So, who besides progressives gets banned from Dana''s Facebook page?

From the Dana Show Facebook page:

I don't know what is worse about this Facebook post.  The fact that it isn't Obama who is, "banning ammo", let alone by executive order, but the ATF who has reclassified a bullet (the 5.56-mm, Ball, M855) to armor piercing bullet, or this picture above.  I mean, I got kicked off her Facebook page because I had a differing opinion.  If this guy can post that, does that mean Dana agrees with the picture?

By the way, the ban does not include the Ball M193 A.K,A, Remington 223.  It may not be as desirable a bullet as the Ball M855, but it doesn't have a, "lead alloy core bullet with a steel penetrator" the M855 does, so it's pretty safe it will be around for a while.

***Update***

Nope, nothing to see here.  I guess only progressives get banned.

Dana on Brian Williams

I am amused that Dana is now very fascinated with the lies of Brian Williams. I actually applaud her. It is her right to cover those lies.  But there are two very blaring problems a person with her history has in doing so. For one, you cannot call someone a liar when your pants are pretty much on fire yourself, as I've pointed out several times in this blog. Hello, pot? It is the kettle calling!

Now here is the tricky part. The lies Bryan Williams told didn't advance some political agenda, they glorified Brian Williams. In essence, if you are fascinated by the lies of Brian Williams and bring them to the light of day no less than 6 times on Facebook alone, you may be a creepy conservative female stalker. Just saying.

Not that I think Brian needs to ever grace our televisions with his presence ever again.  Just pointing out the hypocrisy that, if I had the time/inclination, would be too easy to do on a daily basis.

Shameless Dan Carlin plug

One of my favorite podcasters is Dan Carlin.  His Hardcore History poscast gives us an in depth picture of a point in history, and currently he's going through the hamburger mill that was WWI.  I've learned a lot about that war I don't think I was ever taught in school, mostly about how gruesome the fighting was.

His Common Sense podcast focuses on current events.  It's usually shorter than an hour, but is highly insightful.  His most recent podcast, Show 286 - Dissin' & Dueling accentuates this point.  After listening to Dana go off on the religion of Islam, Dan is a bit of fresh air and brings a lot of thought to the mix.  I won't go over any of his points, because I wouldn't do them justice, although the fact that in this country in not the too distant past all the way back to the founding fathers (Alexander Hamilton shot in a duel with Burr) our history is full of people being offended, and taking someone else's life.

Dana has not been as thoughtful, or insightful.  I had never heard of #illridewithyou campaign until Dana mentioned it.  But she dismissed it because these same people should have been riding with Charlie Hebdo, instead.  While I do not tolerate acts of terrorism, I'm not lumping all 1.6 billion Muslims in with them, so Dana's comments were not helpful in my opinion.

Do you think people like Dana would lose their minds if Charlie Hebdo were in America and had not been attacked?  As in, the content of Charlie Hebdo isn't quite suited to Dana's sensibilities (although she seems to get a kick out of their cartoons critical of Muslims).  And I didn't catch Dana's TV show, but did she show any cartoons critical of Christianity?  Or Jewish?

Let's forget the fact that the policemen were armed, but outgunned, and one was himself a Muslim, something Dana also never seemed to bring up. I guess the big takeaway here is listen to more Dan Carlin.  You will come out more sane in the long run, in my opinion.

I've read a lot of stupid things...

I've read a lot of stupid things in my time.  Just today, I read that someone at Fox News reported that the Obama administration was outlawing doughnut sprinkles. You read that right. The truth is, Fox got their story from a satire website without realizing it.  You can't make this stuff up.

Of course this pales in comparison to what I just read in Hands Off My Gun.  Here's a bit from chapter 7:

Martin Luther King Jr. was denied a gun permit as a result of gun control law put into effect by white male Democrats.  Out of all the law-abiding, peace-loving people, this man was denied the means to protect himself while those who wished to do him harm for believing in equality were allowed to carry.  Dr. King was disarmed by Democrat laws. That is just one in a series of examples of the explicit racism behind left-wing gun grabs.

There is plenty wrong with what was said there. To start with, the way this is written, you would think Dr. King was denied gun ownership. Nothing is further from the truth. Dr. King had guns in his home, some would say he had an arsenal, when he requested that concealed carry permit. So really, he wasn't denied gun permits.  What he was denied was the right to conceal carry. That was in Alabama, in 1956. He would have also had to file in Tennessee in 1968, since that is where he was shot. And forget that he was shot from across the street, and a concealed carry would not have done much to protect him that day.

It wasn't long after he filed for a concealed carry permit that he decided that his gun ownership and peace movement were not compatible. He not only got rid of his guns, his bodyguards were also disarmed. Since Dana railed against celebrities having the right to have bodyguards with guns to protect them, Dana should be happy about that development.

