Quote of the day—brainuser1

By now you have heard about the terrible accident at the hands of a toddler, resulting in the death of his father. What more reason do we need to address the issue of gun control? Better yet, what greater example to envision a society where there are no guns…eliminating these types of accidents?

I can’t help but “go there” for a minute and think (putting this very, very unfortunate accident aside for a minute) how many lives would have been spared if there were no guns to end them. How would differences be settled? What other alternative would police officers take if it were not so easy to reach for their pistol and shoot a suspect?

Maybe we’d go back to the old days of man up…dukes up and fight it out.

I don’t recall many people dying from that, just bloody.

I don’t know about you, but I am sick and tired of people dying from being shot!

brainuser1
August 24, 2015
Toddler’s Fatal Shot of Dad Should Open Conversation About Greater Gun Control
[There are five things I find worth remembering from “brainuser1”.

1) This brainiac apparently can’t imaging there are tradeoffs in lives lost if there were no guns. If there were no guns then there would be only “lives spared”, not lives lost due to inability to defend innocent life.

2) The physically frail or even those just small of stature, in the view of this person, are not worthy of having a chance of defending themselves against large predators.

3) “People dying from being shot” is what is important. Not people dying from evil predators.

4) The specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is not even on their radar screen.

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

Make that five and a half things… They have crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Steve Bucci

There are a lot of them that aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Steve Bucci
Security expert and former top Pentagon official
August 17, 2015
Price for TSA’s failed body scanners: $160 million
[Never forget that they even have TSA backward. A more accurate acronym is AST (A Security Theater).—Joe]

Quote of the day—David De Santis

No one wants to disarm anyone.
We want to reduce hand guns IN PUBLIC.

David De Santis
June 2, 2014
Comment to Editorial: More gun violence, but not prevention
[Not only is prosecuting people for handgun possession in public infringing upon the “keep and bear arms” section of the Bill of Rights De Santis’s statement is self-contradictory. This conclusively demonstrates it is non-sensical from an epistemological view. This means De Santis does not know what it means to know things.

And yes, he actually wrote that in consecutive sentences. He didn’t write three paragraphs and arrive at a different void in his mind where communication from void A to void B was nothing but static. This had to be part of the same void or else these voids in his mind are so close together they have merged into one.

Apparently Mr. Crap for Brains David De Santis, like many anti-gun people, is nothing but a vacuous noise maker.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cathy Lanier

There’s been a number of changes in gun laws in states all across the United States in the past several years, a number of pushes to purchase these high capacity magazines, for fear that they may not be legally available some time in the future, and now is it possible that now maybe some of those are making their way to the major cities? We don’t know, but for some reason they are showing up in all major cities.

Cathy Lanier
D.C. police chief
August 13, 2015
DC’s Top Cop Accidentally Makes The Case Against Gun Control
[Let me get this straight. Lanier knows that people are buying standard capacity magazines because of laws being passed to ban them. Then she wonders why people in major cities own them?

Does she have a problem with forgetting facts she expressed only seconds earlier when she attempts to ask a question?

As Emily Miller said, “I don’t think the IQ is all that high.”

Let me spell it out for you Ms. “Crap For Brains” Lanier. People in the cities own them in increasing numbers because authoritarians like you are trying to ban them. Stop trying to ban them and there would be less demand for them. And, this is the really important part for people like you to grasp, if you stop trying to ban guns the less likely they are to be used on you.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Joanne Mitchell‏@joannemsv

@FoxNews @seanhannity All life is precious. Their is no heirarchy of value. Animal life is as important as human life. #JusticeForCecil

Joanne Mitchell‏@joannemsv
Tweeted on July 29, 2015
[If she really believed this she wouldn’t defend her child against a predator intent on eating it. And what is her definition of “animal life”? Does it include parasites such as leeches and tapeworms? Does she wash her fresh fruit and vegetables before eating them? Does she carefully sweep the path ahead of her so she doesn’t step on any insects?

Sometimes you just have to shake your head and walk away. Someone this mind boggling stupid isn’t even worth arguing with.

