Quote of the day–M. Kristen Rand

That’s sheer insanity.

If you remove the background check requirement, you’re literally writing a death sentence for law enforcement officers, family members, just people in the street.

M. Kristen Rand
Legislative director for the Violence Policy Center.
January 30, 2010
Seeing Loose Gun Laws as Still Too Tight (NY Times and the AP)
Ms. Rand is referring to a proposed law to remove the requirement for a license in order to carry a concealed weapon.
[Ms. Rand also said almost the same thing in regards to relaxing Washington D.C.’s oppressive gun laws. Complete with the “lunacy” and “writing a death sentence” phrasing. Of course she ignores places like Vermont and Alaska which have low crime rates and no requirement to obtain a license to carry. And, of course, D.C. didn’t have an increase in the blood running down the street after the gun ban was overturned. But apparently in Ms. Rand’s mind that really doesn’t matter so she repeats her previously faulty prediction with just as much conviction as the previous time.

With such blatant disregard for the facts I have to conclude the only insanity involved is that of Ms. Rand. One could disregard the raving of such a lunatic if it were only her talking to parking meters on the street or other inmates in an asylum. But the New York Times and the AP apparently think there is value in sharing some of her delusions.–Joe]


6 thoughts on “Quote of the day–M. Kristen Rand

  1. I wonder if the VPC has this old Blues Traveler song as their national anthem? Lyrics from the first verse of “Hook”:

    It doesn’t matter what I say
    So long as I sing with inflection
    That makes you feel that I’ll convey
    Some inner truth of vast reflection
    But I’ve said nothing so far
    And I can keep it up for as long as it takes
    And it don’t matter who you are
    If I’m doing my job then it’s your resolve that breaks

    In other words, if you don’t have the facts, and particularly if they are working against you, just keep shrieking your point louder and more poignantly in the hopes that it will stick. Too bad for them that schtick has pretty much worn out its welcome with an increasing number of folks.

  2. Heavens! Without background checks, criminals would acquire firearms, and commit crimes with them. Can’t have that, now can we?

  3. I wonder if this fits the definition of insanity, “repeating the same thing and expecting different results.”
    Or not.

  4. Even aside from the reality that she has no factual basis to support her claims, she keeps using words (specifically: ‘literally’) and showing no obvious comprehension of their actual meanings.

    In fact, I would go so far as to say she is intentionally and flagrantly misusing words, in order to try to better support and bolster her otherwise flailing stance. Unfortunately (for her at least), some folks actually know that words have specific meanings, and this misuse is bound to simply push them farther away.

  5. Remember; liberals, progressives, socialists, communists or whatever they may be classified do not rely on or refer to facts. They have no use for facts. Facts impede/expose their agenda. Tell a lie long enough and it becomes truth. Deceit and an ignorant population are their strength.

  6. I’m reminded of a quote from Jeff Cooper in which he described the difference, as he saw it, between a civilian court and a military tribunal. The former is a contest between practitioners, while in the latter they attempt to find out what happened. Big difference.

    That “contest between practitioners” bit stuck with me, and it describes a lot of our political and social culture, even at the small community and personal levels. It doesn’t matter what position you’re arguing, you’re paid to argue, or in some way benefit from arguing, or you’re for whatever reason married to, a position. You might argue for that position as best as you are able, no matter how stupid it might be, because you believe, or feel, it is in your interest to do so. Some people are going to be swayed by it, and so it has a history of working. Truth be damned. Why, there is no truth, it has been argued, only the inability on your part to get along by seeing things my way.

    We were taught to do that back in high school. We were assigned the task of arguing opposite sides of the same issue. On one hand, you could say that it was an exercise in the art of rhetoric. On the other hand, you could call it “anti principles indoctrination”, as principles are not allowed into such an assignment if you are to be successful at both sides of it.

Comments are closed.