Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

It’s written in a way that puts a chilling effect on gun ownership, but quite frankly, it’s unenforceable. There’s a giant loophole in this law. If they go to Oregon or Idaho, they can bring [a rifle] back. It’s totally legal. They just can’t buy it in Washington state.

Alan Gottlieb
Founder, Second Amendment Foundation
November 7, 2018
Second Amendment Foundation: Loopholes aplenty with I-1639
[There are other loopholes as well. I was at a gun store recently and suggested a loophole they might use. The clerk behind the counter said, paraphrasing, “That should work. But most of the time I expect we will just do it like….” and he explained a simpler approach. I had considered his suggestion weeks ago but figured it was clearly violating the spirit of the law even though it was complying with the letter of the law and that might be too risky. But, he didn’t seem bothered by it so I’m not going to worry about it. I make so many trips to Idaho I will just buy my guns there and not subject myself to the risk.

I’m a bit torn between keeping loopholes like this quiet and openly mocking the ignorance and stupidity of the people that write these laws. On the one hand we get more time to get more guns into the hands of more people. On the other we embarrass the anti-gun activists and cause them to lose face and status in the eyes of those who donate millions of dollars.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ann

I’ve always pictured a gun ban looking like this in the United States.

It would be so great. No more violence. Just peace and trees.

Ann
February 19, 2018
Comment of February 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM.
[Delusions are often functional. In this case, however, it’s just a delusion.—Joe]

Not helping

From MSN:

A man in Florida has been arrested after he threatened to shoot senators who don’t support Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, authorities said.

The narrative against the political left which seems to be most effective in getting people to put distance between them is that they are crazy and violent. There is a lot of evidence to support than.

I want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court because I believe he is much more likely to support the rule of law than a justice appointed by someone from the left. An advocate for Kavanaugh who advocates murder is counterproductive.

Update: Here is someone from the political left to illustrate my point:

Dr. Carol Christine Fair, an associate professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown said white GOP Senators deserve to die miserable deaths “while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps.”

This wasn’t enough for Dr. Fair, she said once the white Republican Senators die miserable deaths, their corpses should be castrated and fed to pigs.

Quote of the day—Jennifer Granholm

Right. And that actually corroborates Ford’s story.

Jennifer Granholm
September 23, 2018
CNN’s Jennifer Granholm Claims No Corroboration Actually Proves Claims Against Kavanaugh — Tucker Isn’t Buying It
[Context is important:

“Kavanaugh, Judge, Smith and her friend, Leland Keyser, have all said they don’t remember anything like this ever happening. And Leland Keyser, who says she believes Ford, said she doesn’t even remember being at a party where Kavanaugh was present,”  CNN’s Jake Tapper said in the video.

“Right, and that actually corroborates Ford’s story which is that she was so horrified by this that she kind of snuck out or slunk out of this apartment in a way that no one would know what happened because she was so utterly mortified,” Granholm followed up.

Tucker Carlson commented, “Are you following this at home? See if you can track the reasoning here. When you are corroborating witnesses can’t corroborate your story, the one you say they can corroborate, your story has still been corroborated — maybe even more so so.”

So… In response to finding out that all of those who are claimed to be witness to an event report no recollection of the event this mental giant, Granholm, insists this supports the claim the event actually happened. The question I would have asked her is, “So, if all four people reported the event did happen would this mean the event did not happen?”

Of course, we know the answer. Logical thought processes are not something they care about. It may even be they are incapable of them. It may be they have a mental disorder. It may be that they are so used to a supportive media they know it doesn’t matter what they say as long as it supports the narrative. It may be that because it was someone from her “tribe” making the, almost certainly, false claim that there was no way she could comfortably side against the false claim.

Monday evening daughter Jaime and I were discussing the Kavanaugh situation and I arrived at the conclusion that the political left has realized their political future is over if Kavanaugh’s appointment to SCOTUS is confirmed. With that a near certainty, the risk of losing support via crazy, and even illegal, behavior is the better option. From the chaos generated they may be able to avoid near certain political extinction.

