

Buffett, who supported Obama through both elections, noted, 'what we have now is untenable over time. That kind of a cost compared to the rest of the world is really like a tapeworm eating, you know, at our economic body.'

He goes on to recommend a new play aimed at controlling costs -- and says we should worry about expanding coverage only after that.

Posted by: Ace at 10:19 AM | Comments (209)
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

No serious. Last night CNN broke the news that the Navy Yard shooter used an AR-15 shotgun.

We must ban this weapon that has already been banned by reason of Not Existing.

I don't know, would this be a good stunt? If Republicans actually passed a bill to ban the weapon that doesn't exist in order to embarrass the media?

Probably not.

Piers Morgan's entire show was dedicated to the proposition that an AR-15 (whether of the rifle or shotgun variation) was used in the killings. Indeed, one might say that his entire life has been dedicated to this proposition.

Except it wasn't:

Yesterday #BuzzfeedAndrewKazcinsky baited the NRA by noting they weren't commenting when facts were still unknown.

I dunno. Seems like a wise principle. Perhaps more of the Scolding Teacher Media would do well to follow their example.

Update: After a day of screaming about AR-15s, Piers Morgan's twitter stream is now oddly absent of references to them.

No retraction, no correction. Just shifting from AR-15s to guns in general.

Which is precisely why people will not permit it to be banned -- because they understand that those who want to ban will shift, as abruptly and dishonestly as Piers Morgan, from AR-15s to guns in general.

Piers Speaks... After devoting a show to the Scourge of the AR-15, he now has a different position: "What difference does it make?"

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:02 AM | Comments (471)
Post contains 297 words, total size 3 kb.

If you're pro-defund, as I reluctantly am, and you get into a discussion with a pro-delay person, the first thing that is likely to come up is they will tell you something along the lines of, "we all hate ObamaCare, we just disagree how to deal with it". While that might be true the divide often comes down to trust.

One of my problems with the "delay" types is they act as if there's is a perfectly reasonable strategy that will obviously work where the crazy defund types are living in a fantasy world. As Ben Howe put it on Twitter yesterday, the delay types assume all their projections about the future are facts and the defund types are dealing in unprovable guesses that have no chance of happening.

Let's play out the delay crowds argument and see where it goes without their stealing first base like that.

What if Obama doesn't accept the Boehner/Cantor offer to delay ObamaCare for a year? Jay Carney has already said Obama would veto that, just like they said they'd veto a defunding bill. Team Delay insists we take the threat seriously when it comes to defunding but not delaying.

So what then? We're supposed to believe that they along with Boehner and Cantor weren't willing to go over the fiscal cliff, they aren't willing to deal with a government shutdown but they are TOTALLY committed to not raising the debt ceiling and seeing the government "default" (not be able to pay some bills) unless Obama caves on delay? Really? You guys have avoided every fight and punted at every chance but you are totally going to the mattresses on the thing that might have huge fiscal repercussions for the world economy?

Let's just say I have my doubts.

But let's be sporting and grant Team Delay their assumptions and they magically get Obama to agree to a year long delay (it would have to be more than that since it would need to go into January 2015 to reflect the results of the 2014 elections).

Again, let's be sporting and say the GOP holds the House and gains the Senate with 52-54 votes. Then we can pass a full repeal via reconciliation and Obama will veto it and then....what? Then you'll go for a government shutdown? f it's going to be a disaster for the GOP in 2013, why would it be any better for the GOP then than it is now? "Well, the election will make it clear that people don't like ObmaCare". Ok, but we know now they don't like it. If you're betting you're going to win all these Senate seats because of opposition to ObamaCare, how is fighting for its repeal now going to hurt you?

Sure a shutdown is unpopular but so is ObamaCare. It's a jump ball as to which is more unpopular. The challenge for the GOP is to win that fight.

Again, the delay camp's arguments make some sense but given their track record of over-promissing and under-delivering, it's hard to take them seriously or give them much more credit than the longshot defund plan. Both strategies rest on weak assumptions but defund has the advantage of actually trying to achieve the goal. I'll take that over a triple bank-shot plan that if nine things all fall into place, we'll find ourselves right back where we started from...an inability to overcome a veto.

As an aside, one thing I'm seeing from inside the beltway types is the idea that the tea party is to blame for the state we find ourselves in. They keep saying things like "well if not for crazy candidates we'd have the Senate already and wouldn't be in this situation".

My response...

Stop pretending that only tea party candidates lost and establishment types won since 2010. There were plenty of missed opportunities on both sides.

More importantly, the reason there is such a thing as ObamaCare is because the same leadership that now scolds insurgents on how things should be done was in charge in 2006 and 2008 when Democrats ran up huge margins in both houses to pass the damn thing. And the tea party sure as hell didn't pick Mitt "I Like Mandates" Romney in 2012. You may not like how they are trying to clean up the mess but never forget who made it.

If you think the problem are a handful of conservatives in the House who won't let Boehner and Cantor work their magic, consider that without those members you are trying to end-run around, Boehner would still be the MINORITY leader and MINORITY whip.

And spare me the notion that conservative groups are only rabble rousing to take in money. Maybe they are fund raising but deal with people like Targeted Victory who brought you Project Orca.

So having vented my spleen over this fight, what should we do? Well, if we can't defund it I think the GOP should pass a CR that includes a provision mandating that the Affordable Care Act be implemented as passed. Remove all the delays, waivers and exemptions Obama has spent years granting. We passed it and we know what's in it, implement the law as written, voted on and signed. No delay in the employer mandate, no carve out for unions, no pass for congressional staffers. Let Obama shutdown the government because he doesn't want to implement his law. If he does that then the case will be made by Obama how bad the law is and then repeal becomes the goal.

Some people want to paper over these differences in strategy, temperament and yes, even philosophy. I don't. I think the damage is done and the sooner the split happens between conservatives and the GOP the sooner we can stop fighting and start trying to win converts.

Added: I quoted Ben Howe above from a Twitter conversation we were having with others on this yesterday. It seems he was thinking along the same lines in following up. Take a look at his piece from this morning for more on the "if not this hill, which?" questioning of Team Delay.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:21 AM | Comments (462)
Post contains 1054 words, total size 7 kb.

• A Recap Of The Facts Surrounding The Navy Yard Shooting
  
• So Our Military Will Give "Secret" Clearance To Just About Anyone, Huh?
  
• Shooter Obsessed With Violent Video Games
  
• Feinstein Pushes Gun Control Again
  
• Taranto: About That Other Debacle
  
• Occupy Celebrates Its Second Anniversary
  
• The AFL-CIO, Obamacare's Useful Idiots
  
• Terrorists Love Them Some G-Mail
  
• The Misery Of Obama's Second Term
  
• Embattled Syria Expert Speaks
  
• William Daley Quits Race For Gov In Illinois
  
• Argentina At Risk For Another Default
  
• Editorial: End The Clinton-Era Military Base Gun Ban
  
• The Celebrification Of The White House Staff
  
• In Public Shift, Israel Calls For Assad's Fall
  
• Five Ways Obamacare Could Mess With Your Privacy
  
• Man Destroys His 160k BMW To Make A Point I Guess
  
• Charles Cooke: Universal Background Checks? No So Fast
  
• Japanese Man Screwed By The Olympics Twice
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:13 AM | Comments (242)
Post contains 146 words, total size 3 kb.