Hi-Point Factory Damaged By Fire

H/T Bearing Arms.

Hopefully, Hi-Point can and will recover rapidly from this fire.

The last couple of years have been pretty rough for the firearm industry, and let’s be honest, 2019 may not be a whole lot better.

While a Democrat-controlled House may spur gun sales, that’s hardly a sure thing. Couple that with the undeclared war between them and the financial industry and the next year may end up being tough for everyone.

The last thing anyone needs is a fire at their facility.

A business was moderately damaged from a fire shortly after midnight Friday, with multiple fire departments responding to the scene.

According to Madison Township fire chief Ron Luttrell, reports came in just after midnight Friday of a blaze at Hi-Point Firearms, 1015 Springmill St. Fire crews found the middle portion of the one-story structure to be engulfed in flames.

Chief Luttrell said it took approximately 30 minutes to bring the blaze under control, and he estimated the damage to the business to be in the range of $40,000 to $50,000.

Luttrell said the cause of the fire is unknown at this time, and the state fire marshal is investigating.

The fire was contained to the “machine area” of the building, according to Luttrell, and no live ammunition was affected by the fire.

Now, let’s be fair here. Hi-Point isn’t exactly the top of the line when it comes to firearms. There are a lot of jokes about Hi-Points out there. I know, I’ve told a few of them.

However, this also represents people’s livelihoods; not just the owners, either.

Oddly enough, about two years ago, the offices at this same building caught fire. That time, only smoke got into the machine area.

So what will this mean for Hi-Point? That’s hard to tell from this initial report. We know there was some damage and that it’s likely some of the equipment was impacted as well. What we don’t know is whether the estimate for damage accounts for how much the machinery will cost to replace.

Either way, while I won’t recommend a Hi-Point to much to anyone who can afford better, I still hate to see this happen to a business that not only sells firearms but also stands behind the Second Amendment completely.

Further, Hi-Point fills a niche that Glock, Smith & Wesson, and others don’t seem interested in filling (though it’s understandable). There are a lot of people who don’t have the means to pony up a few hundred dollars to buy a new semi-auto pistol. Hi-Point markets to those folks and gives them a gun that might not be ideal for long days at the range but tends to go bang when you need it.

As such, I do hope Hi-Point can get past this quickly and get back to the business of making guns.

You or I might not like its products, but it builds things that have helped a lot of people stay alive. That’s more than enough reason for me to want them to get back on its feet quick, fast, and in a hurry.

Egypt: Muslims murder at least four, injure 11 in bombing of tourist bus near Pyramids

H/T Jihad Watch.

It is time to stop all tourism and any money flowing into Egypt until the government until they eliminate these so-called Muslim extremists.

When in fact these so-called extremist are in fact just Muslim followers of the pedophile Mohammed.

Islamic jihadists generally hate tourists and tourism. In Egypt, the main attractions are artifacts of the nation’s pre-Islamic civilization, and as far as they are concerned, that is jahiliyyah, the society of unbelievers, and thus worthless trash worthy of no respect.

“At least 4 dead in Egypt tourist bus bombing near pyramids,” by Mohammed Tawfeeq and Hossam Ahmed, CNN, December 29, 2018:

Cairo (CNN)At least three Vietnamese tourists and an Egyptian tour guide were killed Friday when a roadside bomb struck a tourist bus in Egypt, Prosecutor-General Nabil Sadek announced Friday night , according to state-run Ahram Online.

The bombing took place in the Giza region near Cairo, where the pyramids are located.

At least 11 people were wounded, Sadek said. Authorities said earlier the wounded include 10 Vietnamese tourists and the Egyptian bus driver.

The incident occurred on El-Maryoutiya Street in Giza’s Haram district, where an improvised explosive device was hidden near a wall. The bomb went off when the bus went by, authorities said….

No one has claimed responsibility.

Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ahmed Hafez called the attack an act of terrorism.

“The bombing of the tourist bus in El-Maryoutiya, a despicable, cowardly terrorist act which targets what cannot be targeted: The determination of Egypt and the Egyptians,” Hafez wrote on Twitter….

Whoa: Gun Grabber Dianne Feinstein Admits There’s Issues With The Bump Stock Ban

H/T Town Hall.

This is a Shocking comment coming from a gun grabber like Di Fi.

In a rather strange turn of events, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), warned her follow gun control advocates to not rejoice over the Trump administration’s announced bump stock ban. Doing so would be premature.

In an opinion piece for The Washington PostFeinstein explained her concerns (emphasis mine):

Support for banning bump stocks is widespread, and it’s encouraging to see the Trump administration take action on gun safety.

