Quote of the day—Paul O’Brien

A simple repeal of the 2nd amendment coupled with a replacement that clearly states what you can and cannot have access to (i.e. MAYBE a single manual hunting rifle or shotgun), plus a government buyback of existing guns and ammo, should do the trick over time.

But it MUST start with putting the gun manufacturers out of business. They need to be shut down immediately.

Paul O’Brien
May 21, 2015
Comment to John Traphagan: When will we examine our heavily armed culture?
[H/T to Hazmat who sent me an email about something else contained here.

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

This guy has total crap for brains.

A “simple repeal of the 2nd Amendment”? No such thing is possible.

Roughly 300 million guns, plus ammo, at market value would be roughly $300 billion dollars assuming everyone politely brought them to the local collection point. Add in the cost of those who would turn in their guns only when they were out of ammo and I expect the cost would be an order, or two, of magnitude larger.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.

The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous. See Drake, 724 F.3d at 454 (Hardiman, C.J., dissenting).12 Nor does the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will accidently shoot themselves or others or engage in criminal activity than those who cannot meet this requirement. See id. The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who do not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.
May 18, 2015
BRIAN WRENN, JOSHUA AKERY,
TYLER WHIDBY, and SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and CATHY L. LANIER,
Defendants

[H/T Firearm Policy Coalistion (BREAKING: Washington, D.C. “May Issue” Handgun Carry License Law is Unconstitutional, Rules Federal Court Today).

The decision as a whole says “may issue” carry is probably unconstitutional and pending the actual ruling a preliminary injunction is granted against the highly restrictive D.C. “may issue” law. There are other jurisdictions that are going to have to take notice soon!

Others will have a lot more to say about what this means and the likely response of D.C. See for example see what Sebastian has to say about this ruling. But I really wanted to point out is that in the last sentence I quoted above judge is calling the anti-gun people out on merely making “reasoning sounds” rather than a logical argument. He’s mocking them!

I especially like the part where the court agrees the plaintiffs should post a bond to cover the costs if the preliminary injunction was improperly granted. The plaintiff have to put up a bond of $1000.00. I regard that as a slap in the face for the tyrants of D.C.—Joe]

Quote of the day—clam_dude

I understand that in the context we live, in which there are many criminals with guns, it may be unfair to stop people from owning them legally.  But this is because of the problem of having too many guns in the first place.  It seems to me that we should try to find some way of decreasing, over time, the number of guns floating around out there.

Or perhaps the best solution would be to limit the number of bullets produced and make them more expensive. 

But I think something needs to be done in the direction of less guns as opposed to more.  Can we agree that in the long run this will lead to less gun deaths?

clam_dude
May 13, 2015
A thought on gun control
[They “dude” is incredibly naïve, simpleminded, or went on a magic mushroom trip and never made it all the way back.

Decreasing “the number of guns floating around out there”? And how would he suggest someone do that? Forbid the manufacture of them then going door to door and asking nicely? I don’t think you have a clue how that might turn out. A reduction in “gun deaths” would not be what history would record for that little exercise.

And the same thing with the ammunition supply.

If this “Einstein” thinks any of his ideas would work then why not try them with recreational drugs and see how that works out. Oh! That’s right. They have tried those sort of things are. Any high school drop out can get whatever recreation drug they want within an hour or two, 24x7x365.

So the answer to his question is, “No!” Now shut up. The adults are talking.—Joe]

Speaking of stupid

How can they think this makes sense?

In the swirling controversy of the tragic death of New York City Police Office Brian Moore who was shot last week in Queens, the gun used to take his life has been tied to a pawn shop burglary that occurred in Perry, Georgia in 2011. The incident has Georgia, and many other states, under intense scrutiny for their gun laws and ATF oversight.

A NYC police officer was shot with a stolen gun from Georgia four years ago and people blame the gun laws in Georgia for the shooting. What gun laws do they think would have made a difference?

Senator Chuck Schumer is not a stupid guy, yet:

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer has since asked the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to expand their firearm trace program.

The gun was stolen! How does he expect the ATF to trace a stolen gun? He has to believe the general population has crap for brains.

Quote of the day—RickR

The gun lobby never lets stupid get in the way of their goals.

RickR
May 11, 2015
Tories push gun control changes through Parliament
[I find it very telling that RickR used fabricated data before claiming the gun lobby attempts stupid goals.

It appears to be universal and not just in our country. An anti-gun person believes gun owners are so stupid we won’t notice and call them on how ignorant, and/or malicious, and/or stupid they are.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Frank Easterbrook

If a ban on semi‐automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.

