Day By Day


  • Malatrope

    Strange coincidence! I had the occasion to write “I yam what I yam” on another blog today. I’m not sure I’ve thought about Popeye for decades…

  • Deplorable B Woodman

    I’ll comment tomorrow. I’m off to bed.

  • JTC

    Their free speech is one thing; it is their guaranteed right.

    Their suppression of mine is quite another; it can only be accomplished by force, and the means to defend it with violence is my guaranteed right.

    Going to need some of Popeye’s other abilities than just his sailor song, and I don’t recall he ever needed no steenkin’ chinese can opener to open up his can of whupass.

    • Indeed, their “free speech” is guaranteed. As. Is. OURS!

    • Doggo

      If you can open a can with your bare hands you don’t need the spinach anyway.

  • Henry

    Fewer cans, more garden!
    Either that, or stop buying the Chinese stuff to begin with.

  • Gregory S Miller

    Just remember…HE never went swimmin’ with bowlegged wimmin.

    • interventor

      That’s pleasure bent.

  • kadaka

    Is this another of those “false flag” operations like the Dems pulled in Alabama against Judge Moore, setting up fake “conservative” groups? They’re getting better at staying hid until after the damage is done.

    NH Bill Could Strip Cops Of Authority To Use Deadly Force During Arrests

    Advocates of the bill, put forward by a group known as the Liberty Republicans, argue that the purpose of the bill is to save lives — but Chief David Goldstein of the Franklin Police Department worries that, if the bill passes, it could put his officers in danger.

    • eon

      They’re accelerating the gun control agenda. The first step is disarming the citizenry. The second is disarming the police except for “special security forces” protecting the leadership, plus “special security operatives” protecting the rest of the “enlightened elite'”.

      Another word for this is “Britain”. Which has turned out very well for their “ruling class”, plus the imported “refugee” thugs they rely upon to terrorize the peasantry.

      It says a lot that the nearest they’ve come to open revolt is the Brexit vote, which will likely be declared null and void very soon. Either by May and her clique’, or the EU backing up the next likely PM- the mayor of London.

      Once all the guns are in the hands of the “trusted minions”, things like laws and constitutions and etc. tend to be redefined as “obsolete” and “a handicap to good government”.

      clear ether


      • JTC

        “The first step is disarming the citizenry.”

        There are no other steps.


    • tom ploszaj

      Wow, finally I have a view not in line with DBD readers. I will provide some info here but I’m not going to debate this here, let’s enjoy DBD.
      The NH bill
      As a conservative in NH even I agree there has been many “fear of my life” that has not pass the “smell test” that are not in MSM. I will try to provide any DBDer from NH who would like more info on why this bill was introduced. Find me on Gab or web search.

      • GWB

        “Stripping them of the ability to use deadly force” would be an incredibly stupid and dangerous thing. But that is a headline, and therefore very suspect as concerns the actual facts.

        The problem is that every single attempt at “reining in corrupt police” seems to hamper the good ones significantly more than it does the corrupt ones. much like gun control laws.

        The whole “bad cops” thing is a morass into which I don’t desire to descend at the moment. Ugh.

      • Henry

        The bill looks entirely reasonable to me. The officer is still allowed to use deadly force in self-defense or defense of others, including in the course of an arrest if it goes south. He just cannot use deadly force simply “to effect an arrest,” which I have no problem with. I sincerely believe that no officer should be justified in using deadly force in any situation where a “civilian” would not be justified in using it.

    • Old Codger

      If they really and truly did only use it as a last resort I would be against the bill but in too many times they go in guns blazing – often shooting the person who called for help or for whom they were called to help. Instead of that approach (because they all know how to write a report to justify anything) I favor doing things a tad differently. How about if we make offenses for which deadly force would be justified, for law enforcement the defense would be an affirmative defense? By that I mean that if you or I were to be tried, we could claim some part of some statute justifying use of deadly force as our defense. In such a case the burden of proof would be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that statute did not apply. In the case of a LEO, the same statute would require that same defense would be an affirmative defense putting the burden of proof upon the defense to prove by preponderance of evidence that the defense applied. They claim LEOs are so highly trained and all so why shouldn’t they have to prove their use of deadly force was justified?

      • kadaka

        “…why shouldn’t they have to prove their use of deadly force was justified?”

        Because being a good honest police officer is hard enough and that’s already part of the post-incident review. As we’ve seen with Progressive mayors and similar administrators, cops have to worry about first having their lives and reputations destroyed by the management that’s supposed to back them up, then comes the investigations and possible trials after they’ve been thrown to the mobs, and later after they’re broke and in hiding with their family then they get cleared, and are supposed to pretend none of that mattered and the system worked.

        The best and the brightest are already being driven out of policing because they can do better and be treated better elsewhere. Keep making it harder and we’ll end up with third-world grade cops who join up for the “perks”.

        • interventor

          Look at Portland, Antifa practically rules the streets, while the police direct traffic.

      • WayneM

        Over the past couple of decades, police tactical training has changed remarkably as a direct result of…

        1) harsh & biased media criticism of police
        2) police executives’ fear of civil liability (both internal and external) 3) proliferation of video cameras often used to selectively show police in the worst light
        4) unionization of police
        5) emphasis on use of non-lethal use of force alternatives such as pepper spray, expandable batons & tasers

        Teaching police to be competent in hand-to-hand combat & maintaining those skills takes time & resources. While police are in training, they aren’t on patrol… not to mention the possibility of injuries in training & when using techniques on patrol.