But let’s not celebrate too quickly. Presidents can rescind regulations just as easily as they create them, and in this case, the bump stock ban will likely be tied up in court for years. Only hours after the Trump administration released its final regulation, Gun Owners of America announced it would file a lawsuit.

To ensure a ban is implemented and protected from legal challenges, Congress must still pass a law banning bump stocks and other similar devices, such as trigger cranks.

The sale and manufacture of automatic weapons have been illegal since the National Firearms Act was updated in 1986. The law — even though it eased restrictions on most guns by allowing interstate sales of long guns and removing requirements to record ammunition sales — made clear that civilians should not have such weapons.

But, the most compelling piece of Feinstein’s OpEd is her admission that bump stocks don’t fit the definition of a machine gun, something gun rights advocates have argued since the ban was announced.

Automatic weapons produced before 1986 are highly regulated, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives tracks them. Despite this, the agency has consistently stated that bump stocks could not be regulated under the current law. That was because they do not fit the legal definition of an automatic weapon under the National Firearms Act.  

Automatic weapons are defined by their ability to fire a continuous number of rounds by holding down the trigger.

Naturally though, she came to the same conclusion that other gun control advocates do: that a bump stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a fully automatic (hint: it doesn’t):

Bump stocks and other accessories have made this definition largely obsolete, creating a loophole that circumvents Congress’s intent to bar civilians from achieving automatic rates of fire. That’s because the recoil of the stock “bumps” the finger against the trigger, allowing the weapon to achieve automatic fire. Because of this technicality, bump stocks have not run afoul of the law. 

At the end of her piece, Feinstein came to one conclusion: to protect the bump stock ban from being reversed in court, Congress needs to take legislative action.

Even ATF Director Thomas Brandon acknowledged in a Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year that banning bump stocks through regulation would likely be challenged in court, and the best way to achieve a ban on bump stocks would be to pass a law. He said that the “optimum answer for public safety, as a career guy [for] 30 years, the law is clearly the best route.”

Both Justice Department and ATF lawyers know that legislation is the only way to ban bump stocks in a way that will not be tied up in court for years. The National Firearms Act has not changed since 1986, and it must be amended to cover bump stocks and other dangerous devices like trigger cranks.

Buckle up, folks. We’re in for a bumpy ride.

News Sites Cover Fake News Piece About Student’s Size and Title IX Penalty, Here’s the Real Story

H/T Right Wing Folks.

I will admit I got fooled by this fake story about the University of Missouri.

I was fooled because of the history of the University of Missouri and its radical ways.

Right-leaning media outlets falsely reported Tuesday that a University of Missouri student was sanctioned under Title IX because he was physically larger than a female student to whom he made unwanted romantic propositions.

The story apparently emerged after a Twitter user flagged a portion of a deposition taken in an ensuing lawsuit. During that deposition, a University of Missouri administrator said that having large physical stature could count as having “power or authority” over a victim within the meaning of campus Title IX regulations.

All told, it is not clear that the student’s comparatively large size had any bearing at all on the sanctions he received. The accused is named Jeremy Rowles.

National Review journalist Kat Timpf first reported on the allegation. Her piece has since been retracted.

In a statement regarding the retraction, NRO expressed regret for the error and noted that Timpf accurately described the administrator’s statements concerning physical size and Title IX. Timpf did not immediately return a request for comment.

Close variations of her story appeared on other platforms, including the Daily Mail. The pieces also omit highly relevant details, casting Rowles as the hapless victim of over-zealous campus bureaucrats.

Key omissions aside, Timpf’s piece begins with a false claim. She writes: “It’s not clear from the documents what kind of punishment, if any, that the student faced for his violation.”

A document Timpf herself hyperlinked — called a motion for summary judgment — repeatedly indicates that Rowles was suspended from Mizzou campuses for four years (later reduced to two years), and was permanently barred from all residence halls and recreation centers in the system.

Indeed, that punishment is a principal component of Rowles’ lawsuit. In recent years, the university has sanctioned two other students — both white — for sexual harassment and stalking on the basis of sex, the same offenses for which Rowles, who is black, was punished. The white students, one of whom allegedly committed sexual assault, received considerably lighter penalties than Rowles.

Rowles is now seeking damages from the university, asserting that his punishment was inflated because of his race.

Facts that bear on the case are missing from the Timpf and Mail articles.

In the first place, there is an age dynamic to consider. The student’s social media accounts suggest that she was an undergraduate during the underlying events. Rowles, a PhD student in cultural anthropology, is 40 years old.

Court filings from the university relay a fact pattern during a six-month period in 2016 which, in their opinion, rose to the level of stalking.

