Quote of the day—Bob Doherty ‏@BobDohertyACP

#SanBernadino shooters reportedly used semi-automatic assault rifles, allowing them to kill so many, so quickly. Ban them, now! #gunsense

Bob Doherty ‏@BobDohertyACP
Tweeted December 2, 2015
[Via a tweet from Linoge.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]


30 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Bob Doherty ‏@BobDohertyACP

  1. But, but, but…. California already has the “bullet button” requirement, preventing rapid reload of semi-autos. And they have mag capacity limits as well. You mean those laws didn’t work? We need to make those features illegaller?

    I guess ol’ Bob here doesn’t have any commentary on the pipe bombs they built, and apparently planned to detonate later.

    • It was the easy availability of rifles and pistols that made it possible for them to go to Home Depot and buy pipe for the bombs.
      Considering that as Tam said once, 80% Sten gun receivers are available in Lowes (and also OSH and Home Depot), once the sheep are de-hooved it won’t stop until the camps.

    • I just received in the mail today the CRPA revised (3rd edition) legal book for California gun laws.

      It is thick and every page of it is a violation of the Second Amendment.

      Now, if Mr. Bob Doherty would kindly bend over, I will shove it up his backside to prove that there are already too many unConstitutional laws and infringements on my rights here and they did not do squat in this situation.

      He’s also welcome to lead the “stick” going into my house for gun confiscation to enforce his proposed ban. Meanwhile I propose we ban his First Amendment right to utter such nonsense.

  2. nonsense.

    taking control of a crowded room with people sitting in subservient submission, allowed so many to be killed so quickly. and, of course, taking place in a “gun free” zone had something to do with it.

    anyone consider the role of islam in this? the “little mother” tweeted her loyalty to big mo during the shooting. go figure.

    • Not the Dhimmis — I mean Democrats — er, Leftists, but I repeat myself.

      • Dhimmis, the criminal class, Marxists, Progressives, The Dark Side, communists, Fascists, the enemies of liberty, Republicans, the cleptocracy; It has many names and it invents new ones on a regular basis, but it’s all the same thing..

    • Since when was this a “gun free zone”?

      Do you realize that a guy with a gun watched the gunmen drive away but didn’t shoot at them? It was in the news the day it happened.

      • Seriously? All of California is a de facto gun free zone. San Bernardino (as a county) has around .07% (that’s .0007) of their total population that has permits to carry a firearm. Add to that, the fact that California itself has very stringent carry rules concerning what kinds of guns can be carried, places that they can be carried, etc.

        But, you knew that. You’re just playing the fool and asking because the building itself wasn’t specifically labelled as a gun free zone, right? How cute, it’s almost as if you thought you had a point.

        Lastly, please post a video or story link to the “guy” or it didn’t happen. A person can claim all kinds of things, but if you are going to indicate that an armed citizen (or police officer) chose not to engage even when he had the opportunity, you need to provide the link.

        • “places that they can be carried”

          You know, that’s the weird thing about California gun laws. There are so few CCWs in a lot of places that guns can be carried all over — even on school grounds. I don’t believe I have ever seen a “No guns” sign here in LA.

          • Which goes to prove my first point. California is a de facto gun free zone. There’s no need to put up a “no guns allowed here” sign when for all practical purposes, nobody can carry guns there anyway. That would be like putting up a “no guns beyond this point” sign inside a building that is marked “no guns allowed” on the outside. Even leftists can figure that one out.

            California is the gun banners’ wet dream. It has every possible law you’ve asked for, short of outright confiscation of people’s arms. Despite the A-rating from the Brady bunch and all those ineffective laws, the criminal/terrorists continue to do what we have always said they would be able to do. They get their guns through another means. If it were somehow feasible to actually deny them the ability to get guns, they’d use something else.

            Banning guns doesn’t stop criminals/terrorists from using them, any more than writing a law banning murder stops murder. It only enables the government to pursue charges against those who violate the law. And it provides a wonderful disincentive to those who are most likely to need a gun, the law abiding. The law abiding will not purposefully engage in law breaking, so they will not obtain a firearm illegally, nor carry it illegally, and thus they are disarmed sheep before the attacking wolves. This is the folly of gun free zones.

            The terrorists chose California for a reason. Just like they’ll choose NYC, or Chicago, or Baltimore, or Hawaii. Or any of a dozen other places where guns are banned for the law abiding.

            Changing gears, thank you for the link. I agree also Braden Lynch that in that circumstance, he did the right thing for him and those around him. He did not know for a fact that the SUV was indeed involved. He suspected it, and it turns out to be the correct suspicion.

