Monthly Archives: July 2009

Hopeful?

Posted on by

Paul Helmke says he is hopeful:

I am hopeful that our Congress will now start addressing proactive measures to reduce gun violence in this country by doing things like requiring background checks for all gun sales, particularly at gun shows.  We make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in America.

Emphasis in the original.

Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center, has similar thoughts:

Today’s legislative victory reinvigorates us in the fight for stricter gun control laws. The next target of the gun control community will be passage of national legislation to close the so-called “gun show loophole” by requiring stringent Brady background checks on all gun purchases. Hopefully this victory will give momentum to efforts of the administration, Congress and the gun control advocacy community to enact strong and safe gun control measures, like this one, that will protect the sanctity and value of human life.

Why do “dangerous people” have access to the general population? Shouldn’t they be locked up in prison? Do we also make it too easy for “dangerous people” to get gasoline and matches? How about clubs, knives, and pointy sticks?

They were only able to get 39 votes in the Senate to stop legislation that I wouldn’t have dreamed would even come up for consideration a year ago. Their “gun show loophole” mantra has been going on for at least ten years and they are “hopeful” now is the time for it? They have mental problems. But we already knew that.

Quote of the day–Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox

Posted on by

We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of selfdefense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Given the importance of this issue, the vote on Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

Wayne LaPierre
Chris Cox
July 23, 2009
Letter to the Senate on the Sotomayor confirmation vote.
[It’s no different than a judge who does not agree the 13th amendment guarantees a fundamental right. It’s repugnant and a sign of a great sickness in our society that we even have to debate this.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Martin Armstrong

Posted on by

Most of the central banks have a lot of PHDs, with no real world experience. They have read books, but have not been in the trench to “feel” what it is truly like. This is why government employees rarely have anything worthwhile that will ever contribute to society. There is not a single economic statistic that is even valid, no less any plausible guide as to what is going on. There are manipulated so much to try and influence the “public confidence” that it becomes a joke.

Martin Armstrong
July 10, 2009
The Goldman Sachs Conspiracy. The Real Dark Pool. Page 4.
[Sent to me by Chet with the comment, “Tinfoil Hat needed?”

I told him my hat was double lined already.–Joe]

National concealed carry reciprocity

Posted on by

I’m a little surprised by the stiff resistence put up by the bigots on the Thune Amendment. Here and here are just two of many, many examples of PSH.

I’m also a little surprised our side hasn’t been defending a little stronger or that the bigots don’t realize what they are setting themselves up for.

How is this any different than states having different criteria for marriage and divorce. Some states allow people to marry as young as 14. Others don’t. Some states require blood tests or waiting periods. Others don’t. Yet each state must recognized the marriage licenses of all the other states.

How is this any different than states having different criteria for drivers license?

And don’t both sides realize that nearly the same arguements can be used by the other side if the discussion was about homosexual marriage?

If the anti-gun Democrats were smart they would agree to vote for it if homosexual marriage licenses were recognized nationwide as well. Sort of a poison pill for the more conservative types.

I think that would make the fights far more interesting. Popcorn anyone? I think Roberta has some.

Constitutional law advice for Sotomayor

Posted on by

Bitter and Sebastian has been pointing out just how bad nominee Sotomayor is on the right to keep and bear arms. This is probably the most damning.

She does not want to admit that people have a right to self-defense. She is smart enough to know it is a slippery slope to the acknowledgment of the right to keep and bear arms if she were to admit that. The British have learned that lesson sliding down the slope in the other direction–if there is no right to keep and bear arms then there is no right to self-defense.

Alan Korwin gives Sotomayor some pointers on what the U.S. Supreme Court has said about self-defense. It’s not a question mark at all. The conclusion:

The Supreme Court has recognized, addressed and answered all the most fundamental questions about self defense. The idea that they have never addressed this core American issue is completely false, as the numerous cases clearly demonstrate.