For instance, Mizzou lawyers say Rowles incessantly messaged the student on digital platforms and made intimate comments about her body in the course of those communications.

On a separate occasion, Rowles composed and delivered a three-page confession to the student, in which he apologized for his behavior, described her as an “immaculate fire angel,” and conveyed his desire to “hold you in my arms, gaze in your eyes that glow golden when the light strikes them, emotionally dance to the song that is your voice and marvel at your smile,” Mizzou lawyers say.

Even after the student disclaimed interest in Rowles’ romantic advances, he began attending dance classes at the campus recreation center where she was the instructor.

During those sessions — by the university’s telling — witnesses told Mizzou investigators that Rowles stood in proximity to the student to facilitate physical contact, stared at her unsubtly and desirously, left notes for her and lingered after class to speak with her. In these instances, the student retreated into the ladies bathroom to avoid contact with him.

All told, the student described Rowles’ behavior as “inappropriate, bizarre, and delusional.” University lawyers even say Rowles himself conceded that his behavior left the student “uncomfortable and emotionally distressed.”

The Daily Caller News Foundation is unable to verify this claim because the deposition where he allegedly made that concession is sealed.

Once complaints were filed, the university prepared a 55-page investigative report which concluded that Rowles engaged in “a course of conduct … that would cause a reasonable person to be frightened, intimidated, or emotionally distressed.”

The university further claims that three other female students at the recreation center had troubling encounters with Rowles, though they did not file formal complaints.

Separate and apart from the events of 2016, Mizzou court filings reveal that another undergraduate student accused Rowles of soliciting sexual favors in exchange for test answers in 2015. At that time, Rowles was a teaching assistant in one of that student’s classes.

A Title IX inquiry ensued. Though Rowles was cleared of wrong-doing, administrators advised him that the accuser “was not unreasonable to have inferred, as a subjective belief, that your behavior indicated sexual favors were sought.”

The Timpf and Mail reports appear to be drawn entirely from Rowles’ motion for summary judgment — which casts the facts in the light most favorable to him — and makes no references to the university’s cross-motions.

Rowles has requested oral arguments before U.S. District Judge Brian C. Wimes, who is presiding over this case. It’s not clear when Wimes might act on the summary judgment motions. If those motions are rejected, a trial will follow.

Why Did John Roberts Chief Justice of The U.S. Supreme Court Intervene in the Mueller Probe?

Jim Campbell's

Comment by Jim Campbell

December 21, 2017

For the life of me, at this point of time I have no idea what this means?

Does anyone else out there have an opinion?

Please leave your comment’s below.

Chief Justice John Roberts
Brendan Smialowski/Pool via AP

 

We’re about to find out why the chief justice of the Supreme Court decided to get involved in the special counsel’s investigation.

 

A mysterious grand jury subpoena case has been working itself through the D.C. courts since August. Doughty reporting by Politico linked the grand jury case to special counsel Robert Mueller.

Some of us, connecting the dots, wondered whether Mueller’s antagonist in this secret subpoena battle might be President Donald Trump himself.

Speculation heightened two weeks ago when the D.C. Circuit cleared an entire floor of reporters assembled for the oral argument, in order to protect the identity of the…

View original post 787 more words

Lindsey Graham Goes Beastmode in Open Letter To Nancy Pelosi About the Wall

H/T Right Wing Folks.

I am happy to see a more assertive Lindsey Graham I just hope this attitude lasts.

Gotta love Lindsey Graham, 2.0.

The Republican Senator from South Carolina has been a strong supporter of President Donald Trump’s effort to build the wall and a big proponent in Congress. He has previously urged Trump to “dig in and not give in.”

And on Friday, he had a very simple message for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic caucus about the funding deal that has been stalled.

“To Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats,” Graham tweeted. “No Wall Money, No Deal.”

Boom. That’s the strength that has been needed.

From Daily Caller:

The House passed a stopgap funding bill on Dec. 20 that included $5.7 billion for a border wall, however, with a 51-seat majority in the Senate, Republicans fell short of the necessary 60 votes needed to send it to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer vowed to kill the legislation on arrival in the Senate, and consequently, a government shutdown has been in effect since funding expired Dec. 21. [….]

“If I were the president, I would dig in and not give in on additional wall funding — I’d want the whole $5 billion because the caravan is a game changer,” the South Carolina senator said. “$1.6 billion is available to the president, he wants $5 billion, and after the caravan, if you don’t see the need for additional border wall security, you’re just not paying much attention.”

They will have more Republicans in the Senate come January, but fewer in the House where Democrats will be in the majority and Pelosi will likely be Speaker.