Could the Republican Party be any more ridiculous?

I get several messages from the NRSC and other Republican interests daily. They’ve been “name dropping” Mitt Romney, McCain, Carl Rove, and other flabby, pasty-white, clueless, Progressive/elitist dry-balls, as though THAT were they way to get us pumped-up and writing checks– Trot out the guys who made conservatives stay home in the last two presidential elections. I’ve also gotten a few messages saying I could WIN, get this… a STICKER! That I could PUT on my VEHICLE! (squeeeeee!…count me in! Not).

My question for all of you is; could they appear more ridiculous and impotent if it were their prime directive to do so?

I maintain that they could get more support if they all got together, got stinking drunk on bad liquor, took off their clothes, buggered a herd of sheep on video and put that out as their campaign ads, with “Vote Republican and Bugger the Sheep!” as their main slogan. Unlike what they’ve been saying and doing, that COULD be interpreted as actually meaning something.

Quote of the day—Charles Gallagher

There’s a difference between gun culture and hunting culture. They’re talking about hunting in Montana. They’re not talking about walking into a Wal-Mart with a 9-millimeter strapped to their back.

Charles Gallagher
October 10, 2014
Does race shape Americans’ passion for guns?
[Gallagher claims expertise in the field of sociology, race, and guns. I don’t know about his sociology and race credentials but when he talks about “a 9-millimeter strapped to their back” you know he has lots of work to do on the gun side of things.

Other than quoting crap for brains Gallagher in a few places it’s decent article. For CNN to publish this, it’s conclusive proof we are winning.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Marshall Dunlap

No one needs a gun, especially a handgun. The idea that a handgun is essential for self protection is a myth. If someone is pointing a gun at you then it’s too late for you to pull yours out on them. A handgun is worthless for hunting.

The government is not going to invade your home and take away your guns. Gun-rights advocates say that they need their guns in order to keep the government from confiscating them. It’s illogical, paranoid reasoning, especially given the fact that there are already almost enough firearms in private hands to arm every man, woman and child in the country. The government would not need a list in order to come after your guns. All they would have to do is go door-to-door, and they would likely find one.

Marshall Dunlap
October 7, 2014
Gun control: Background-check inconvenience worth it to keep guns from criminals
[Gun owners are illogical and paranoid? This is a few sentences after he says we handguns being used for defense is a myth (tell the police that), they are worthless for hunting and, “No one needs a gun…” And it’s a few sentences before he suggests it would be easy for the police to go door-to-door and confiscate them.

I think Mr. Dunlap is doing some projection and that he is further evidence of why we shouldn’t have registration lists of guns or gun owners.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bob Owens

If you ever hear of a gun control rally happening nearby, do yourself a favor and make it a point to attend.

Do not go to share your opinion on the subject or confront their ideas as a counter-protestor, simply go to their event and listen.

If you experience turns out to be anything at all like the experiences I’ve had, you’ll note a sort of nervous energy in the supporters of gun control. If you spend time listening to them, you’ll probably see them swing back and forth from sorrow to a anger, and back again… often within the span of a few minutes. There’s often chanting involved, a repeated catch-phrase, or a mantra to help keep them focused on the cause.

Almost invariably, they’ll veer from mania to depression, and show signs of poor impulse control.

Bob Owens
October 3, 2014
AND SHE STABBED HIM IN THE HEAD: Why Gun Control Supporters Don’t Trust You With Guns
[I can second that.

They have extreme difficulty in clear thinking. The cannot seem to differentiate between facts and feelings. They will literally say, “I don’t believe your facts”. As Lyle says, they are telling us they are insane when they do this.

You can explain that eliminating all “gun deaths” does not mean people are safer and they cannot understand how that can be true and respond with “Huh? totally missed this logic. I don’t think there is any there.

They will pontificate on all they are doing for “gun safety” and then have a deer in a headlight response when you ask how many gun safety classes they have attended or taught.