Frank Easterbrook
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge
April 27, 2015
BREAKING: Bans on “Assault Weapons,” Firearm Magazines Can Be Based on Feelings, Rules Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
[So does that mean if people feel safer if all blacks are kept as slaves would it make slavery constitutional?

Of course not. But by Easterbrook’s “logic” it would seem so.

I would feel safer if Easterbrook were to lose his job as a judge and spend the rest of his life scrubbing toilets.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bruce Schneier

It’s an attitude I’ve seen before: “Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it.” Never mind if the something makes any sense or not.

In reality, this is CYA security, and it’s pervasive in post-9/11 America. It no longer matters if a security measure makes sense, if it’s cost-effective or if it mitigates any actual threats. All that matters is that you took the threat seriously, so if something happens you won’t be blamed for inaction. It’s security, all right — security for the careers of those in charge.

Bruce Schneier
April 15, 2015
Metal Detectors at Sports Stadiums
[Gun control outside of a stadium is of the same mindset but multiplied by some very large factor. It’s stupidity at a governmental scale.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Z. Williamson

Take your statements about “ultraconservative,” “right wing,” “Read less white males” and “privilege,” and shove them up your ass.

Then write the story where that was a pleasurable and positive learning experience for you.

Michael Z. Williamson
April 21, 2015
Challenge Delivered
[Williamson’s post is worth reading for the facts presented but the last sentence, above, is what gives it the punch of humor.

I’ve read a couple of his books and enjoyed them immensely. The points he makes are indicative of something I’ve written about before. Although these type of people will seldom directly admit it, it is very clear they believe they know what you are thinking without regard to your words or actions. In this case they believe they know the contents of his book without reading them.

What more evidence do you need to conclude these people have mental problems?

No matter. There will be a lot more evidence provided. I directly experienced it for decades and no matter how much I coached them they could not change. The problem, as they saw it, was always me.—Joe]

Fail, fail, fail, fail…

I’m writing this after just getting off the phone with Great Big Gun Accessory Company That Everyone Knows. I’m not pissed, just a little disgusted. I got a 130 dollar tool made by that company, from an Idaho retailer, and the tool is defective.

I called the retailer about it immediately. After some vacillation (first fail) and some obvious back-and-forth amongst the person who took my call and someone else (second fail) they referred me to the manufacturer (third fail).

I then called Great Big Gun Accessory Company That Everyone Knows and got put on hold by a robot. OK; that’s sort of tolerable, as it’s a busy time of day for a busy company in a very busy industry. After only two or three minutes I got a person. I got directly to the point; I had ordered this tool and it has some bad threads.

She actually muttered under her breath at me, as though she’d been robbed few minutes ago and I had just threatened her for her wallet; “Oh, good God…” (fourth fail). She then had to put me on hold (fifth fail) to talk to someone else (sixth fail) after which she went on and on in her Eeyore/Marvin the Paranoid Android tone, (seventh fail) about oh, woe is us; we’re juuust swamped with customer service… (eighth fail) and that she’d take my name and number and someone would call me back, maybe today but probably tomorrow (ninth fail).

There’s a point to all of this, mind you. This isn’t so I can vent my frustration– I’m not frustrated. I got this tool on a lark, because I thought it would be something fun to try. Well, all the fun has been drained right out, but it’s not frustrating in any way because I really have no “need” for this item than can’t be served with tools I already have.

The point is; if you’re in business and you have a customer who has a problem, AND you’re capable of solving said problem, then DO IT, RIGHT NOW. Your customers will absolutely love you for it, and your service will have been so unusually simple and easy that they’ll tell everyone they know about you. That two or three dollars, to fifty or 60 dollars it actually cost you to SOLE THE CUSTOMER’S PROBLEM STRAIGHT AWAY will have been your cheapest and most effective advertizing ever!

The retailer could have solved my problem immediately, without even thinking about it, if they’d simply send me a new part. “No problem, Mister Keeney; we’ll get you another part out to you right now, and you’ll have it tomorrow. Sorry about the inconvenience.”

That is our goal, but we don’t always reach it (for one thing, there is internal disagreement on its merits, if you can believe that). It is an ideal, which will rarely be met in all cases, but it is none the less THE ideal.

This is so very simple, and so very obvious, that practically all businesses fail to consider it. The few who do will rule the retail world. All the rest will have every excuse in the book why they don’t do it, and they’ll all be very reasonable and thoroughly justifiable excuses.

If you HAVE THE ABILITY to solve the customer’s problem RIGHT NOW, that is an OPPORTUNUTY for you and your company. Don’t miss the opportunity.