Tribal loyalties, even when they didn’t always match reality, were evolutionarily advantageous. That doesn’t meant they were useful in determining truth from falsity. Determination of truth, and even reality, is an extremely tough problem. Our brains only have approximations of knowing reality. It has only been since the dark ages that we have succeeded in formalizing processes, with extreme difficulty, and proteolyzing these processes which usually work. Most people do not follow these processes and in many cases actively reject them. It is relatively easy to support the claim that reason is just a thin veneer over the human brain.

I suspect her mind worked back from the conclusion she had reached and this was the best way of rationalizing the conclusion from the available evidence. I have found there is no guarantee smart people will think logically. Smart people are frequently just more creative in their rationalizations.

When in positions of power these people are extremely dangerous. These are the type of people who can and will find a rationalization to commit genocide.—Joe]

Quote of the day—American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Courts have never required plaintiffs to demonstrate that the government directly attempted to suppress their protected expression in order to establish First Amendment retaliation, and they have often upheld First Amendment retaliation claims involving adverse economic action designed to chill speech indirectly.

Were it otherwise, the First Amendment would prohibit the government from pressuring a newspaper to remove a speaker’s advertisement, but it would allow the government to bankrupt the speaker by pressuring its business partners to terminate their contracts. That absurd result has no foundation in the law.

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
August 24, 2018
BRIEF OF [PROPOSED] AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION IN SUPPORT OF THE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[A short version of the context is:

A campaign by New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo to crack down on the National Rifle Association and similar groups is facing its first big legal test, with a federal judge expected to decide soon whether to allow a challenge to go forward.

Cuomo’s administration has asked Judge Thomas McAvoy of the U.S. Northern District of New York to throw out a First Amendment lawsuit by the NRA that claims the policy restricting financial activity with pro-gun organizations amounts to viewpoint discrimination.

The judge heard arguments on the motion to dismiss on Sept. 10. The decision, whatever it may be, will have far-reaching ramifications for free-speech and gun rights, the limits of financial regulation and possibly even the 2020 presidential contest.

The case has prompted an unusual alliance. The liberal American Civil Liberties Union, despite its support for gun control, filed a friend of the court brief in defense of the free-speech rights of the NRA.

According to the ACLU what the state of New York is claiming is that since the state didn’t tell the NRA they couldn’t exercise their right to speech the NRA does not have a First Amendment claim to push in court. Nevermind that the state told banks and insurance companies they should “consider the risk to their reputations” if they did business with the NRA. Shortly after that they were slapped with fines costing them millions of dollars.

Governor Cuomo is exceedingly dimwitted if he believes the argument he is making. I’m wondering if his comprehension would improve if the banks and insurance companies were to refuse to do business with any entity which sold food or water which found its way to the governor or his family.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mental Health Hazzard @mental_hazzard

Sorry kids, but those lax gun laws help Cletus feel less bad about his tiny penis. Your lives just aren’t as important as that.

Mental Health Hazzard @mental_hazzard
Tweeted on September 18, 2018
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

If this Mental Health Hazzard actually believes that “lax gun laws” are responsible for the death of children or that gun ownership has anything to do with penis size they have mental acuity issues as well as mental health issues. I suspect it is either about compensation for their lack of understanding of criminology, psychology, constitutional law, natural law, and the practicality of restricting a highly valued commodity or they are trolling for the entertainment value.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Reggie Reg Davis

The bullets, they do the killing, they kill. It’s up to us to figure out a way to wrap laws around the purchasing of ammunition.

Reggie Reg Davis
Wayne County Commissioner (Detroit)
September 16, 2018
Wayne County leader wants to make it harder to buy bullets
[No.

Just as “wrapping laws” around the purchase of alcohol and other recreational drugs didn’t improve society the restriction of a specific enumerated right not only won’t improve society it will be an infringement upon the natural right to defend ourselves.

People can make ammunition from scrap metal a few relatively simple tools. Just as with recreational drugs, it won’t be of the highest quality but it will be good enough to get the job done. And it this case the job will be restoring our rights.

Reggie Reg Davis, Molṑn labé.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Abbie Vetger

Only one in five gun owners belong to the NRA, so we think there is something else going on than just the NRA when it comes to mobilisation.

Abbie Vetger
September 2, 2018
Gun owners are more politically active, study finds
[The naiveté and lack of rigor here is astounding. Were they paid money to do this “study”?