            Imagine had he opened fire on the vehicle, only to discover that the people inside were not suspects but victims who had sought an escape, only to be set upon by him. It would have been the very first example of the oft-claimed but never happened “gun owners making things worse.”

            Instead, he kept his wits about him, reported what he saw and this enabled the police to find the suspects. But you’re upset (is that why you mentioned it?) he didn’t engage them?

          • One small point: He did know for a fact that the gunman was in that car because he was the one who told the police the gunman had left in a black SUV with Utah plates. There were other interviews with this guy where he gave additional information. I’m not faulting him for not shooting — I’m just saying that it’s wrong to say “no one had a gun.”

        • There are too many stories for me to find it. He was the one who reported the black Yukon originally. He was outside, hiding behind something, when he saw the gunmen.

          • “Me, my family, my employees and our neighbors in the building across from us were glad that I was carrying a weapon when this happened. We at least knew we had some kind of protection if we needed it. I wasn’t going to travel onto their property to get involved — just because it’s not my property — but I went up to the edge of it and that was as close as I really needed to be getting to the whole situation. If they came at me it would have been a different story.”

            Did you read the last paragraph ubu52? Kind of discredits you even more if that is possible.
            Would you have preferred if this CCW holder had stormed in or just opened fire on the black SUV which he could not see inside and may not have been involved at all. The goal of CCW is usually for your own protection and maybe those immediately around you. It is not an open invitation to insert yourself everywhere. If you want to run towards the sound of gunfire you are at great risk. I do not fault this guy at all. I think those that do intervene outside their personal immediate area should get medals.

            The real issue is that we need Constitutional Carry everywhere in the United States and then we will have people armed at most every scene and these attacks will be thwarted more often.

          • Guns everywhere? Why don’t you move to Iraq or Syria or somewhere where they already have this? Then you can see how peaceful it is and how effective arming everyone is.

            Anyway, everyone keeps saying no one had a gun — but someone did. Also, I’m not sure he had a CCW or just kept a gun at his place of business (both of which are legal).

  3. Anyone that doesn’t believe that the left’s ultimate goal is confiscation is seriously effing stupid

  4. Our government is protecting the criminals and the Islamists. Further disarming Americans will protect the criminal class even more. That’s all there ever was to the concept of gun restriction.

  5. I have followed Bob Doherty’s writings, among others, on kevinmd.com/blog. For those of you who don’t know, ACP stands for the American College of Physicians, an ignorant anti-gun group. Outside of guns, Doherty can be counted on to toe the line on any big government program, such as obamacare. He is a tool.


  6. I don’t suppose it would do any good to point out the fact that there’s no such thing as a semiautomatic assault rifle, or in the broader sense, that words mean things and so if one wants to use words then one should at least make some attempt to know what they mean beforehand.

    It says something about a person when he uses fake terms when he should, and easily could, know better. It proves, right there, that he is being deceitful. We’ll call it a “mark of the beast” because it fits. You can spot it in an instant. Remember it.

    As I’ve put it in the past; anyone who genuinely cares about the subject would already have looked these things up and would already know. That they don’t look it up and they don’t know, is incontrovertible proof that they don’t genuinely care, that their motives are ulterior (I looked up “ulterior” many years ago, ALL BY MYSELF, so I could better describe the anti-gun movement, see?).

    If someone thinks the term “assault rifle” is super sexy or scary or whatever, and he wishes to talk about it, the first thing he’d do is look it up so he knows precisely what an assault rifle actually is, so as to satiate his curiosity (because he cares, right? Because he really, really cares a whole big bunch) and also when he talks about it he can have a modicum of credibility. If he doesn’t care to look it up, then he, a) doesn’t care about the truth, or b) is actively avoiding the truth. Neither option speaks well of the man. 100% of the anti-gun/anti -liberty movement falls either into a or b.

    Once again then; all the anti-liberty movement has to run on is obfuscation, lies, more lies, and lies upon lies. It has become an industry, and we have been funding it. It’s a Lord of the Flies world and it’s our fault because we don’t want to make the children mad at us.

    • Yes, words mean things. And, according to Rep Sanchez, the words that are scary are multiautomatic round weapons that are the most dangerous.
      Yeah. Riiight….
      And you think you should be writing laws?
      Ms Sanchez, I think a very small town somewhere is missing the village idiot.