SKS assault type rifles

Posted on by

After reading the press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office one might be inclined to agree the guy was a risk to society. The prosecuting attorney was able to convince a jury the guy had been previously convinced of one or more felonies and was found in possession of one or more firearms. I don’t necessarily agree with that law (for example: certain consensual sexual acts have been, and may still be, considered felonies) but it is the law. What really bugs me about the press release is what they say the guns were:

According to testimony at trial and records in the case, on August 23, 2007, the Skagit County Sheriff’s Office High Risk Team executed a search warrant at THOMPSON’s house in rural Skagit County. They seized eight firearms, including one that was in a holster in THOMPSON’s wheelchair. The eight guns were two SKS assault type rifles, a Winchester .243 caliber semiautomatic rifle, a Colt Woodsman .22 caliber semiautomatic pistol, a Davis Industries .380 caliber semiautomatic pistol, a Ruger Blackhawk .357 caliber revolver, a Browning .32 caliber semiautomatic pistol and a Reck .22 caliber revolver.

The emphasis is mine.

Only in a few states has the SKS been considered an “assault weapon” and never, to the best of my knowledge, has the law ever declared an SKS to be an “assault rifle”. And since this was a Federal prosecution Federal law should control the definition. The SKS wasn’t even considered an “assault weapon” let alone an “assault rifle” under the now obsolete “assault weapon ban” of 1994.

The U.S. Attorney’s office appears to be attempting to demonize an ordinary semi-automatic, constitutionally protected, firearm.

I sent them the following email:

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:22 AM
To: ‘Emily.Langlie@USDOJ.Gov’
Subject: Skagit county felon sentenced to prison for illegal gun possession.

 

I am a blogger focusing on guns and gun rights. My blog can be found at https://blog.joehuffman.org/.

 

I just read the press release I found here. I was rather annoyed at something I saw in the press release. The SKS rifles found in Thompson’s possession are described as “SKS assault type rifles”. The Attorney’s office almost certainly knows the 1994 Federal law defining “assault weapons” and banning certain firearms never included SKS rifles and even if it had that law is no longer in effect. Furthermore “assault rifle”, as opposed to “assault weapon”, has a very specific meaning to the U.S. military and the SKS rifle does not qualify as an “assault rifle”.

 

I can only think of three possible explanations for the U.S. Attorney’s office to use incorrect terminology. This terminology is always used in a derogatory fashion.

 

1)      The U.S. Attorney’s office has an agenda above and beyond the enforcement of Federal law—demonization of a constitutionally protected activity.

2)      The U.S. Attorney’s office is ignorant of U.S. firearms law.

3)      The U.S. Attorney’s office is careless with the facts.

 

All of these potential explanations are very discomforting to me as a gun owner. Could you please provide a correction and/or explain why an SKS rifle was described as an “assault type rifle”?

 

Thank you.

 

Joe Huffman

Update: I received a response from the public affairs person:

From: Langlie, Emily (USAWAW) [mailto:Emily.Langlie@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:38 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: Skagit county felon sentenced to prison for illegal gun possession.

 

Mr. Huffman –

I have attached the trial brief that I used to draft the press release.  You will note on page 2 a list of weapons found at the home.  The first two read as follows:

A. One SKS assault type rifle with wood stock;

B. One SKS assault type rifle with synthetic stop and a pistol grip;

 

I am not a lawyer, nor am I a gun expert.  I summarize the court proceedings for the general public who do not, in general, have the narrow focus that you have reading our press releases.  The defendant was prohibited from possessing ANY of the firearms because he is a convicted felon.    I simply described them as they are described in court papers. 

 

None of your three explanations are correct.  I will forward your email to the attorney who tried the case and wrote the trial brief so that he is aware of the distinction that you are drawing regarding these firearms.

 

 

Emily Langlie

Public Affairs Officer

United States Attorney’s Office

Western District of Washington

(206) 553-4110

My response (trial brief is here):

From: Joe Huffman 
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:32 AM
To: ‘Langlie, Emily (USAWAW)’
Subject: RE: Skagit county felon sentenced to prison for illegal gun possession.

 

Thank you for responding and forwarding it to the attorney who wrote the brief.

 

Reading the trial brief actually makes the situation worse. I thought perhaps there was some carelessness in the translation from the court papers to the news release. But that is clearly not the case. It also provides further evidence that the attorney and/or his experts are either ignorant of firearms or careless.

 

Item B.  One SKS assault type rifle with synthetic stop and a pistol grip.

 

The correct word is “stock”, not “stop”.