They will tell you that many lives will be saved if there was a waiting period “so people could cool off” before they could buy a gun. Then when asked, “So, if I go into a gun shop, show them my concealed carry permit and a pistol on my hip then they wouldn’t need to make me ‘cool off’ before purchasing another one, right?” they will shut down the discussion because… well… I guess it’s because they have crap for brains.—Joe]

Low expectations for failed viewpoint

Via email from Ladd Everitt, Director of Communications, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:

I am excited to announce the launch of another limited-edition CSGV t-shirt featuring the slogan, “What Part of ‘Well Regulated’ Don’t You Understand?
This 100% cotton, U.S.-made t-shirt is available in three colors (black, navy blue and light blue) and sends the message that the overhwhelming majority of us do not agree with the NRA’s extreme and insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Our goal is to sell 250 tees in the next 20 days. If we can reach that goal, will print and mail out the t-shirts, and donate all but $1 of the proceeds from each shirt directly to CSGV! [Because uses the Kickstarter model for their campaigns, if you purchase a shirt and we do not reach our goal of 250 sales, your money will be returned.]


Even ignoring the typo of the word “overwhelming” this email is filled with fail.

The “well regulated” part of the Second Amendment has been explained so many times that the only way someone who follows the issue could be unaware of true meaning of this is if they put significant effort into denial. For example in the Heller Decision we find (pages 23 and 24):

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or
method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights
§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well regulated
militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

So Everitt, mocking people for failure to understand the meaning of “well regulated”, gets it totally wrong himself.

Given such a poor foundation it comes as no surprise that he has a goal of selling 250 t-shirts. 250? For an overwhelming majority of the people opposing the NRA and Supreme Court’s viewpoint? The NRA has about five million members. That would mean Everitt believes there are several times that many people who agree with him. Yet he only expects to sell 250 shirts to those 10 to 50 million people that disagree with the NRA and the Supreme Court viewpoint of the Second Amendment.

One has to marvel at the amount of stupid in this guy if he believes what he is saying. It isn’t even internally consistent. He truly has crap for brains.

Quote of the day—John R. Lott, Jr.

I can’t find a single study from Bloomberg’s groups that aren’t loaded with errors. They have an anti-gun agenda and will lie to achieve it.

John R. Lott, Jr.
September 25, 2014
How Bloomberg’s Million-Dollar Desire For Gun Control Is Backfiring
[While I think there is a fair amount of lying going on they don’t think of it as lying. They just don’t understand facts are independent of their feelings. If they feel something then, in their view of reality, it is true. I’ve had people flat out tell me this. I would point out that what someone was saying was in direct contradiction to verifiable facts. And I would get a response of something to the effect, “Well, it’s true to them and that is what matters.”

There is also a very telling anecdote about liberal “research” in this same article:

In 2006 I was at a cocktail party in Arlington, VA, talking to a liberal journalist about his soon-to-be-released book on Iraq when John Lott joined us. John listened for a moment and then said to the author, “I’m curious. You say you just finished a book on the Iraq war. I always find it so hard to finish a book. I get so deep into the research I have a hard time stopping to write. I’m guessing you had a hard time leaving Iraq. There is so much to investigate and understand.”

The author said, “I didn’t go to Iraq.”

John paused with this quizzical look on his face before asking, “Oh, how did you do your research?”

The author said, “I didn’t have to do much. I mean, I already know what I think.”

Feelings versus facts. It’s a type of mental disorder.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Janice Wilberg

There has been much talk lately about how gun violence is a public health issue and that, in order to fully understand its epidemiological dimensions, we need to do a dissection of each incident to determine the precipitating factors, the relationships, why and when the shooting occurred, get to the reasons that will explain the violence, the thinking being, I guess, that if we can figure out the reasons, then we can address the reasons and reduce the violence.

I don’t think there are reasons.

I think there are guns.

There are guns everywhere. Everywhere. You better believe it. Right now, in Wisconsin, people are walking around with guns in holsters like this is the O.K. Corral. The folks who went through a $50 concealed carry class walk around in a haze of superiority because their gun lust got sprinkled by respectable fairy dust. Two sides of the same coin to me, the guy who takes a class so he can put his new gun in a fancy holster and parade around town, his jacket artfully arranged so everyone can see that his gun is ready, real ready and the guy whose second or third hand stolen gun is wedged in the lowdown of his pocket; it’s a dick festival in either case. Call it what it is.

It’s not about the reasons.

It’s about the guns.