      • Those guns must use a “30 caliber clip” and the “thing that goes up.”
        She’s of the same stupid class as Keven DeLeon, Diana DeGette and Carolyn McCarthy.

        These idiots know absolutely nothing about guns, or much of anything else for that matter.

        They are nothing more (as are most politicians) than reliable ‘rubber stamps’ for their partei’s proposed legislation. The bills they introduce are found in their email inbox, or laid upon their desks by their leaders.

        Since they make such vacuous statements, it’s glaringly apparent they merely skimmed the brief synopsis on the cover sheet, then went back to whatever trivia that occupies most of their day.

  7. @ubu52
    Sorry, I have to reply down here. There’s no longer a reply button:

    In regards to this comment:
    One small point: He did know for a fact that the gunman was in that car because he was the one who told the police the gunman had left in a black SUV with Utah plates. There were other interviews with this guy where he gave additional information. I’m not faulting him for not shooting — I’m just saying that it’s wrong to say “no one had a gun.”

    Um, no, he did not know that for a fact. He said as much. He suspected. He said he did not see them. His exact words– “I could see exactly where this was happening but couldn’t get a good enough look to give a description of the person or people.
    Soon after the shots stopped I saw a black SUV slowly pulling away, as it started heading toward me I thought I might be able to get a good enough look inside of it to see who did it but the windows were heavily tinted and I couldn’t see inside.”

    He put two and two together, but he did not see them get in the vehicle after doing the shooting, according to his own words. If he did see that, that is not what he conveyed in his statement.

    Lastly, as to the point of someone “having a gun.” His gun was as helpful to the actual victims being shot as the nearest police officer’s gun. Not much good for them since it wasn’t where the action was at. That’s the point of having a gun immediately available. That why pro gun people say it may have been different if someone (where the action was taking place, in other words, one or more of the victims) had a gun. The man outside with his gun would not have made a whit of difference to what was happening inside that building unless he charged in with reckless abandon at the first sounds of gunshots.

    It isn’t enough that a gun was somewhere nearby. The victims and potential victims were the ones who needed to have the guns.

    • Since one could legally carry a gun there, there is no way of knowing if any of the victims or people in the room had a gun because they don’t report those kinds of things in the media.

      Several years ago, there was a mass shooting in a restaurant in North Hollywood. I saw lots of posts that said “gun free zone” and there was nothing to contradict that. Fast forward a few years and I happened to read this article: http://patch.com/california/northhollywood/judge-rules-that-accused-hot-spot-cafe-killer-will-face-trial#.VCplJ-ktDIU

      Note near the bottom of that article, there is this paragraph: “Fifty bullet cases were recovered from the cafe’s banquet room. According to Paul, they all came from the same gun. That weapon has not been found. She confirmed that none of the cases could be definitively linked to two guns found on the dead bodies of Karadjian and Baburyan, which suggests that only one gun was fired during the shooting.”

      So two of the dead men had guns. Now it’s not a “gun free zone.”

      Unless the media comes out with a story that tells of others having guns at the San Bernardino event, we’ll probably never really know for sure. It was a facility where one could legally carry a gun and San Bernardino issues quite a few CCWs.

      • I think we have a fair notion of whether or not any one of the victims had a gun or not. They very, very likely did not. Had any one of them been armed and fired back, I think by now we’d have heard of it. But I’ll consider that it’s certainly possible. Even if one of them did have a gun, no one claims that mere possession of a gun is going to guarantee a positive outcome for the potential victim. It merely gives them a fighting chance.

        Secondly, the idea that “San Bernardino County issues quite a few CCWs” is patently absurd and disprovable. The population of San Bernardino County in 2010 (the last year I can find info on both population and LTC permits) was roughly 2,035,000. The number of LTC permits that year was roughly 1600. Remember that .0007 that I mentioned way way up-thread? To claim that 1600 people out of more than 2 million is “quite a few” is a stretch of math. It may be more accurate to say that San Bernardino County issues quite a few more, comparable to other counties in California, but to claim that they issue quite a few is misleading, at best.

        Lastly, I am not at all familiar with story you mention and am unsure of the players involved, but based upon the five minutes of google research, this appears to be gang related criminal on criminal activity. Posted gun free zone or not, my original point about California being a de facto gun free zone based upon the overall anti-gun climate still stands.

        You’re not helping your case any, actually. Criminal on criminal activity becomes more violent and more prevalent in places where the average law abiding citizen is disarmed by law. For an example, see the story you linked.

  8. Pingback: Quote of the day—NYT Editorial Board | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.