 

From reading the brief it sounds as if the attorney may have merely replicated data from the Sheriff’s office. In which case the primary error would have been made by them and only propagated by the U.S. attorney.

 

I understand that any firearm possessed by Thompson would constitute a criminal act and I’m not saying the type of firearm or how it is described would, or should have, changed the outcome of the trial in any way. I am concerned by the language the attorney is using. Using the term “assault” in regards to an ordinary firearm in common usage is similar to calling someone a “nigger” when the color of their skin is irrelevant to alleged crime. It shows a disrespect or ignorance for existing law or a prejudiced mindset.

 

Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my concerns.

 

Regards,

 

 

Joe Huffman

If I had a TV

Posted on by

If I had a TV and cable I might actually watch an episode or two of this:

LOCK ‘N LOAD is a six-part reality series offering viewers a fly on the wall experience at “The Shootist” gun store in Englewood, Colorado. Salesman Josh T. Ryan is always in full-on pitch mode and for every gun sold by this expert gunslinger at this family-owned store, there’s a fascinating story and a fascinating buyer.

LOCK ‘N LOAD doesn’t take sides or argue a political perspective. Instead, viewers on both sides of the issue will be able to watch Ryan, a born salesman, wield his patented quick-draw humor and inherent likeability in each exchange, making jokes and big-ticket deals over the blasts echoing from the firing range down below. And all is done before hidden cameras which will only be revealed after the transaction is completed in order to insure a particularly candid and compelling point of view. America is and will probably always be fascinated with the gun culture in our country and this show will help to explain why.

Maybe I can watch them on-line. The promos are intriguing.

Quote of the day–Kevin Baker

Posted on by

You, Mr. Rubin, are fertilizing that weed with the manure you published in your “irrefutable” column.

Kevin Baker
July 20, 2009
Refuting the “Irrefutable”
[Kevin also uses the word “bigot” three times in his post which made me smile a great deal because Kevin listened to my little speech about that a few years ago.

Closely related is that for todays QOTD I was quite tempted by Robb Allen who said, “The other side has emotional appeals, a complete lack of facts to back up their assertions, and an appalling lack of apostrophes. We have Kevin Baker.”–Joe]

The rest of the story

Posted on by

As we in the gun-rights community have often noted the anti-gun people have to cheat to win. Here is another attempt to cheat:

In Walt Whitman’s political tract, “The Eighteenth Presidency,” an attack on the dreadful state of American governance in 1856, he trained his sights on the “nominating dictators” of American political life. “Who are they?” he asked. The answer:

“Office-holders, office-seekers, robbers, pimps, exclusives, malignants, conspirators, murderers, fancy-men, post-masters, custom-house clerks, contractors, kept-editors, spaniels well-trained to carry and fetch, jobbers, infidels, disunionists, terrorists, mail-riflers, slave-catchers, pushers of slavery, creatures of the President, creatures of would-be Presidents, spies, blowers, electioneerers, body-snatchers, bawlers, bribers, compromisers, runaways, lobbyers, sponges, ruined sports, expelled gamblers, policy backers, monte-dealers, duelists, carriers of concealed weapons, blind men, deaf men, pimpled men, scarred inside with the vile disorder, gaudy outside with gold chains made from the people’s money and harlot’s money twisted together; crawling, serpentine men, the lousy combings and born freedom sellers of the earth.”

Emphasis in the original.

What the bigot didn’t mention is that the open carry of weapons was perfectly normal and acceptable at that time.

Update: After reading a comment to this post I realized I was easily misunderstood. When I said “Here is another attempt to cheat” I was referring to Mike Beard who wrote the post I linked to. Not Walt Whitman. Beard is saying people that want to carry concealed weapons have long been regarded as low-life. Beard failed to tell the rest of the story which does not match his agenda. I don’t have a problem with Whitman saying what he did because the culture was such that open carry and weapon possession in general was just fine. It was the concealment that was considered a problem. Beard wants to create a culture, and has largely succeeded, where weapons possession in general is a mark of a low-life and attempts to obtain support from history for his position.

Too sarcastic?

Posted on by

As I noted this morning James Higham in the U.K. is challenging the utility of gun bans. I chimed in with a somewhat sarcastic comment on his blog:

CherryPie said, I don’t agree with arms in our own homes that is the thin end of the wedge and would lead to complete lawlessness.

