New Study

Evidently, Michael Bloomberg, the virulent anti-gunner who also happens to be a billionaire, gave Johns Hopkins University a metric butt-ton of money to conduct a study for him.

Who'd a thun, but the study determined that there is no evidence that assault weapons bans have any effect on mass shootings.  Wow!  No we know, assault weapons bans don't do anything.  Except violate the rights of freedom-loving people.  That's it, guys, the science is settled.

I Don't Need A Permit

So, Mike Bloomberg, the tyrant from New York, wants a permit system so that we can access our 2nd Amendment rights.  Here is the headline:

BLOOMBERG ANNOUNCES PLAN FOR NATIONAL PERMITS TO ACCESS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Yeah, right.  No other human right requires a permit.  Not speech, not religion, not silence.  The idea that a right requires permission from the government is  abhorrent to free people.

If you have watched what is going on in Virginia lately, it comes as a cautionary tale for the rest of us.  Freedom requires participation.  We have to vote.  As much as we would like to just be left-the-hell alone and to go about our business without interference, it is incumbent on us to use the ballot box.  The simple fact is that most elections are decided by a minority of the eligible voters.  In most elections, only half of those eligible take the time to cast a ballot, and the winner is decided by some proportion of half.  Louisiana told that tale in November, and Virginia told that tale last week. 

It is my considered opinion that Mike Bloomberg poses a clear and present dange to American freedom.  We should reject him at the ballot box before he makes us all felons.

Know Your Topic

So, Adam Weinstein at WaPo is upset because his arguments are erroneous.

The phenomenon isn’t new, but in the weeks since the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., a lot of gun-skeptical liberals are getting a taste of it for the first time: While debating the merits of various gun control proposals, Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology. Perhaps someone tweets about “assault-style” weapons, only to be told that there’s no such thing. Maybe they’re reprimanded that an AR-15 is neither an assault rifle nor “high-powered.” Or they say something about “machine guns” when they really mean semiautomatic rifles. Or they get sucked into an hours-long Facebook exchange over the difference between the terms clip and magazine.

Well, Adam, it's hard to talk about guns or gum policy if you don't know what you are talking about.  Whether it's terminology, mechanics, or policy, if you spout nonsense, we are going to correct you.  And, the instances you talk about are the ones that will get you "gunsplained" in a hurry.

There are no "assault weapons".
The AR-15 is not "high powered".
Machine guns have been strictly regulated for decades.
There is a huge difference between a clip and a magazine.

If you didn't know that before, you should know it now.  I've just told you.  And, I'm sure that the Washington Post has editors and fact-checkers that proof-read your work.    If you're going to alk about gun stuff, get your facts straight.  Or, be prepared to look like a dumbass.

Know your topic.  It's okay to have an opinion, but if your opinion is based on myth, legend, or popular culture, be prepared to be mocked by those who have the facts.  In the gun debate, it seems to us that you have an irrational fear of something that doesn't exist, and we'd be happy to show you the error of your ways.  We'd also be happy to let you explore gun culture just a bit.

Gunsplaining, though, is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it — with self-appointed authority, and often the thinnest of connection to any real fact.

No, Adam.  Gun-control is always in bad faith.  It's not about addressing the problem, it 's about the bad guys, it's about putting additional sanctions on law-abiding people.  I could argue (and frequently do) that the entire gun-control debate is about smothering discourse.  We already had this discussion, as a nation.  In 1994 we tried it.  We tried it for ten years.  We found it didn't work.  You guys keep bringing up failed policy.  That's bad faith. 

You want to talk gun control when it affects the right people.  You don't want to talk about it at all when it affects the inner-city dwellers of Chicago, or Baltimore.  That's bad faith.  You don't want to talk about it when Eric Holder runs thousands of guns into Mexico in violation of federal law.  That's bad faith.  You want to change definitions to suit your immediate argument.  That's bad faith.  You don't want to enforce the laws that are already on the books.  That's bad faith.

You spout platitudes using erroneous facts and expect us to play along?  Then you blame the NRA.  We are several million strong, and we didn't murder anyone last month.  We insist that people obey the law, we teach gun safety, we believe in every one of the Bill of Rights, and we don't intend to give up a single one, especially when your arguments are based on bad information.