        Instead, police executives allow for only minimal “last resort” self defense training. Policies direct police to maintain distance and use non-lethal alternatives unless in “fear for life”.

        Learning and maintaining hand-t0-hand combat skills raises self-confidence and allows for police to be more effective, in my humble opinion… but from what I’ve seen in the media, it appears like the “stand back and spray/baton/taser” model has been adopted by most police agencies. Pity.

        • GWB

          Yes, the removal of means of self-defense and coercion from the police repertoire is a big problem. When you give the police nothing between sweet-talk -> taser -> gun, they tend to resort to the gun or nothing.

  • CaptDMO

    Well, except that Popeye never did “swear like a sailor”
    He muttered a lot though.

  • kadaka

    Is it time to build a wall around Massachusetts?

    Boston Officials Pushing Law Requiring Doctors To Ask Patients About Their Firearms

    Boston city officials plan on pushing legislation requiring doctors to ask patients whether or not they possess firearms in their homes.

    “We’re just asking them to help identify ways to save lives,” Boston Police Commissioner William Gross told the Boston Business Journal, adding that the legislation won’t suggest that doctors should solve crimes and that owning guns won’t be included in patients’ medical records.

    The doctors must ask, for legal reasons they must record that they asked, and despite the risk of being sued for missing a “cause for concern” the answer will not be recorded? They expect us to believe that?

    The Walsh administration also proposed targeting gun violence by instituting fines up to $2,000 on gun owners’ vehicles that are used to transport “illegal weapons.”

    To own a firearm in Massachusetts you must apply for and get approved for a Firearms Identification Card (FID), anything in your vehicle if you or the actual owner doesn’t have one is an “illegal weapon”. Hope you weren’t planning to drive through the state on a hunting trip.

    • Deplorable B Woodman

      Sounds like I may not be attending my HS 50th reunion after all.

    • PaulS

      Wait a damn minute!
      Illegal weapon = Undocumented Weapon= Guest weapon.
      Black Rifles Matter!

    • Old Codger

      “Excuse me, Doctor, but since that information has nothing to do with my health it is none of your (this part optional: FEKKING) business!”


      “Sorry, Doc, I couldn’t say.” And if the Doc persists then response above would come into play (with optional language).

      • gruundehn

        Start with: Doctor, since you are acting as an agent of the State Government, according to the 4th and 14th Amendments to the Federal Constitution (which overrules any State Law) you are required to present a Search Warrant to me before asking that question.

    • interventor

      I expect the Federal Firearm Owners Act still applies. Firearm unloaded and locked in truck, or not accessible to driver and passengers.

      • Henry

        Massachusetts generally respects that. New Jersey and NYC are a different story.

  • Deplorable B Woodman

    Sounds like Mama Sam is trying to do too much multitasking. Bring one of the teens in to open the cans for her, save Sam the grief.
    And as was mentioned above, buy a better can opener.

    • kadaka

      I want to see Sam engineer a better can opener. That should be fun.

      At least it’s not a “John Wayne” P-38 can opener. Which is somehow worse than the hook can opener I had on an old “Camp King” pocketknife. Fun times.

      • eon

        The P-51 opener is almost better. Note that having either one in your possession when trying to fly commercial displeases TSA severely.

        clear ether


      • JTC

        Yeah they engineered integral openers already,
        canned veggie poptops.

        Not much fun, I really wanted to see her squeeze it open!

        Hope Samuel likes spinach milk.

      • interventor

        I have a couple of old US made can openers that can zip thru a no. 10 can. But, still like my p-38. Have a small sack of them, still in the paper.

  • Deplorable B Woodman

    Free speech? Safe space? PPV?
    Oh, HELL no!

  • Wood

    I’ve long been a proponent of walling in the big cities that try to wag the dog. And while I am in favor of state preemption laws, I’d say these walled off cities can do whatever they please, but their cancer will be contained. Divide their electoral vote by population to “handicap” them to eliminate the big city advantage. Install valves for water into the city. All goods are shipped in anyway, nothing originated in a city without raw materials going in first.

    “Embargo on!”

  • Pete231

    Best can opener ever was made in 1911…..

  • Halley

    Sam is, indeed, a very sweet potato.
    Puts me in the mood for some pop tarts..

  • Pamela

    Sam’s using a can opener?

    • John

      Just peeling back the lid with her bare hands is really hard on the manicure.

      • GWB

        She’s not getting a good enough manicure, then. 😉

  • Strnj1 (Old Mechanic)

    Check out the Free Speech site, or,

  • James Gemind

    I posted this to Baen’s Bar(Politics);

    What if there was a special election nationwide, with one simple on the ballot;

    Should America build a Wall along the southern border? Yes No

    ONLY US Citizens, who can prove they are registered Voters, are allowed to vote. Absentee Ballots have up to ten working days after the date of the election/Vote to be presented, Overseas Ballots have fifteen working days. Simple majority determines the outcome.

    Screaming fits may commence in 3… 2… 1…

    Yes, I can be evil… 🙂

  • GWB

    BTW, is Sam bleeding into that pot?!?


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.