That is an interesting hypothesis. Can you demonstrate where this has actually happened?

My experience has been that when a gun has been put in the hands of an individual they are no more or less law abiding than they were before the gun was in their hands. I’ve even put a gun in the hands of a guy from England to test the hypothesis that Brits can’t be trusted with guns. I didn’t really believe that hypothesis but I thought I should test it because apparently the British government believes it to be true.

He took a few shots then then told me, “It’s just a piece of metal! I thought I would be nearly overcome by a sense of power. But it’s just a piece of metal.”

Yup. Just a piece of metal. And he was no more inclined to shoot someone than he would have been inclined to hit someone if the piece of metal had been the shape of a hammer or to cut someone if the metal was in the shape of a knife. A similar experiment with another Brit yielded similarly benign results.

I admit it’s a very small sample size but at this time I’m disinclined to believe the presence of firearms in British homes represents a greater risk of lawlessness than does the presence of knives and/or hammers.

Perhaps you have access to some data which I do not and can share it with me.

Was I too sarcastic? Not enough? Or was it just about right?

Nationalized health care

Posted on by

Nationalizing our health care system doesn’t just fail my Jews in the Attic Test, it’s bad for your health as well.

See also:

Barb works in the medical profession and I would tell you what she thinks of government involvement in health care but I try to keep the language here acceptable for polite society.

And I thought I was rebellious

Posted on by

I pay cash for nearly everything I can. Rent and utilities for the underground bunker in the Seattle area, and most of my gasoline, ammo, guns, and range fees are all paid for with cash.

I don’t hesitate to call people advocating gun control bigots or say they have mental problems.

I encouraged Barb to keep her own name when we got married (which she did). And that was nearly 33 years ago when it was far less common than it is now.

I advocate pushing the limits of what is acceptable and pushing buttons in people. I challenge people to make them think and to slow down the encroachment upon our freedoms.

I’ve started open carrying in certain places.

But a fellow Idaho resident makes me look a bit pathetic in my timid attempts at rebellion. See how she handled the marriage license and the SSN. I’m proud she lives in the same town as I (sometimes) do.

Quote of the day–James Higham

Posted on by

There was a time when it was not necessary to defend oneself in this country of ours. There was a time when an Englishman’s home was his castle. There was a time when a Briton wouldn’t dream of being armed.

That time has passed.

James Higham
July 20, 2009
[defending ourselves] the time has come
[James lives in the U.K. and is saying the gun and self-defense bans aren’t working and it’s time to change things. It is a little more timid than I would (and do) approach the subject but perhaps that is more appropriate when dealing with these people.

James uses several of the references I provided via email (and blog post). He also quotes Just One Question and my Jews in the Attic Test. Thanks for the links James.

So far the comments are essentially neutral. Perhaps people are thinking about it rather than just lashing out. If so, then perhaps there is hope for them yet.–Joe]

Quote of the day–George Rengert & John Wasilchick

Posted on by

Only 13% of U.S. residential burglaries are attempted against occupied homes. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Household Burglary, BJS BULL. at 4 (1985). Criminologists attribute the prevalence of daytime burglary to burglars’ fear of confronting an armed occupant; burglars report that they avoid late-night home invasions because, “That’s the way you get yourself shot.”

George Rengert & John Wasilchick
Suburban Burglary: A Tale of Two Suburbs page 33.
(2nd ed. 2000)(study of Delaware County, Penn., and Greenwich, Conn.)
[This disincentive goes away if the victims have been disarmed. In fact it then becomes beneficial to “visit” when the victims are present so they can obtain wallets with cash, credit cards, and the combination to the safe.–Joe]

Questions for Mike Lux?

Posted on by

I’ll be soon be attending an meeting where Mike Lux will be speaking. I probably will get a chance to ask a question or maybe two. Do you have any questions for him?

His bio:

Mike Lux is the co-founder and CEO of Progressive Strategies. Since starting the company, Mike has launched a number of important projects, including American Family Voices, an issue advocacy group working on pocketbook issues for American families; and the Progressive Donor Network, which works to coordinate a network of individual donors, issue advocacy groups, and top flight political consultants and strategists.

