Stormy [Political] Weather

Over at PowerLine, John Hinderacker has a piece up examining the Democratic Party’s New York Times‘ coverage of Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels. After noting that the NYT has not shown any previous interest in the pre-public-life dalliances of such presidents as John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama, he notes

And for the Times to accuse our president of “sexual perversion,” on the basis of absolutely zero evidence, is a low blow even by the standards of the Democratic Party press. (On a positive note, it is good to see that the Times thinks there still is such a thing as sexual perversion. That seems like an old-fashioned notion in today’s era of “let a thousand gender identities bloom.”)

The left-wing press is working overtime today to make the 12-year-old Stormy Daniels story into news. Why? … The Democratic Party is trying to distract voters from [Trump’s] accomplishments with irrelevant stories about a former porn star.

Read the whole thing.

A Stupid Gun Stunt

So this Democrat candidate wanted to make a statement favoring gun control, and she made this video—

After questions were asked as to whether she had committed a felony by manufacturing a short-barreled rifle (SBR) without the proper paperwork and without paying the required tax, she took the video down. Someone has reposted it.

While she did cut the barrel and the gas tube on the AR-15, she left the lower receiver intact. As far as the ATF is concerned, the lower receiver is the firearm. The weapon should still be functional as a bolt action SBR, and replacing or repairing the damaged upper receiver should return the rifle to “fully” semiautomatic operation.

Five years and $100,000.

UPDATE—A bit of “gunsplaining”: It would have been legal to have cut the barrel and gas tube on the upper receiver if the upper had been detached from the lower when the cuts were made and if the upper were not reattached.

A Stupid Way to Virtue Signal

There’s a post over at Bloomberg floating a proposal for a voluntary “No Gun” registry. The idea is that someone could register with a state, and as long as he stayed on that list, he would be unable to buy a gun. Anytime the person wanted to buy a gun, he could remove himself from the list. The catch is that it would take three weeks to drop off the list and that the state would tattle to persons and entities who the no-gun registrant had designated when registering.

Umm, when I don’t want to buy a gun, I simply don’t buy one.

When I’ve needed a weapon because I was being stalked, I would not have wanted to wait three weeks to obtain one.

I agree with Glenn Reynolds:

But the problem here is, who, in this toxic political environment, would trust this sort of list not to be abused?

When your institutions are politicized and untrustworthy, it takes options off the table. I’m pretty sure this is one of those.