So, Adam, if you want to have a reasoned discourse, get your facts straight.  Every time you come at us with lies, distortions, or errors, we're going to call you on it.  We've been having this discussion now for several decades and you should at least, by now, know the basic facts. If you refuse to learn even the basic facts, you should be prepared to be mocked.  Because without the basic facts, you really don't have an argument at all.

A Dumpster Fire

Liz Shields covers a meeting that President Trump hosted yesterday.

Trump taunted lawmakers by telling them, "you're afraid of the NRA." He'll soon find out why politicians are afraid of the NRA during the 2018 elections if he doesn't walk back some of the insanity he was tossing about in that meeting.
Some of the ridiculous changes to firearm laws Trump seemed amenable to include outlawing private guns sales, raising the age to 21 to buy a long gun, and taking people's guns without due process. Like I said, what a dumpster fire. Not one of those things will stop criminal maniacs from getting a firearm.

Trump is fond of saying that he is not a politician, but he had better pay attention to the politics, or he's liable to suffer disastrous losses during the midterms.  And, he has every reason to be afraid of the NRA.  We've been taking down nitwits for several decades.  Ignoring due process, indeed.

Not This Again

I see that the gun control meme has raised its ugly head again.  Liberal talking heads are gushing about the idea that maybe they can finally do something about those horrible guns.  They figure that if they make enough noise, someone will start to pay attention to them.  The anti-gunners are in full throated  roar and they think that they have the initiative.

It's like arguing with three-year olds.  What they don't understand is that any serious attempt to harm the Second Amendment will have serious repercussions.  More serious than they might want to contemplate.  And, if they think that the police or military will d their dirty work, they really should think again.

I'm hearing (and reading) all the nonsense spewing from the antis and at this point, it's simply tiresome.  We've had this discussion before  Every time some socially challenged, mentally ill, self-loathing misfit decides to shoot up something, whether it be a school, or a nightclub, or a convention center, the antis immediately start harping on the gun.  And you've lost the argument EVERY SINGLE TIME.

It's not going to work this time either.  Because your argument is a straw-man, and ignores the real problem.  The problem is that murder, violence, and mental illness are endemic to the human condition and until you address those issues, the problem own't go away.  You're not going to do an Australian-type buy-back(which really didn't work that well), you're not going to get the police to go door-to-door, you are probably not even going to get a new Assault Weapons Ban.  It just ain't happening, folks.

The fact that they keep bringing it up shows that they're not willing to identify the problem, they're certainly not willing to work to solve the problem, and they keep dredging up the same, tired old canard.

Frankly, they're not going to change any minds, and it's getting a bit tiresome.

Truth About Background Checks

I'm just going to leave this right here.



I am the NRA, and I am freedom's safest place.

Asked and Answered

Last night, at church, many folks asked me (because I am a law enforcement officer) if someone would be allowed to carry a firearm during services.  One of those who asked was my pastor.    In light of recent acts and with full knowledge of current events, that seems like a prudent question.

I told my pastor that under my understanding of the law, the pastor could give permission to anyone to carry on the church premises.  This morning, because I wanted to be firmly grounded in current law, I went to the Louisiana Legislatures website and reviewed the pertinent statutes.

The pertinent law is here, listed as LA Revised Statute 40:1379.3.  The law generally prohibits carry in a church, synagogue, or mosque, but allows an exception:

 U.(1) The entity which owns the business or has authority over the administration of a church, synagogue, or mosque shall have the authority to authorize any person issued a valid concealed handgun permit as authorized by the provisions of this Section to carry a concealed handgun in the church, synagogue, or mosque.

As such, the pastor gave us permission to carry in church.  We're a Cowboy church, and the congregants are very familiar with firearms, many of them having CCW permits.  To say that the congregation was heavily armed last night would not be understatement.

 I'd caution my readers that this is Louisiana law and the laws in your jurisdiction might vary.

As important as the legal regime is in every jurisdiction, it leaves unanswered the moral question:  Would you rather be tried by twelve of your peers, or carried by six of your friends?

Why Do Women Own Guns?