Vetger and her colleagues need to check their work. A very simple check would have revealed the following:

Most estimates of gun ownership are between 20 and 40 percent of people in the U.S.. And this assumes all gun owners admit they own guns when they are asked by a pollster. It may be much higher than this.

The population of the U.S. is currently about 330,000,000. This means there are between 66 and 132 million gun owners in the U.S.

The NRA claims a membership of about 6 million people. Hence only about one in 11 to one in 22 gun owners belong to the NRA. Unless, you hypothesize the NRA is telling the world they have far fewer members than they actually have. For them to have such a motive escapes me.

Simple arithmetic shows any influence gun owners have must be far beyond the members the NRA influences.Assuming all the NRA’s 6 million members vote and vote as a block for the NRA agenda in an eligible voting population of about 241 million people is only about 2.5%. Sure, some political races are as close or closer than that but that isn’t enough to make a big difference and the assumption they all vote as a block is almost for certain false.

So… if the hypothesis that the NRA is the source of power is of questionable validity how about the hypothesis that gun owners a group independent of NRA members being a source of election strength? 60 to 126 million out of 241 million is about 25% to 50%. Now you are talking about some real power!

Therefore the timid conclusions reached by Vetger can be arrived at, and stated with far more assuredness, with a few minutes of searching on the Internet without going through the grant process and publishing a peer reviewed paper.

I wonder if Vetger and company were among those making projections that Hillary Clinton had a 95% chance of winning the 2016 election. If not then I expect she at least rode the same short bus to school with them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ramishah Maruf

It’s time to stop using video games as a deflection from conversations about responsible gun control. Video games shouldn’t even be in the conversation because it distracts us from the hard truth: easy access to guns is the main reason for mass shootings.

It takes a special train of thought to come to the conclusion that an animated video game is more to blame for shootings than the actual weapon used. Is America really that blinded by their love for the Second Amendment?

Ramishah Maruf
August 30, 2018
Video games have no relevance to mass shootings
[It’s interesting how she substitutes one class of objects, video games, which probably didn’t have much of an effect on the mental illness of the perpetrator, for another object, firearms, which certainly didn’t cause the mental illness.

That takes a very special kind of train of thought. At first you might think her train was functioning properly then you find it was going backward.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jess Grant

I’m not suggesting we disarm the police or army. Not exactly. But we might want to take a closer look at our culture and try to understand why we’re all so darned gun crazy.

It’s a frontier mentality, I suppose. A couple of hundred years of stealing land and fending off angry natives can really make a culture trigger-happy.

I suggest we start at the top.

I worry about somebody shooting me at the mall, but I worry a lot more about being incinerated by nuclear weapons.

If we’re serious about gun control, we might want to refocus on multilateral nuclear disarmament. To fret about handguns in a world of hair-trigger nuclear weaponry is textbook denial.

Jess Grant
August 14, 2018
A new approach to gun control
[I found to difficult to decide if they were this vacuous because they were naturally this way or if they were exhibiting the effects of the readily available marijuana in Washington state.

In either case, they had crap for brains when they wrote this.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Nick Wing

The gun lobby has long pushed a vision of the world in which anyone could be armed at any time, and in which you need a gun to defend yourself against that constant threat. By inviting the “era of the downloadable gun,” as Defense Distributed has coined it, we’d be one step closer to that dystopian future.

Nick Wing
August 3, 2018
The Darkly Twisted Logic Behind The NRA’s Support For 3D-Printed Guns
[The only twisted logic I found in the article was in that of the author. Why do they think that just because anyone could be armed at any time would mean there is a constant threat? In most states and locations in the U.S.it is already the case that someone there could be legally armed at any time. And most of the other locations are covered by the easily probable case of someone being illegally armed. The only way I can make sense of his view is if he is living in some sort of fantasy world.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tamlynn Torchon

Let’s be clear: gun control is neither gun abolition nor gun confiscation. No one is trying to take away your guns, and no one is suggesting a ban in the U.S., either.

