Gun cartoon of the day

GunCrimeData

Wow!

That’s some serious projection on the part of an anti-gun person. Gun ownership and sales have been increasing while violent crime has been decreasing. But they say we don’t want to look at the data?

Yeah, right. Someone has mental problems and it’s those people who want to restrict our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Facts get in the way of their agenda.

Random thought of the day

If putting serial numbers on bullets is a good idea to help solve crimes involving guns wouldn’t it also be a good idea to put them on prescription pills to track down whoever is supplying those who abuse those drugs? Or how about serial numbers on cigarettes to help prevent cigarettes from getting into the hands of underage smokers? Or tracking the serial numbers on paper money to combat the recreational drug trade?

The answer is no to all these ideas. Anyone that suggests serial numbers on bullets is as stupid and/or ignorant as someone who suggests serial numbers be tracked on the other items.

Quote of the day—John Walsh

I’ve suggested to the NRA that if they continue to terrorize Congress and they want everyone to have an AR-15 or an AK-47, that in the stock of that gun you should implant a GPS chip. It has nothing to do with civil liberties — just put in them what I have in my cellphone and what you and everyone has. When I lost my iPad they activated it and tracked it down and I went, ‘This works.’ So if you put this GPS in that AK-47 and a responsible owner gets robbed, now you can catch the dirt bag selling it to the illegal gang-banger, the guy who committed those 11 murders in Chicago. Forget about civil liberties — if you use a credit card, you’re already in Big Brother’s computer.

John Walsh
July 11, 2014
10 things John Walsh said about gun control, the NRA and more
[GPS chip? And then what? It also needs the cellphone modem, the battery, the antennas, and the account with the cell phone provider. This is so easy to defeat that a fourth grader could do it. And that assumes the battery wasn’t already dead when the gun was stolen.

Which is it “It has nothing to do with civil liberties?” Or is it “Forget about civil liberties?”

The government having your credit card history is small potatoes compared to the government being able to track the movement of your guns in real time. And who says it’s okay for Big Brother to have your credit card history?

The other nine things Walsh said were just as stupid as this one.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rolf

They do not care about productive contributions. They are about marginalizing, hatred, bigotry, and challenging any threat to their worldview. They are like a teenager who KNOWS!!1! they are right. They have their stereotypes, and will cling to them tightly, because like a vampire fears sunlight these sorts of minds fear reality; they know outside their temporary bubble, where they imagine they are safe because the illusion has been going on for so long, they wouldn’t stand a chance, and that thought terrifies them. SO, rather than face their fears, they retreat further into their imaginary world, where the law IS the effect, where the average person is bad but government people are good, where real independence is bad and dependence is good, where things are good or evil, and where facts and ethics are all relative.

Rolf
July 14, 2014
Comment to Quote of the day—Qrys Bin Thynkn (@QrysBinThynkn)
[In this particular case I agree completely with Rolf but perhaps not in more general instances. This particular immature, name calling, bigot read my blog post about him and continued with the penis insults on Twitter here, here, and here:

The fact that you felt the need to single out my quote tells everyone that you do, in fact, have a small penis. ;-)

And you still comment. LOL!! Must be really small. ;-)

Do you think these small penis gun advocates realize by ripping into my post they are basically admitting they have a small penis?

Logic and facts are beyond the capability of this guy. There is no such thing as debate using facts, benefits versus hazards, or rights versus reasonable regulation. It about delivering the last lame insult.

I guess you have to play the hand you were dealt. And if that is all that you have you do the best you can with it. But it’s still a losing hand.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Prager

With conservatives’ obsession with guns there is no more surefire way to make oneself a god amongst the Teabilly crowd than to lure them in with a smile and an AR-15. On Thursday, Clint Didier, a Tea Party Republican, announced that he will be giving away two Ruger 2300 LC9 pistols and a DB-15 S rifle in an effort to gain support in his bid for retiring Washington Rep. Doc Hastings. Hastings is just the latest to prey upon conservatives’ paranoid ‘Yer not gonna git mah guns’ attitude. Who else has joined in this new tradition of winning over stupid people with weaponry?

John Prager
June 21, 2014
Death Dealers: Pathetic GOP Candidates Are Giving Away Assault Rifles to Buy Votes
[If the title of the article were actually true then wouldn’t they have to give a select fire rifle to everyone who agreed to vote for them? Or would it be one for each community and they would share it?

The entire article is filled with logical and factual errors. Did you catch the error above where he says “bid for retiring Washington Rep. Doc Hastings”? I didn’t know you could bid on people. Is Hasting going to be Didier’s slave if he has the winning bid?

Yet he thinks we are the stupid ones. Mr. Prager, Have you ever heard of projection?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ana Marie Cox

Activists such as those at Everytown need to redraw focus away from the infrequent horror of mass shootings and get voters to recognize the daily tragedies of gun violence. A taller order, but just as necessary: make clear that the gun violence is not about violent people with guns – it’s about guns, period.