Reading Joe Hufman this morning, I find this video, from the NRA.  It's a great video, focusing on women and guns.  I'll leave it right here if you want to watch it.



The easiest answer is that even asking the question is sexist.  Women own guns for a aridity of reasons, but most importantly, because they are citizens.  Women own guns as collectors, for recreation, competition, target shooting, hunting,.. you name it.  Women own guns for the same reasons that men own guns.

Don't be sexist.

Edit to add.  If you're a guy, and your gal wants to shoot, or carry, or take a course, don't pick her gun out for her.  Let her try as many different kinds as possible, but let her choose her own carry gun.  That choice is as personal as choosing underwear, and she deserves the respect to be able to choose her own gun.

Congress Undoes Late Obama Gun Reg

Late last year, President Obama pushed through a regulation that would strip recipients of Social Security disability of their gun rights.  Today, Congress used their authority under the Congressional review Act to rescind that regulation.  As Hot Air points out, that particular regulation is dead.  And, it may have other implications.

Using the Congressional Review Act, the Senate followed the House yesterday in sending Donald Trump a bill canceling the new regulation. And Democrats may not yet fully realizing it, but once this regulation is dead, it’s really dead:

Hopefully, the Congress will continue rolling back Obama regulations that affect basic rights.

Let Freedom Ring.

Options

There are options out there for concealed carry.  I freely admit that I haven't kept up with the current state of the art, but this video shows some of what is possible.  Go ahead, full screen it.



There is no reason for the well-dressed woman to be defenseless.  The link she touts is here.

Ammo Solutions

There's a good article up at The Firearm Blog, talking about folks who regularly carry concealed weapons, and the choices they make concerning what they carry,  Go read the whole thing.  It's worth a few minutes.  He breaks down the "classes" of concealed-carry folks into three classes of people

1.  The tactical instructor, or dedicated concealed carry enthusiast.  This person shoots regularly, spends a measurable portion of his/her income on equipment, ammunition, and training.  He estimates that this person comprises 10% of CCW holders.

2.  The average citizen, John or Jane Smith.  This person takes the class, gets the license, and tries to stay current on equipment and range time.  They might get to the range twice a year, They're intelligent, raising a family, working a job, and trying to keep it all together.  They pay attention to the law, and try to stay current on the ever-changing legal regime that we live in.  This portion of the CCW populaiton is about 80%.

3.  The Borderline Ignorant Concealed Carrier.  This person went to one class, bought a gun and a box of ammo.  He or she took the class, and that's it.  For whatever reason, this person moves mentally away from keeping current on the law, and may be careless or even dangerous in their gun-handling skills.  Hopefully, this segment occupies less than 10% of the sample.

After defining the population, (and I think that his assumptions on the population are valid, even if we disagree with the precise percentages), he morphs into equipment/ammo choices.  He brings out the old tropes of revolver vs semi-auto, and practice ammo vs "self-defense" ammo.  THen he talks about the practice of some folks who keep a magazine of "self-defense" ammo and runs FMJ at the range trips, with the added problem of bullet set-back when a single cartridge is chambered repeatedly.

It's a pretty good article, and then he asks a question for which he never posits an answer:

When buying a new carry gun, you purchase a couple hundred rounds of FMJ, and then that box of 25 “Self-Defense” ammunition. And for what I ask?

My answer is simple:  Because that's the current state of affairs.  In 1986, the Miami Shootout happened, where FBI agents were pitted against two violent suspects and the resulting carnage changed the way we look at gunfights.   For better or worse, the FBI began conducting tests, publishing results, and millions of reams of paper (and billionsof electronic pixels) have since been used to debate the question.

When I say everything changed, I mean everything.  Even the .40 SW cartridge was designed as a direct result of the lessons learned after that shootout.  Law enforcement agencies began adopting semi-auto pistols, ammo companies started designing better bullets.  Premium lines of self-defense ammo came into production.