The other issue I have with Dana's statement is the mixing of the terms Democrat, and left-wing when referring to the south in the 1950s. Strom Thurmand was a Democrat at the time. The Southern Dixiecrats changed political parties fast when Democrats Emanuel Celler, introduced the civil rights act, and Lyndon B. Johnson, signed it into law.  The south has always been conservative, and always will.

So it is ludicrous to say Democrats, like it is the Democratic party of today, and flat out a lie to say the left-wing disarmed Dr. Martin Luther King. Truth be told, it was Dr. King himself that disarmed Dr. King.  Is Dana this dumb? I don't think so, but more and more it sure looks like she's hoping the readers of this book are.

Can't believe this made it into "Hands Off My Gun"

Hands off My Gun is touted as, "Defeating the plot to disarm America".  I'm up to chapter 6, and so far it's been more, "Bash the left and spout inaccuracies."  It is incredible what she thinks she can get away with.  Here's a couple interesting tidbits.

She attacks celebrities for having armed security.  I get the logic.  If these celebrities say you shouldn't have guns, then they shouldn't have anyone around them with guns, too.  But here's where that breaks down.  Most of the celebrities listed don't have a strong stand against the 2nd amendment. Even if they did, they still live in a society where guns are prevalent.  That reality, and the fact that celebrities daily face threats and harassment, and it would be stupid of them not to have an armed guard. It's not hypocrisy, it's common sense.

She states that Nia Sanchez was in the Miss USA Pageant in 1994.  I hate to pick on typos, but Nia Sanchez won in 2014.

She sites the Gary Kleck/Marc Gertz thesis on guns from 1995, claiming that there are sixty times the number of people defending themselves with a gun than being killed by them.  That date is not a typo, however. Even more shocking is how she touts this thesis as the end all in gun studies right after she puts down a dissenting study by Arthur Kellerman as unscientific. Got news for you, Dana. Your study gets it wrong, too.  Know who gets it right? These guys are one of many who have done studies independent of Kellerman and come to the same conclusion, that you are many times more likely to be shot in an altercation when you own a gun, than when you don't.  She also sites another John Lott study, and I've already debunked him.

I'm plodding my way through this book slowly.  So far, I would be embarrassed to use any of these arguments for defeating the "plot to disarm America". Since there are about as many guns as there are people in the US, how do they plan on rounding up all those guns anyway?

And now, a correction  In my post about the man shot in Wal*Mart with a fake gun, I stated that the guy who called in on 911 was an ex-marine, and I was correct.  But he didn't serve very long before being thrown out. It also looks like, while the guy was holding a gun, he was not brandishing it as the 911 call states.  It was a pretty real looking pellet gun, but this looks more and more like an overreaction on the 911 caller's part, and on the part of the police. I apologize for the error.

Michelle Obama's scandalous Target trip revisited

Dana's thoughts on Michelle Obama's story of woe when someone mistook the First Lady for being helpful at Target (spoiler: she's not helpful).

Okay, I'm with Dana on one point, it doesn't seem to be much a story of racism.  But the reason why escapes most from the right, as Dana shows in this video.  It wasn't racism because she asked her to help, it was because nobody recognized her.  Like I said, not a great example, but Dana is way off the mark, illustrated by the pictures of helpful people she uses at the end of the clip.

Also, does Dana's show seem poorly produced to you?  It's like there's a 5 year old in the control booth saying, "Hey, get a closeup on the side of her face!"  "Hey, use the boom camera to back away from Dana, and up, that would be so cool!"  Really, it's not cool.  It's not professional.  Frankly, I expect better.

Only "just" laws should be followed

Dana had something about the Eric Garner case on Wednesday.  In her third hour, she thinks it is just fine for him to be selling loose cigarettes because the cigarette tax in New York is just way too high. She then doubles down by saying it is an unjust law, and while some conservative tell her it's still a law, she says "not every law is just, and not every law requires a choke hold." And her defense is to say you don't support Obamacare, do you?

The big question is, what is just?  Should we go any speed on roads because we find speed limits unjust?  Should we lie and slander people because we think the laws about that are unjust? Should we shoot people we don't like because we believe laws against that are unjust? It's tantamount to criminal to say just laws do not need to be followed. Dana is smart enough to realize this.

Listen to it on the third hour of Wednesday's show.  It begins at about 12 minutes and skip ahead again to 23 minutes when she goes into the story about Anita MonCrief (who walks into crowds of Mary Landrieu supporters, innocently in Dana's eyes, and posts clips where they say dumb things, then Dana calls it, "they are trying to intimidate Cassidy supporters") Actually, maybe the whole hour is worth listening to, just to remind yourself of the depths it seems Dana will go to promote her agenda.