One would have thought this sort of mindset would have been hardwired out of existence a million years ago. It certainly doesn’t exist in the wild. What sort of mental illness creates someone so ill adapted to reality?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dustin Koellhoffer

In essence, liberal thinking is immature thinking believing that what sounds good is good regardless of results.  This is what becomes their “Law of Unexpected Consequences,” which is only unexpected to them and not to those who think things through.  It is the foundation of their argument that the results of their policies are not what is to be judged, but only their good intentions.  Unfortunately, the Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.

Dustin Koellhoffer
2015
Liberals Backwards Think
[It goes further than this. It’s not just that good intentions are good enough to them. Many of them are incapable of rational thought.—Joe]

It’s a symbol of responsibility

That’s why they’re afraid of it.

A fire extinguisher is made as a tool to be used by someone who can cope, to protect his property and protect those who cannot cope.

The university educated, the entertainers, and media personalities, leftists in general, tend to wear their inability to cope as a badge of honor.

We’ve all see it; the guy well into adulthood who cannot drive a car, for example, and is clearly proud of the fact. Driving is what servants do, for me– It is not something I do. He has his nose in the air when he informs you he doesn’t drive.

If you gave him the gift of jumper cables and a nice floor jack, he’d be offended and maybe even a little scared. If you required him to demonstrate a fire extinguisher on a network TV show? Same thing.

Only icky people can build things, fix things, cope with unexpected dangers, and use guns or fire extinguishers. Eeew!

The Special Little Snowflake, or as I call him, “Fragile Little Flower” gains his identity through his weaknesses. He has learned that his weakness is his power over other people.

Those of us who can cope are to blame for this situation, through our failure to correct and through our capitulation. The FLFs are in charge of much of society and culture as a result.

Someone recently brought up The Lord of the Flies to describe the world, and it fits quite nicely. When the adults fail in their responsibilities to encourage and guide the “children” into becoming capable and responsible adults themselves, then all hell will break loose. That describes world politics for the last 100 years quite well.

Reasoning sounds

Anti-gun people attempt to fake rational thought. Here is another example:

In the wake of the July 1 attack in which illegal alien Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez allegedly used a stolen gun to shoot and kill Kathryn Steinle, San Francisco supervisor Mark Farrell is pushing a new gun control law that will require every gun and ammunition sale to be videotaped.

This law will increase the focus on law-abiding citizens who buy guns and ammo–as those are the kinds of transactions that will be videotaped–while completely ignoring the problem of illegal aliens in sanctuary cities using guns, acquired via theft or otherwise, to harm citizens.

To top it off the gun was one in the possession of a Federal agent.

This is crazy talk. But as crazy as this is the sad/disturbing/scary thing is that many people accept and approve of this sort of thing.

It’s as if when confronted with lemons, water, and sugar some politician attempts to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Then a significant number of people want the government to force everyone to eat the sandwiches.

Quote of the day—bajacalla

now we know exactly why Republicans hate gun control laws: it’s just tooooo haaaaaaaaaard!!!!!

bajacalla
July 15, 2015
Comment to Missing From New York’s Gun Control Law
[This is what they think of you.

In addition to reading comprehension apparently punctuation is too hard for this brainiac.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James E. Clyburn

But I do know this — we know from our experiences that background checks are effective in preventing a lot of people who should not have guns from getting guns.

James E. Clyburn
July 8, 2015
South Carolina Rep.: Removing Confederate flag matters, but what about guns?
[The CDC has been unable to find convincing evidence of this claim. Does Clyburn have evidence the CDC doesn’t have access too? Of course not. Clyburn doesn’t “know” things the same way as normal people do.

How do I know this for certain? The article also says:

Clyburn said he has “no way of knowing” whether the bill would have stopped the Charleston shooting.

This is our problem. I’ve pointed out this before too. We have a major disconnect when attempting to communicate with anti-gun people. The means by which they determine truth from falsity is completely different from normal people.

We do know whether the bill would have stopped the Charleston shooting. The shooter passed a background check when he obtained his gun. Therefore we know that requiring background checks for sales unrelated to his gun purchase could not have affected his shooting of innocent people. It is magical thinking to believe it would have. These anti-gun people need help with their mental health. They have no business in positions of power. There is no point in attempting “reach a middle ground” with them. The only reason you would negotiate with people this crazy is to buy yourself some time to deal with them in a more appropriate manner.