Today, it's common practice to have two styles of ammo.  Good, hot self-defense ammo, and reasonably priced range ammo.  The practice is what it is.  Personally, I understand the logic of shooting good ammo and once a year or so, shooting the self-defense ammo, and buying fresh loads.  That's good practice, but for that great middle ground of shooters, the average J. Smith, they might have forgotten to replenish their supply.  The ammo in their gun might be two, three, or five years old.  That will probably never be a problem.  Good ammo normally will last for several decades before deteriorating.  I've shot ammo that was fifty years old, with nary a problem.

The simple truth is that the vast majority of CCW holders will go their whole lives with never the opportunity to use their weapons in a self-defense hooting, and for that I am mightily happy.  And, frankly, I'd rather have ten-thousand good, honest, law-abiding citizens carrying whatever they carry, regardless of what brand/caliber/action type/ or brand of ammo they carry.  That sure knowledge makes the criminals nervous.

God forbid that you're ever in a fight for your life, but in that rare circumstance, the record will probably reflect that the gun and ammo you have with you is better than the one you left at home.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go reload some range ammo.

Pondering the Im-Ponderable.

I'm jus' sayin'.

Hat tip, the Lonely Libertarian.

Fact Checking

Hat tip to Old NFO, and I'm going to leave this here so that we can find it later.

Hillary likes the Australian example, and thinks that it is worth considering.  Those are her words.  Worth Considering.

When all the spin is over, when it's all said and done, Hillary Clinton wants your guns.  It doesn't matter if you're a hunter, a collector, a recreational shooter, a Cowboy Fast Draw, or IPSC, or USPSA or SASS shooter.  Nor yet a skeet, trap, or sporting clays shooter.  Hillary wants your guns.

It doesn't matter that she's protected by the very guns, every day, that she wants to ban.  No, that doesn't matter at all.  If she gets her semi-auto ban, do you think that her protective detail is going to switch over to revolvers?  If she bans the modern sporting rifle, do you think her protective squad is going to switch over to lever rifles?  Oh, no, she's proven that she is above the law.  Much to Comey's disgrace, she now truly believes that the law doesn't apply to her or her staff.  Hillary ca do whatever-the-hell she wants to do, and

But, if you really want to know what Hillary thinks about guns, don't believe her campaign spin.  Listen to her words.



That should tell you everything that you need to know.  Hillary thinks that the Australian example is worth considering.

Just to Remember

Reading the innternets this morning, I stumbled across Joe Huffman's site.  Joe does yeoman work for the 2nd Amendment in general, and he remembers things that I had forgotten.  Like this gem from 2000.

I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun. I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry.
Hillary Clinton
June 2, 2000

Never let anyone tell you that the Democrats wouldn't take your guns if they could.

Stash Guns

Tam talks about this, and as a long-time concealed carrier, maybe I should too.  We'll start with a discussion she links to, from a detective working a murder scene:

"One of my very first murder scenes as a uniformed officer was a guy toes up halfway in/halfway out of his door and in his boxer shorts. Someone had dumped a mag of .25 in him. Evidence indicated he was gut shot, fell down, and they they emptied it into his face. I spent over 3 hours clearing guns to transport to the property room for safe keeping until next of kin could be notified. Eleventy bajillion loaded guns in the house, dead on the door step in his boxers."

 Why someone would open a door in his boxer shorts is another quesion, but in several decases of police work, I've seen that more than once.  The point is a guy laying dead in his door, and loaded guns all over the house.  Didn't do him much good, did it?

You never know when someone is going to get the drop on you, and that's a fact.  In 2000, I made a decision to have a gun on my person at all times. It became my default position, being armed.  People ask, sometimes, ask how I carry a gun to _________ (fill in the blanks.  Sometimes it's church, sometimes it's a Little game. you get the point) .

Normally, the first thing I do when I get up in the morning, is slip on a pair of jeans that is hanging at the foot of the bed. The gun is already in those jeans.  It goes with me on my daily travels. This particular gat hasn't been "put away" in over four years.  It gets cleaned and serviced occasionally, but it is the one that rides with me everywhere.

Here's the thing about being armed as a default.  If you ever run into me, and I'm not armed, it is because I made the decision to leave the gun, for reasons that are purely personal and my own.  I may have made the decision for a variety of reasons, but when I'm not packing, I am acutely aware of that fact, and I remedy it as soon as possible.  That familiar heft on my right side is part-and-parcel of my daily attire, and it feels odd when it's not there, like I decided to go out with one shoe.