Tamlynn Torchon
July 26, 2018
Opinion: Gun control is useful, necessary and complicated
[Yes. Let’s be clear. Torchon is extraordinarily ignorant and/or lying. Therefore we can regard everything they say as worthless or evidence of their evil intent.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bill Hamilton

The thrill of target shooting an assault weapon is no justification for allowing these weapons of mass destruction. At a minimum, individuals who possess them should be registered, licensed and taxed. Until that time, their sales should be banned.

Bill Hamilton
July 5, 2018
Kittery Trading Post should engage with community about guns
[The Second Amendment isn’t about “the thrill of target shooting”. It’s about defense against a tyrannical government. Which means that in order to be useful they must, at a minimum, be untraceable and unknown to any government entity.

Hamilton has crap for brains and/or is an activist for the enemies of freedom.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Greg Bates

If we want to end the carnage, we must advocate for the solution that is required, not one designed to be politically palatable. Instead of shying away from the NRA’s accusation that gun control advocates want to take away their guns, we should embrace it as a mantra.

Let’s clear the air and call for total civilian disarmament. Period.

Greg Bates
February 25, 2018
Maine Voices: It’s time for a gun abolition movement
[I find it interesting there is no thought given to how, or who will take away all the guns. And does Mr. Bates have any clue what the cost will be? I don’t think so. I think he has crap for brains.

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

Quote of the day—BestFeeds

A law should be made to ban freelance freight and ban on running open arms. But this law has not passed due to the effect of the influence of the owners and arms lobby in congress of arms manufacturing factories.

BestFeeds
June 20, 2018
No Gun Control Legislation -70 People died in 3 days in United States
[This author could be replaced with a relatively simple computer program. Or, quite possibly, he already has been. With these anti-gun people it’s sometimes so hard to tell.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David Salisbury

Hone in on our intention. This tragedy of rampant gun violence, murder, mass killings – all these terrible, painful things that we are seeking to stop, to put an end to this night . . . . We curse you, merchants of mayhem, profiteers of pain, dealers of death, you who fatten on the blood of innocents and feast like demons on their corpses! May your thoughts and prayers turn to poison in your mouths. May every mother’s cry be a bullet to your heart. May the weeping of children rend your flesh like shrapnel

If there is anything I can do at all that’s even remotely effective, that might be magic,

David Salisbury
June 2018
Documentary film depicts binding ritual on Trump, NRA
[H/T NRA-ILA who offer this perspective:

It kind of makes sense.

We all know that gun control is based mainly on magical thinking.

Salisbury believes himself to be a witch and is using his supposed powers against the the NRA.

At first I wondered, if he believes in his magical powers, why didn’t he use them to stop evil people from murdering others in the future. But then I realized that, of course, a witch aligns against the good people of the NRA. He is on the side of evil.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tony Asaro‏ @TGaucho

I know what I want, thank you. Buy back & incinerate every civilian firearm. Every single one.

Tony Asaro‏ @TGaucho
Tweeted on February 25, 2018
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

And then this genius came up with a plan to fund it:

Charge registration on legal guns. Use $$ to run buyback program.

Robyn K? @RobynK12

These people have crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alex Yablon

If people own guns to defend themselves against situations like home invasions, they are likely to want them easily accessible and ready to shoot when the unthinkable happens. If the weapons are stored in a safe, separate from ammuntion [sic], that could be marginally more difficult.

Alex Yablon
June 4, 2018
A Gun Owner Explains Why He Leaves His Pistol Loaded and Unsecured
[“…marginally more difficult”?

When seconds matter your gun and ammunition are only minutes away from being useful.

Deliberate dismissive wording and/or crap for brains? You decide.—Joe]

It’s in her nature

I’m written about Rachel Dolezal before and she once suggested a more complex label would be appropriate. Well, it appears she has obtained a simpler label:

Former Spokane Chapter NAACP President Rachel Dolezal is now facing legal trouble that could land her behind bars. KHQ has confirmed that Dolezal, who legally changed her name to Nkechi Diallo in 2016, is accused of 1st Degree Theft by Welfare Fraud, Perjury in the 2nd Degree, and False Verification for Public Assistance. Her potential punishment under RCW 74.08.331 could include up to 15 years in prison.

That label would be “criminal”.

It is quite clear fraud is in her nature and has been for quite some time.