There is no such thing as a neutral position on guns, because there is no such thing as a neutral gun. Guns have one purpose: to kill things. They are no more neutral than a poison. They can be used for good or ill, but the reason they exist is to hurt someone. In the “bad guy with a gun” versus a “good guy with a gun” scenario, the problem isn’t who’s bad and who’s good, it’s that there is a gun involved, period.

Ana Marie Cox
July 8, 2014
This Is The Real Reason Gun Control Is Failing
[By this logic the police shouldn’t have guns either then because it doesn’t matter if they are a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun. I have to conclude Cox has some sort of mental disorder to have their thinking this messed up.

In any case don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns away. As well as not letting clearly crazy people possess guns we shouldn’t let crazy people take our guns.—Joe]

A dystopian advocate

Amazing: Let’s nationalize Amazon and Google: Publicly funded technology built Big Tech

It’s mind boggling to read this crap. One of the arguments is that they are spying on people, which he doesn’t like. So putting them under government control is a good idea? Hasn’t this idiot heard of the NSA in the last few months?

It should come as no surprise he wants to destroy the “pioneer fantasy” of gun ownership.

Either he thinks of The Gulag Archipelago as a utopia instead of a dystopia or he is so naïve and/or stupid that he doesn’t realize what he advocates would create those conditions.

Quote of the day—Greasy Tony

The NRA are a bunch of thugs that take idiot’s money and laugh all the way to the bank.

Greasy Tony
July 3, 2014
Comment to What do Gun Control people think of NRA saying media should stop calling barbara shooter a shooter?
[“Greasy Tony” needs to do some research on the NRA and their members. It’s extremely clear his prejudice does not match my rather large sample of both NRA representatives (many women smaller than me) and NRA members. But I doubt anything so suspect as facts would change his mind. His mind almost for certain works at “a different level”.

But it’s good to know what people think of you. It helps prepare you for when they make contact with you or advocate for political action. These are not people with anything more than a tenuous connection to reality and they are bent on your destruction.—Joe]

Quote of the day—2Bill

Ban all semiautomatic weapons and create a national registry of all gun owners. No need to change the second amendment, even though that would be great. We could reduce the number of guns on the street and at the very least force any would be shooter to reload more often.

Let’s start by banning all guns except revolvers, bolt action rifles and breach action shotguns. Then let’s register every gun and require liability insurance for every owner.

This proposal would pass any second amendment challenge and would even satisfy the scrutiny of the Heller decision.

2Bill
June 27, 2014
Comment to 9 signs America’s gun obsession is getting worse
[They either have not read the Heller decision or have a terrible problem with reading comprehension. The proposals would not pass the “common use” test. And even if it were to pass the confiscation efforts would be “problematic”.

Then there is the problem of registration. It’s unknown whether that would pass Constitutional challenges. You can’t be made to register in order to exercise your First Amendment rights and it seems unlikely you can be made to register in order to exercise your Second Amendment rights. The “chilling effect” would be very “pronounced”. Especially after the government just confiscated all the semi-autos.

And the difficulties in registration would be horrific. Getting “registered” for ObamaCare was and is a big mess. Getting people to register themselves and their guns when they don’t want to be registered and want the system to fail would be far more “interesting.” Canada couldn’t make it work and there would be a lot more resistance in this country.

It’s very clear 2Bill has crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Pangur-Uaine

The more guns the more killing. The gun culture is mass insanity. “Responsible gun-ownership” is an oxymoron. Any implement specifically designed to kill people is intrinsically evil. Total disarmament could save the species. Shoot the Second Amendment. The Fifth Commandment is right. Killing is wrong. Ban all weapons while we still have a shot at it.

Pangur-Uaine
June 22, 2014
Comment to Gun controversy lost on new shooting stars
[Via Jeff.

Simple solutions from simple minds.

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

Quote of the day—Greg Hamilton

SheepTargets

The ultimate example of a complete refusal to confront reality. This is the answer of sheep. “Baaa, baaa, if I lay still and play dead maybe the wolf won’t eat me. I’ll be especially protected by this bright ass orange target thing. Nobody could possible figure out I’m under here.”

It’s not just that our country is becoming so divorced from reality that our solutions to problems have crossed the line to full-on completely mentally retarded, they have become completely and utterly insane.

Greg Hamilton
June 24, 2014
Facebook post about this product supposedly to protect kids from being shot at school.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tiffany Miller

Most gun owners in this country are rural bumpkins who don’t have any education at all.

Tiffany Miller
June 17, 2014
Comment to Hillary Clinton On Gun Control: We Can’t Let ‘A Minority Of People’ Terrorize The Majority
[This is what they think of you.

Via her Facebook page we have some more insight from our intellectual superior:

Bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance. It looks like someone has a problem with diversity.—Joe]

Abramski

Well, the Supreme Court handed down the Abramski decision. He lost.