Janice Wilberg
July 13, 2014
Orbiting Zorkon: Gun Violence in Milwaukee
[It's another Markley’s Law Monday! Via email from Bob S. who said, “really got my attention when she compared legal carry with criminals carrying stolen firearms”.

Yes. She thinks it’s about the guns. She thinks there is no difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun. Citation needed. But you know that isn’t going to happen because she goes all Markley’s Law instead.

She has crap for brains.

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

Bomb help update

Early this morning I received the following email (name and email changed to protect the guilty):

From: XXX YYY []
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 1:52 AM
Subject: removal of blog post

Dear Joe, I would like to ask you to remove a blog post concerning me ( relating to an old email address of mine while I was suffering badly from a nervous breakdown, depression, and various other mental illnesses due to prolonged physical  and psychological bullying. As I have moved on in my life now, I would like you to remove this post as it has many references to my name and email that has caused problems when finding jobs.

Thank you and kindest regards, XXX YYY

I didn’t remove the post but I did change the name and email address and sent him a polite reply wishing him well.

Quote of the day—Star-Ledger Editorial Board

The biggest problem with this approach, though, is that it tiptoes around the one reform that could really make a difference… Mandatory gun buybacks.

Do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over “gun confiscation,” don’t expect it to make much difference.

Star-Ledger Editorial Board
September 19, 2014
What N.J. really needs is mandatory gun buybacks
[H/T to Sebastian.

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

“Mandatory gun buyback.” What a way with words they have. It’s amazing how much deception they can pack into three words.

It isn’t a “buyback” if the buyer didn’t own the property at some previous point in time.

It isn’t a “buy” of any type if it is mandatory. It’s compensation for confiscation.

How is what they are proposing any different than a “mandatory First Amendment buyback”? I’d be interested to see their reaction to being told they were being compensated, say $10K, for their First Amendment “privileges” and then informed they were being hysterical when they complained. On their way to prison, of course, for violating the ban on free speech.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Vincent Gray

Guns are not the answer, ladies and gentlemen. Guns would not have saved the victims of the Navy Yard.

Vincent Gray
Mayor of Washington D.C.
September 17, 2014
Gray Calls For ‘Real Gun Control’ At Navy Yard Ceremony, Says D.C.’s Laws May Be ‘Relaxed’
[Then what was the purpose of the guns in the hands of the responding police officers? And why do many of the politicians in his jurisdiction have armed guards?

This guy has crap for brains. Or else he thinks you do.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Stanley Bonk

The fastest way to lower crime rates is to get rid of guns.

Stanley Bonk
September 4, 2014
Comment to Moms’ Group Calls Out Kroger’s Gun Policy In Unprecedented New Ad Campaign
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Bonk needs to compare crime rates inside and outside the formally gun banning regimes of Chicago and Washington D.C. But I expect facts are outside his area of experience.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Scott Connors

If judges can pontificate on questions of firearms engineering, then I can write legal decisions legalizing the possession of fully automatic firearms and rocket propelled grenades by the unorganized militia (ie, us). That’s fair, isn’t it?

Scott Connors
September 4, 2014
Comment to Judge Tries His Hand at Engineering
[Yes. It is fair.

It’s also just as likely to be faulty as the judge’s engineering efforts. This, of course, was his point.

What the judge and other “smart gun” advocates apparently don’t or can’t understand is that engineering against an intelligent adversary is dramatically different and more difficult than engineering devices to reduce the probability of accidents or the mitigate the effects of such an accident.

Turn signals and brake lights reduce the chance of accidents. Seatbelts mitigate the effects of accidents. There has been little need to significantly improve the technology of these in the last 50 years.

The technology of antitheft devices has seen dramatic improvement in the last 50 years. This is because in the case of the theft of a car the engineer has an intelligent adversary working against them. Both the thief and engineer attempting to protect the car innovate nearly constantly.

And even that analogy is weak because:

  • Guns have the contradictory criteria of failing to fire if the thief removes or disables the power supply and being useable by the owner in an emergency situation if the battery or electronics have died.
  • A inoperable gun is far more transportable than an inoperable car.
  • A car has large and reliable power supply.
  • A car can be disabled for many seconds or even, in extreme cases, a few minutes without serious consequences.
  • A few pounds of anti-theft technology added to a car are not an obstacle to its use.
  • Two way communication technology is common and relatively difficult to defeat in a car. Not so in a gun.