Meanwhile, after talking to two people, at two companies, each of whom had the ability to solve my problem right then and there, each of whom had to talk to at least one other person who also had the ability to solve my problem right then and there, I’ll be waiting for a phone call (not a replacement part, mind you, not even a promise of a replacement part, but a phone call) that may or may not come in the next 24 hours.

The time it took either one of the two people I spoke with to hum and haw and consult with peers and finally get around to telling me to call somewhere else or to take my name and number for someone else to get back to me, THEY COULD HAVE SOLVED MY PROBLEM RIGHT THEN AND THERE, and so you see, it would be far MORE EFFICIENT just for them, which would free up more customer service representatives to help more customers.

This isn’t rocket surgery.

Quote of the day—obvious-if-you-read-carefully

The people fighting universal background checks are the people who deliberately want to be irresponsible.  Plain and simple.

obvious-if-you-read-carefully
April 1, 2015
Comment to Gun background check hearing: Does bill close loophole or create unenforceable law?
[The type of people who say things like this have mental problems. It is common in some personality disorders for the person to believe they can read your mind. I’ve had them insist they knew what I was thinking and/or meant even with the words I used were written down and visible in front of them and I insisted they were completely, totally, wrong. They just knew in direct disregard for all the facts.

This is why I sometimes ask how someone determines truth from falsity with stunning effectiveness. I have literally been told, “It depends on how I feel.”—Joe]

‘Well, you know what I meant!’

Actually no; quite often I don’t, so why not just come right out and say it clearly and directly?

From Vanderboegh. I like it. It illustrates exactly the sort of ridiculous things I picture in my mind when most people speak, about anything.

I was listening to a caller on a talk show this morning, for example, who went on and on and, so far as I could gather, never said anything. The host caught on right away and after several unsuccessful attempts to prompt the guy into saying something he ended the call. A lot of words were coming out of the caller’s mouth, amounting to nothing.

That little anecdote describes much of my life. Many times I’ve sat through a whole hour of some video someone or other thought I should totally see, searching for one little bit of clear meaning (anything that didn’t require some inference or projection or other) to end up with nothing.

Quote of the day—Steve Wood

Guns are like drugs. The addicts don’t see a problem. The sober people over-react. What we need is a culture that doesn’t worship violence. From TV and movies to video games and sports, the “if it bleeds it leeds” media, (Even though crime rates are way down) Americans have a love affair, no, an addiction, to violence. Any attempt to ween them from violence elicits violent outrage. I say, come on climate change! Release that lethal dose of methane in the permafrost and end this. But I tend to be pessimistic sometimes.

Steve Wood
March 11, 2015
Comment to The NRA Wins Again on Armor-piercing Bullets, But Common Sense Was Already Lost
[Wood claims we need “a culture that doesn’t worship violence” yet he desires the extinction of humanity.

Such conflicting statements, even ignoring the spelling errors, are a sign of mental problems. But that is the norm with anti-gun people.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

DoSomethingAboutGuns

This is in contrast to my usual type of gun cartoon because I was so annoyed about the cartoon I posted last night. Those people who claim “We’ve got to do something about guns!” and demand additional restrictions on the exercise of this specific enumerated right have crap for brains or evil intent. This cartoon illuminates the mental deficiencies and/or deliberate deception.

Gun cartoon of the day

NRASchoolInvasion

I’m pretty sure this was in response to the NRA statement following the Newton massacre. This is part of that statement:

I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school — and to do it now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January.

They explicitly say the NRA is deranged. Yet this cartoonist is the one distorting the facts. This cartoonist wants people to believe armed guards protecting school children and teachers would cause children to be afraid. Are Bloomberg and Obama afraid of their armed guards? If they were they could dismiss them. Yet they don’t so one has to assume the guards provide protection. But we have people like this cartoonist attempting to convince people that children will be safer without people guarding them.

Are children safer when there is no one present to protect them from harm or when there are people trained in the protection of others ready and willing to do that job? Who is deranged here?

The truth is that this cartoonist, and anti-gun people in general, think of guns as inherently evil. Some of them literally think guns used in homicides go to Hell. And they claim the NRA is deranged.

Quote of the day—Robert Tracinski

If the whole focus of your life is on getting everybody else to agree with you on every detail of your politics and adopt your plans for a perfect society, then you’re setting yourself up to be at war with most of the human race most of the time.

Which means an awful lot for the Angry Left to get angry about.

Robert Tracinski
March 26, 2015
Why Is the Angry Left So Angry?
[While this is a good start I think there is more to it than this.