On the one hand, it’s not unexpected, and for most of us nothing really changes: straw-man purchases are illegal. But on the other hand, the dissent basically argued that isn’t what the statute passed by congress and signed by the prez actually SAID, and thus that isn’t illegal according to the letter of the law, and trying to interpret legislative intent is a bad way to go about making decisions. The decision could have been worse, but I still wish that it had gone the other way, even if that means congress would likely pass a law in record time to “correct” the situation.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/abramski-v-united-states/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-1493

 

Quote of the day—Kathy White

YEP>>>RT”@linoge_wotc: Markley’s Law. @JoeHuffman RT @ToConservatives I spoke the truth. #GunFetishClowns #UniteBlue pic.twitter.com/swc978c4HR

ExplainsAssaultRifles

Kathy White @katbeewhite
Tweeted May 31, 2014
[It's another Markley’s Law Monday via Linoge.

And Ms. White didn’t even bother to look up Markley’s Law even though it was mentioned in the quote she retweeted. One has to conclude she has crap for brains as well as a fixation on the size of men’s genitals.—Joe]

The irony of Keri L (@ikeriover)

After retweeting this post of mine Keri L (@ikeriover) tweeted this:

 

My post pointed out she was either incapable of comprehensive reading or that she was imagining I wrote something completely different from what I actually did. And she calls me crazy?

Another thread of interest is this:

you can get prosecuted for leaving your children in the car alone, but not if you leave a loaded gun for them to find? #NotOneMore

— Keri L (@ikeriover) June 7, 2014


@ikeriover Not true in most states. Reckless endangerment laws exist and are used.

— Joe Huffman (@JoeHuffman) June 7, 2014


@JoeHuffman actually this is a true story.http://t.co/EE1tzMnJDX

— Keri L (@ikeriover) June 7, 2014

@JoeHuffman you are a bully & not so surprising with your crazy pro-gun stance. I am sure you ‘quote me” &yourcrazy followers will join in.

— Keri L (@ikeriover) June 7, 2014

@ikeriover I was referring to the part about not being prosecutable for leaving a loaded gun accessible to kids.

— Joe Huffman (@JoeHuffman) June 7, 2014

As part of this same thread she also said, “You are a monster.” But that tweet has been deleted.

These people have mental problems. There is no other explanation.

Update for clarification: In the comments there is some confusion about who said what which led to the confrontation between Keri L. and I. Here is more of the thread:

KeriLTwitterThread

Open letter to Eric Holder

This, from Mike Vanderboegh, is interesting. It represents one of the stated ideas behind the second amendment back in the day– Something about keeping would-be tyrants “in awe”, presenting a force beyond that of any standing army, etc.

I’m not sure what good the letter could do, beyond letting Holder and Company know that we have a fairly good, general idea of what they’re up to, that we’re not all entirely intimidated, blind, cowed, distracted and demoralized. There may be some value in that and there may not, but there it is. I’ve done similar in the past, but I don’t think I’ll be doing it again.

As for the possibility of violence; I do NOT believe that, at this point anyway, Holder and Company are the slightest bit intimidated. Not in the way the author may have intended. I believe it is likely, insofar as I understand the mentality or the occupying identity that drives them, that Holder et al are quite looking forward to violence, that they’ve been getting impatient waiting for it and can’t quite understand why we’re taking so long to get with it (and thus help them fulfill their plans).

It might be more productive to try to convince Holder & Company that they themselves are mere pawns, and that once their role is served and their usefulness expired they’ll be left in the lurch, or squashed like cockroaches, by those they currently serve, but that won’t dawn on them until it’s far too late for them. It almost never does.

And so the value in such letters or postings is, at best, that later on they’ll not be able to say they weren’t warned or didn’t have any choice. In light of THAT, maybe our efforts should include defining for such unfortunates a viable way out.

Quote of the day—Scott Martelle

As for handguns, assault-style weapons, etc., let’s have a flat-out ban. Beyond the histrionics of the gun lobby, there is no defensible reason for such weapons to be a part of our culture. They exist for one purpose: to kill.

Scott Martelle
May 28, 2014
You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether.
[H/T to Sebastian.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you no one wants to take your guns. This is from the Los Angles Times’ Opinion Staff.

He dismisses the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms with:

One can hope that the court will someday go further than its recognition that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right and determine that rampant gun ownership is a public safety threat. And that Congress will push legislation that recognizes that the heavy societal costs of gun ownership outweigh any 2nd Amendment pretense to the right to own guns.

He dismisses self-defense with:

Impossible to measure because of a lack of trustworthy data.

This is even though his cited source, Paul Barrett, says the lower limit on estimated defensive gun use in the U.S. is about 100,000/year which exceeds the murders by a factor of ten.

It is apparently beyond his ability to accept the realities of the Supreme Court ruling that firearm in common use, and handguns in particular are protected. This is in the ruling he linked to! Then after realizing numbers and simple arithmetic are apparently beyond his grasp we could suggest he look to the “success” of banning things which have far less benefit and probably more harm, such as recreational drugs. How did the prohibition of alcohol work out? And the continuing ban of hardcore recreational drugs? Maybe he would like to extend the bans of those things harmful to other things such as tobacco? How does he think that would turn out? We already have a large black market in cigarettes because of the high taxes on them.

But we shouldn’t bother speculating. He obviously has crap for brains and is incapable of extrapolating past the end of his nose.—Joe]