Mike’s recent projects have garnered a considerable amount of media coverage in The Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Business Week, National Journal, The New Republic and Miami Herald, and have provoked numerous attacks by Rush Limbaugh and other right wing media figures, as well as an “expose” by William Buckley’s National Review Magazine.

In addition to those projects, Mike serves on the boards of several important organizations, including the Arca Foundation. In addition to serving on the board, Mike was also a co-founder of Americans United for Change, Center for Progressive Leadership, Grassroots Democrats, Progressive Majority, Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, and Women’s Voices/Women Vote. He also played a role in helping launch the Center for American Progress and Air America.

In the late 1990’s, Mike was Senior Vice President for Political Action at People For the American Way (PFAW), and the PFAW Foundation. He oversaw lobbying and legal advocacy, field operations, state and regional offices, voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts. He helped launch the PFAW PAC and the PFAW Voters Alliance in 1997. He was also responsible for coalition building with other organizations and interest groups.

Before joining People For the American Way, from January 1993 to mid-1995, Mike served as Special Assistant to President Clinton for Public Liaison in the White House, where his role on health care and budget issues involved working closely with a wide range of constituency groups including labor, seniors, churches, disability groups, businesses, health care providers, trial lawyers, consumer groups and farm groups. He organized the first clergy breakfast, the first state opinion leader’s days, and the first bill signing ceremony of the Clinton presidency. Lux served in the 1992 campaign war room, the 1993 budget war room and the 1994 health care war room (being one of only two people to serve in all three); and was the person who organized the coalition to fight the school lunch cuts the Republicans were pushing in 1995, the first issue they were soundly defeated on after taking control of Congress.

Prior to his service at the White House, Mike served as Constituency Director on both the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign and the presidential transition team. In the 1988 cycle, Mike was a member of the senior staff for the Biden and Simon presidential campaigns. In the 1984 cycle, he played a major volunteer role in the Iowa Mondale campaign.

With a diverse breadth of experience, Mike has an extensive background in the consulting, labor and consumer advocacy worlds. He was a partner and cofounder of the Chicago-based political consulting firm, The Strategy Group; served as Executive Vice President, PAC director and chief lobbyist for the Iowa AFL-CIO in the early 1990s; and worked as Executive Director of the Iowa Citizen Action Network.

In July of 2007, Mike Lux launched OpenLeft.com with prominent bloggers Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers. OpenLeft.com is a news, analysis and action website dedicated toward building a progressive governing majority in America. OpenLeft.com connects establishment progressive groups with outsider activists in conversations and a variety of projects to build a progressive governing majority and furthering progressive policy.

In November of 2008, Mike was named to the Obama-Biden Transition Team. In that role, he served as an advisor to the Public Liaison on dealings with the progressive community and has helped shape the office of Public Liaison based on his past experience working on the Clinton-Gore Transition, as well as in the White House.

On January 14, 2009, Lux released his first book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be. Lux’s book was published by Wiley Publishing.

Quote of the day–Dmitry Orlov

Posted on by

Food. Shelter. Transportation. Security. Security is very important. Maintaining order and public safety requires discipline, and maintaining discipline, for a lot of people, requires the threat of force. This means that people must be ready to come to each other’s defense, take responsibility for each other, and do what’s right. Right now, security is provided by a number of bloated, bureaucratic, ineffectual institutions, which inspire more anger and despondency than discipline, and dispense not so much violence as ill treatment. That is why we have the world’s highest prison population. They are supposedly there to protect people from each other, but in reality their mission is not even to provide security; it is to safeguard property, and those who own it. Once these institutions run out of resources, there will be a period of upheaval, but in the end people will be forced to learn to deal with each other face to face, and Justice will once again become a personal virtue rather than a federal department.

Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices

For our fellow freedom fighters in the UK

Posted on by

I received a request for help from James in the UK. Here was my response (actually sent in two pieces, but combined here):

I would like to suggest you follow the links in the post Just One Question. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reviewed a number of studies and was unable to conclude gun control made people safer. That review, and the studies they looked at, are probably the most reliable data points.

The following links are not to statistics. The CDC study would be the best reference I have for that.

I don’t have it but I think this book would be very useful:

http://www.joyceleemalcolm.com/books/guns_and_violence

I’ve read a few excerpts and it seemed quite good.