If you are going to pontificate on “Smart Guns” you should get the advice of an engineer with experience in security.—Joe]

He shot all of us in the foot

Daughter Kim told me about this yesterday. Great. Just great:

An Idaho State University assistant professor with a concealed-carry gun permit shot himself in the foot with a semiautomatic handgun that accidentally discharged from inside his pocket in a chemistry classroom full of students, police said on Wednesday.

I expect it will be years before the damage done by this accident will fade away.

Don’t be stupid and ruin things for everyone. Use a quality holster whenever and wherever you carry a handgun.

The definition of irony

The University of Idaho vehemently opposed respecting the Bill of Rights and the Idaho State Constitution in regards to firearms. The legislature finally told them to suck it up and face reality. They have reluctantly entered the 21st Century screaming and yelling and they still don’t like it and they are doing whatever they can to make sure the students know they don’t like it.

The fall semester just started which is the first semester since the law went into effect on July 1 of this year. One professor, Dan Hickman, put the following into the syllabus for one of his classes:

The University of Idaho bans firearms from its property with only limited exceptions. One exception applies to persons who hold a valid Idaho enhanced concealed carry license, provided those firearms remain concealed at all times. If an enhanced concealed carry license holder’s firearm is displayed, other than in necessary self‐defense, it is a violation of University policy. Please contact local law enforcement (call 911) to report firearms on University property.

Apparently he wants to ostracize people who go through several hours of training and a FBI background check in order to exercise a specific enumerated constitutional right.

Daughter Kim sent me this picture from the Memorial Gym, the same location as the ROTC gun range:


They create a victim disarmament  zone and then declare it a “Designated Safe Zone”?

And, as Kim pointed out:

It also bothered me that the only sign I saw in memorial gym was that one on the door to the women’s center which is supposed to be about women empowerment.

Irony. Find your definition here.

Quote of the day—Samuel Priest

Guns have been part of my life since the day I was born. I mean that literally. My father pushed the barrel of a tiny .22 into my mother’s vagina, I grabbed on, and he pulled me out. I was ushered into this world holding my first gun.

From there, I was nursed with a gun, my parents would put baby formula inside barrels of various guns and have me suck it out for nourishment. Sometimes they’d cut the formula with some gun oil, so it’d go down easier. I’d often fall asleep in my crib, a colt 45 nestled in in my mouth, dreaming of guns.

Samuel Priest
August 28, 2014
A Reasonable, Level-Headed Gun Enthusiast Suggests Small Gun Control Changes
[H/T to Bob S. who says, “Marlarkey and then some.”

The two paragraphs above are the least offensive. It goes downhill from there. He thinks of himself as a comic but I couldn’t find anything funny in his entire post. I think he has crap for brains. That he lives in Chicago probably explains the rest.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David Dunning

If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent … when you’re incompetent, the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.

David Dunning
June 20, 2010
The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong but You’ll Never Know What It Is (Part 1)
[H/T to Linoge who got me started on the Wiki-wander that led here.

I found it fascinating that there have been similar astute observations on the same topic throughout history.

This is exactly what happens with many of the anti-gun people we encounter. They cannot even comprehend how disparate in competence they are when they engage us on the topic. They are frequently profoundly clueless, don’t know it, and cannot be told how clueless they are.

It find it interesting that another aspect of the Dunning-Kruger effect is that those who are highly competent tend to underestimate their skill level. Perhaps the following Twitter exchange demonstrates that:

 Lady Farmer@djmincey11 7h

@apple_butter NOBODY WANTS YOUR DAMN GUN! Understand now? @TANSTAAFL24 @KentAtwater4 @wallsofthecity @psherm07

Joe Huffman@JoeHuffman 5h

@djmincey11 You must have your head in the sand: … @apple_butter @TANSTAAFL24 @KentAtwater4 @wallsofthecity @psherm07

Lady Farmer@djmincey11 4h

@JoeHuffman I don't care to read your "opinion" piece. @apple_butter @TANSTAAFL24 @KentAtwater4 @wallsofthecity @psherm07