I liken it to a lady going out without her purse.  Every woman I know carries a purse and when they decide NOT to carry it, that is a conscious decision.  It really is that personal.

It's not a decision for everyone.  I get that, but it's a decision I made sixteen years ago, as an experiment, and I've never regretted it.

President Obama Releasing Gun Felons

If you've been watching the news, or reading it on the Intertubes, you know that President Obama has chosen to commute the sentences of prisoners who "mostly" commit non-violent drug crimes.  That's certainly within his power, and laudable in some respects.  But once we get past the "mostly" we see that he's also releasing gun felons who were in possession of firearms during their drug crimes.  The Justice Department helpfully provides a list of those felons that he recently commuted their sentences.  For example:

  Joshua Boyer – Tampa, FL
Offense: Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine; possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense; possession of a firearm not registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; Middle District of Florida

 Reinaldo A. Arocho – Lake Station, IN
Offense: Drug conspiracy; maintaining a drug house; distribution of crack cocaine; carrying a firearm during drug trafficking; attempting to corruptly persuade a witness; Northern District of Indiana

Asher Adkins – Columbia City, IN
Offense: Distribution of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting (two counts); distribution of methamphetamine (three counts); use or carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime (two counts); distribution of more than 100 grams of methamphetamine (two counts); Northern District of Indiana

Patrick A. Brown – Alexandria, VA
Offense: Felon in possession of a firearm, aiding and abetting (two counts); possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, aiding and abetting; District of Maryland

Willie Chester – Waco, TX
Offense: Possession of a firearm by felon; false statement in acquisition of firearm; Western District of Texas

Mark Anthony Clark – Rockford, IL
Offense: Conspiracy; possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting; possession with intent to distribute amphetamine; possession of a firearm by a felon/fugitive from justice and aiding and abetting; Northern District of Texas

 Jimmie Clyde Collins – Joshua, TX
Offense: Conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute; possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting; using a drug involved premises and aiding and abetting; possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver; possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime; Northern District of Texas

I could go on, but you get the point.  "Mostly" non-violent drug offenders, but a surprising number of them (51 actually, or almost 1-in-4) was convicted of a firearms felony.  I, like most gun owners are tired of being harassed on almost a daily basis by the anti-gunners moaning about the need for more gun control.  It seems to me that President Obama is sending precisely the wrong message in releasing convicted gun felons.  It's as if he wants to demonize those of us who use guns for sport and recreation, but he'll release those convicted of serious gun felonies.

This is the Democrat's message.  They want laws against the law-abiding.  The convicted gun felons, they'll turn loose.

BATFE Whining

It seems that the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) is whining because he doesn't have a searchable national database of gun owners.

"There's a lot of things that don't make sense in this town, you know?" Brandon tells Schlesinger. "And, so, yeah, would it be efficient and effective? Absolutely. Would the taxpayers benefit with public safety? Absolutely. Are we allowed to do it? No."

That's right, Mr. Brandon, you're not allowed to have a searchable database.  In fact, you have to destroy all personal information in gun checks (Brady checks) after 24 hours.  That's the law.

Many folks don't remember GCA '68, or that later law that established Brady Checks, which came into existence after rigorous debate, a legislative battle, passage of both houses of Congress, and signed by President Bill Clinton.  It was a hard-fought battle on both sides of the aisle, but through compromise and  political wrangling both sides managed to come together.  The law became effective on February 28, 1994.  You can go to the link above for a full history.

The reason that the BATFE can't have a national registration scheme is because it is forbidden under the legislation that allowed them to start conducting background checks at all.  I remember it well, because for the NRA and freedom-loving Americans, it was a bitter pill.  We were afraid then (and with good reason) that keeping the background check information would eventually lead to a registration scheme.  We're still fighting that battle today.

I remember freedom.  In 1965, I walked into a gun shop (actually a gun club on an Air Force base), put my money on the counter, selected a firearm and walked out with nary a question asked.  I was twelve (12) years old.  Everything I did that day was perfectly legal, and absolutely illegal today.  That's the danger of creeping incrementalism.  That's the danger of big government.  They want to keep taking, one little step at a time, until freedom ceases to exist.  Like the proverbial frog in the pot, we don't realize we're being boiled until we're dead.