This might also be worthwhile:

http://www.joyceleemalcolm.com/books/keep_and_bear_arms

For more background and potential ways to approach the problem take a look at these:

https://blog.joehuffman.org/?s=%22James%20Kelly%22&submit=Search
https://blog.joehuffman.org/category/places-without-guns/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/britain-is-capital-of-crime-says-us-tv-channel-715251.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Good luck!

Update:

Gun control also violates my Jews in the Attic Test.

Quote of the day–Howard Nemerov

Posted on by

Don’t like Jews or Catholics? Hitler disarmed them and then murdered millions in concentration camps, along with Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.

Hate Christians? After Uganda banned guns, 300,000 were rounded up and murdered.

Don’t like “smart” people? After banning guns, Cambodia rounded up and murdered over one million of them.

Hate people who disagree with you? After the Soviet Union established gun control, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.

By comparison, the Second Amendment has actually saved millions of lives. It also protects your right to religious freedom, your pursuit of happiness, and your opportunity for upward mobility. It raises the cost for thugs who want you rounded up and murdered.

It also shows that anybody who is against the civil right of self-defense is a person who hates your life, liberty, and happiness.

Why would you want to be disarmed before such a person?

Howard Nemerov
July 16, 2009
Does civilian gun ownership cause bloodshed?
[Just a friendly reminder of the costs of weapon restrictions. And can you tell me again–just what are the benefits?

I have to conclude the people advocating weapons restrictions are either ignorant or consider the costs listed above are actually benefits. Since information is so readily available the ignorance is willful hence no matter how you look at it such people are contemptable no matter how they arrive at their position of restricting the private ownership of weapons.–Joe]

He’s really on our side, right?

Posted on by

Sometimes “The Gun Guy” is so far out that it’s like a caricature. But he’s further out than I could portray even if I tried. Case in point:

If the gun lobby gets its way in Congress, the following scenarios might become all too real:

  • You’re visiting an elderly family member at the hospital when you see a gruff man in the parking lot adjusting his loaded and deadly handgun in his belt. You inform the nurse that there is a dangerous and armed man outside and the nurse informs you that it is “legal” for the gun owner to carry a concealed weapon only steps away from the hospital entrance.
  • You’re walking through the park with your kids on a sunny day eating ice cream when you see two men pull up in a dark SUV. As you walk by, you see them take two handguns out of the glove box and stick them in their jackets. You immediately call 9-1-1 to inform the police that there are armed men in a park with families and children, but the police tell you that unless their is cause, the armed men are perfectly legal carrying deadly weapons in family-friendly locations.
  • You’re at a coffee shop sipping your latte when you see a woman with a handgun casually tucked inside her purse chatting away on her cell phone and says she’s from out of state. You’re terrified at the sight of the weapon knowing that children are present. You ask an employee why loaded handguns are allowed at a coffee shop and the barista says that the owner still hasn’t posted a sign explicitly prohibiting carrying concealed weapons and therefore it’s permitted.

A gruff man with a handgun is known to be dangerous? “A gruff man with a handgun” describes a fair number of police officers.

He puts quotes around the word legal? It’s currently legal in nearly all states. So what is his point? The proposed law wouldn’t make the described scenarios any more or less legal.

Armed men in the park? I’ve done this more times than I could count and I know lots of people that do it. It’s currently legal in nearly all states. So what is his point?

Women at a coffee shop with a gun in her purse–and his point is? Oh, yeah. He’s terrified.

If he were talking about blacks or homosexuals that way it would be virtually impossible for him to get or keep a job. But since it is gun owners he is talking about he gets paid by the Joyce Foundation to spew hate at such a ridiculous level it’s difficult to not believe it is a deliberate farce.

Either Scott Vogel is conning the Joyce Foundation or he is really wacko. I’m really not sure which.

Quote of the day–H. Ray Golenor

Posted on by

Some people so treasure the truth that they use it with great economy.

H. Ray Golenor
[I got this from someone else I traded quote databases with and I don’t know if this guy even exists. There are numerous references to this same quote by the same guy, but nothing else that I could see in a quick web search. One has to wonder if politicians made him “disappear” or something.–Joe]