Joe Huffman@JoeHuffman 3h

@djmincey11 Factual examples are not opinions. Are you allergic to facts? @apple_butter @TANSTAAFL24 @KentAtwater4 @wallsofthecity @psherm07

Lady Farmer@djmincey11 3h

I know the difference between fact & speculation. Cognitive powers aren't magic. I'll give you a minute to Google the big words @JoeHuffman

Joe Huffman@JoeHuffman 3h

@djmincey11 For years I had the job title of Senior Research Scientist II. I know this topic well and I know you don't. @wallsofthecity

Lady Farmer@djmincey11 3h

For years I held the title of Executive Director, Reigional Director, CEO and Vice President/Owner. Now what? @JoeHuffman

Joe Huffman@JoeHuffman 2h

@djmincey11 I suggest you learn some science and educate yourself on the topic at hand. @wallsofthecity

Lady Farmer@djmincey11 2h

I suggest you KNOW your opponent BEFORE you run into battle. @JoeHuffman @wallsofthecity

Joe Huffman@JoeHuffman 2h

@djmincey11 I find it odd that you don't follow your own advice. Is hypocrisy one of your greatest strengths? @wallsofthecity

Lady Farmer@djmincey11 2h

Are we finished yet? I am bored with this sniping. @JoeHuffman @wallsofthecity

Joe Huffman@JoeHuffman 2h

@djmincey11 Only if you stop tweeting nonsense about guns, gun owners, and the enumerated right to keep and bear arms. @wallsofthecity

Lady Farmer@djmincey11 2h

And FYI... I will NEVER stop tweeting facts because it hurts your feewings. *here's a hanky* @JoeHuffman @wallsofthecity

I dropped it there because she was going off the deep end into irrationality at that point. At no point did my feelings come up in the conversation or was I even aware of having any particularly strong  feelings on the matter. And she was particularly lacking in facts.

But the point I wanted to make was that I didn’t think I was being particularly effective. Perhaps just a little bit more than holding my own.

So imagine my surprise to the following tweets in response to the exchange:

Linoge@wallsofthecity 2h

Your afternoon's entertainment: #gunsense useful idiot @djmincey11 is trying to have a battle of wits with @JoeHuffman. She came unarmed.

towerclimber37@towerclimber37 53m

@wallsofthecity @djmincey11 @JoeHuffman hahahahah she got owned.

Blackstone@bitterclingerpa 36m

@towerclimber37 @wallsofthecity @djmincey11 @JoeHuffman Owned? Broken, sold, used, traded & then sold again. Science vs a Suit


Interesting. Very interesting.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

It’s a jungle, the consciousness of an orthodox Communist. It’s impossible-to make sense of it.

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago, Volume 2: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, 1918-1956. Page 347.
[And so it is with the progressives of today. They try to use a different name but they have the same crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—kim launius ‏@kimmie8264

your all insane and don’t need to own a gun. #gunsense

kim launius ‏@kimmie8264
Tweeted on August 10, 2014
[As Linoge Tweeted in response, “It's spelled "you're", and you don't get to decide that. #gunsense #fail“.

This woman is a real gem. Here is the picture she uses for her Twitter profile:


And here is definitive proof she has crap for brains:


I case you have forgotten LBJ was a Democrat.

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

And what is it with progressives and political violence? It must be because it’s the best chance they have for success. In the choice between brain and brawn they certainly do come up short on the brain side.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Justin Anderson

It’s strictly prohibited and we are not in the habit of making exceptions. But we certainly do everything we possibly can to make all our students feel safe. We feel that it is a top priority.

Justin Anderson
Spokesman for Dartmouth college
Gun Control Rule At Dartmouth College Denies Taylor Woolrich Protection From Stalker With ‘Rape Kit’
[I think I see the problem here. Dartmouth only cares about feelings. They care about the feelings of their students and they feel about making those feelings “a top priority”. They don’t have respect for the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. They ignore the reality that their feelings do nothing to protect her from the reality of a confirmed stalker intent on raping her. They ignore the reality that her carrying a defensive tool might help her as well as make her feel safer.

There was a time when people that disconnected from reality were put in mental institutions. That probably isn’t a legal option in this case but you would think they could be prosecuted for conspiracy to deny her rights.—Joe]