No, Mr. Brandon, we drew a line in the law in 1993.  You can't register our guns.  It's galling enough that you check us when we buy a gun, unlike that 12-year-old in 1965.  You can go this far, but no farther.

Let Freedom Ring.

**Update**.  Anonymous asks in comments about the gun I bought at age 12.  I bought my first gun at the old McBride Rod and Gun Club, England AFB, LA.  I was a "skeet boy" there on weekends, making the princely sum of 50 cents per hour, plus I got to shoot up the broken boxes of ammo at the end of the day.  In early 1966, I bought a Winchester Model 1200 shotgun from that club and I paid $87.50 for it.  That gun represented 175 hours of labor.  In today's dollars, figure roughtly a month's pay at minimum wage.

Bring It On

Wayne LaPierre has a clear message for Hillary Clinton.  Bring It On.

We are Freedom's safest place.  I am the NRA.

DNC Delegate Mary Bayer

The big news this morning coming out of the DNC Convention in Philly is the Project Veritas video of DNC Delegate Mary Bayer, who tells the camera that .  Well, lets go directly to the quote.

You have to take that sort of moderate, “We just wanna have commmon sense legislation so our children are safe!”

You say shit like that, and then people will buy into it.

The video has gone viral, it's all over YouTube and Facebook, and probably Twitter (I don't twitter).

Many of us have known it for decades, but when Democrats talk about "common sense legislation", what they want is an outright ban.

Thanks, Mary, for being so honest with us.  We've known this for decades, but we never thought that you'd actually say it. I understand that since Mary has taken a stand, she's telling the police that she's being harassed by reporters that want to delve more deeply into her new found celebrity.

Mary is revealed as being willing to disembowel the Second Amendment, and now that she's notorious, she's not terribly fond of the First Amendment either.  This shows how poorly Democrats stand on the Bill of Rights.  As despicable as Mary is, she's simply an unwitting pawn.  She believes this crap because she has no idea what essential liberty looks like.

She's given us an amazing gift, because in her mind, Common Sense Legislation = Total Gun Ban.

It's out in the open now, and we can use it at to our benefit.  Believe me, we'll be playing Mary's quote, over and over again.  As happy as we are with her brutal honesty, laid bare for the world to see, I an only assume that the gun banners consider her a pariah.  She placed truth on the lie of "common sense" for the whole world to see.

Thanks, Mary, now go crawl back under whichever rock you came out from.  You deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Second Amendment as Muskets

A US congressman, Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.C.) used a tired, old trope that seems to limit the US Constitution to the technology available at the time of the Founders.

“This is something as a non-lawyer that I have had trouble with from the very beginning. When the framers of our Constitution considered the Second Amendment, they were talking about muskets,” Coleman said during a news conference outside of the Capitol Building on Tuesday.

Representative Coleman is being disingenuous, and for the sake of her constituents, I hope that she's not as stupid as she sounds.  The Founders were fairly intelligent men, and they knew that technology would move forward.  Indeed, they had seen great strides during their lifetimes, and they knew that every advance made would spur other advances, in mechanics, in agriculture, in every facet of human endeavor.  Ben Franklin himself was experimenting with electricity.

The press that the Founders talked about was Franklin's press.  The speech the Founders talked about was the limit of the human voice.  The religion that the Founders talked about was Christianity.

 If we take Coleman's argument to its logical conclusion, there would be no internet, no electronic communication, no religion except Christianity in the US.  There would also be no female representatives in Congress.  Persons who seek to limit freedom to a specific time period should be very careful which time period they pick.

Representative Coleman would limit technology to a specific time period, relative to human endeavor.  I call on her to limit her office to the technology at the time of the Founders.  No electric lights, no copy machine, yet no telephones, nor even a ball-point pen.  Air conditioning? Perish that though, it wasn't invented until the beginning of the 20th Century.  The Founders certainly never envisioned that technology.

Otherwise, she's simply a self-serving hypocrite.