Having spent a lot of years dealing with someone and their family who were angry much of the time I came to realize that anger was the primary means of communication for them. If you didn’t get angry they would not pay attention to what you were saying. I remember an instance where I coolly and calmly told this person, probably a dozen times over the course of a few days, that what they were doing was hazardous. They would agree, say they wouldn’t do it again, then, frequently, within a few seconds do it again.

Eventually I lost my cool. I yelled. They apologized, said they wouldn’t do it again, and they didn’t. Within a year I found myself getting angry with them with almost no provocation. They taught me to get angry to communicate. I finally realized this and starting thinking about what was going on. I then thought back to the first time I met this persons family. I was at the front door and the living room was chaos. Various people yelling at the same time and no one appeared to be listening to anyone else. My friend, happy to see me, walked through the chaos with a big smile. They were oblivious to the yelling and anger of everyone else.

The entire family communicated via emotions. The actual words weren’t that important. There were many times I would see different people in a conversation were talking about entirely different things but didn’t realize the other party to the conversation was “on a different channel”. Other times what they said was self-contradictory. It didn’t even make sense. Pointing this out to them was interesting. They would laugh and say it didn’t matter. I became sort of a joke to them because I couldn’t understand them. They made no sense to me but they were entirely happy with their babbling to each other and didn’t see what why I had a problem with it. “Oh, Joe, we’re just talking.” is an actual quote which came in response to my confusion about something not making sense.

When the topic of discussion was something of significant importance and it involved me I would sometimes insist they pay attention to reality and make sense. This would result in a fight. The claim was that “I had to get my own way.” But it wasn’t my way. It was forcing them to be congruent with reality and the laws of physics.

We see similar things with the left/progressives. They think they have accomplished something by holding a candlelight vigil. They demand a higher minimum wage and higher employment rate no matter how many time it is demonstrated you can’t have both for very long. They demand enhanced background checks because President Regan, Jim Brady, and a bunch of kids were shot—even though the shooters did, or would have, passed the proposed background check.

They use “hash tag diplomacy” and declare victory when bullets are the only viable option to effect change. They throw “reasons” like, “stand your ground”, and “war on women” around because they know our society requires at least some lip service be given to “reasons” even if the facts don’t support their claims. They don’t understand reason and resort to making reasoning noises. They cannot even tell you how to determine truth from falsity.

Emotion is their currency and their reality. If they feel something is true then, for them, it is true. This was driven home to me when I extreme frustration I once demanded, “How do you determine truth from falsity?” They calmly told me, “It depends on how I feel.”

I have been repeatedly told and after many decades of trying everything else I’m beginning to believe the proper approach to these people is to not get emotional. That is their “battle space”. When you get emotional it makes them happy because you become one of them. Then any emotion they care to use is justified because you are already emotional. Insist they be rational. They can’t. They only have emotions. Point out their logical and factual errors and refuse to accept their emotions as currency.

We do not share a common basis for communication or for determining reality. We share the same planet but they are in a different world. So of course they get angry with us. In their minds we are aliens in a turf war with them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—George Washington

So that moron who keeps spewing garbage – and doesn’t seem like he’s even listening to your responses – may actually be a bot.

George Washington
March 23, 2015
Propagandists Use Automated Software to Spread Disinformation
[We have suspected this for some time now. The anti-gun people are just so dense they could be replaced with a bot without any degradation in perceived intelligibility.

Our time is probably better spent taking new shooters to the range than it is engaging in battle on Twitter.—Joe]

Exactly like an Obama ad

This Ted Cruise ad could be an Obama ad, except for one single word (and the face). It may in fact BE a recycled Obama ad, with the tiniest bit of editing. Check it out.

Someone needs to be fired, and right now too. The same old crap such as this won’t do this time around. It won’t do at all.

Gun cartoon of the day

PrintedGuns

In what universe is this cartoonist living in? If anything like this were to be true then it would also be true at the gun stores of today. There also have been lots of guns printed and I’m certain nothing like this has happened, let alone the first time a gun was printed.

This guy wants to make people think that only cold blooded killers would want a gun. This, of course, is demonstrably false. But the bigger the lie the more likely is it to be believed.

Quote of the day—Bob Puharic

The fact is the US has no gun control and the fact is Americans don’t want gun control because they’re largely illiterate on the topic.

Bob Puharic
March 11, 2015
Comment to The NRA Wins Again on Armor-piercing Bullets, But Common Sense Was Already Lost
[Wow!

I consider myself only semi-literate on gun control laws in this country because I haven’t begun to read all of the estimated 20 to 30 thousand laws we have.

Puharic is a stunning example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.—Joe]