I’m reminded of something Will Rogers said,

Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘Nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.

If you already have a “rock” there is no point in engaging in diplomacy with them. You instead force them into submission with the minimum amount of effort required.—Joe]

Quote of the day—AWR Hawkins

According to Suffolk University, in addition to not wanting to hear about gun control in 2016, a majority of Americans do not believe increasing gun control via expanded background checks will curb mass violence. Fifty-six percent of respondents said it would not, while only 40 percent of respondents said it would.

This makes sense, when you consider that Roof allegedly purchased his gun via a background check at a Charleston gun store.

AWR Hawkins
June 30, 2015
Survey: Majority of Americans Not Interested in Gun Control for 2016
[Makes sense? It would make sense if it were 95% instead of 56%. That 40% think expanded background checks would “curb mass violence” when the example immediately in front of them is completely counter to that hypothesis is proof of their inability to draw even the simplest of logical conclusions.

This is a demonstration the fact that for a very large percentage of the population they, at best, make reasoning sounds. The concept of reason is completely alien to them. This is really frightening to me. I would expect dogs, cats, dolphins, and some birds, let alone all primates, to have that good of reasoning skills with similar problems. Apparently humans, on the whole, can do little better than chance.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jonathan Hutson

Through simple, common-sense solutions, supported by nearly all US Americans, including the vast majority of gun owners, the Brady Campaign plans to realize the audacious but achievable goal of cutting gun deaths in half in the United States by 2025.

Jonathan Hutson
Chief communications officer for the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence
June 30, 2015
Is Strict Gun Control the Best Way to Prevent Shootings?
Another Massacre Begs What Can Be Done

[It’s fascinating to read his entire answer to the question. He writes entirely about how great and wonderful background checks are. But not once does he say they would have prevented the Charleston massacre. Not once does he even hint at any evidence that “simple, common-sense solutions” will cut “gun deaths” by any amount let alone half in the next 10 year.

His entire response is an exercise in avoiding the question asked. There are two possibilities here:

  1. He knows gun control, of any type, will not prevent the shootings that make headlines and he is deliberately avoiding the question.
  2. He has mental problems similar to Peterson Syndrome. He literally sees and hears something very different from what others write and say. He brain is malfunctioning and he is incapable of rational thought.

In either case Hutson is making it clear to everyone that he and his organization are either malicious or have crap for brains and are to be ignored in the political debate.

Because of the evidence supplied by Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson, for which Peterson Syndrome is named, and the actions of their lawyers, I’m inclined to believe crap for brains is a requirement for everyone aligned with them.—Joe]

Mental problems

Having more than a casual interest in the mental problems of people I recognize a trait described by Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch regarding The Brady Campaign lawsuit against Lucky Gunner, THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE, et al.:

plaintiffs try to have it both ways by complaining that the injury was foreseeable to the defendants on the one hand, and complaining that defendants knew nothing about their customer on the other.

One of the traits present in people with Borderline Personality Disorder and some other personality disorders is they create or complain about situations of which you cannot win. For example, “You must be home in time for dinner” and simultaneously imposing the condition, “You must complete your work before you come home regardless of how long it takes.” Or “You must bring home more money.” and “You must work fewer hours.”

Read my post Crazy talk for numerous anti-gun examples.

When you point out the impossible situation they have created they will probably attack you (verbally and/or physically). It is always your fault they are angry with you because you violated some “rule” they imposed or you “should have known” about. They insist upon a myriad of rules which are conflicting, nonsensical, and impossible to meet. They then insist you are the problem when you fail to abide by the rules. This is the Brady Campaign, and anti-gun people in general, mindset. This is conclusive proof they have mental problems.

The exact diagnosis of their mental problems is not particularly important. What is important is how to deal with them. In still another anti-gun crazy talk example Stacy, my counselor on such matters, has some advice on how to deal with these people.

Quote of the day—Jerry Larson/The Associated Press

Six witnesses interviewed by the AP describe a melee that began with a few pistol shots but was dominated by semiautomatic gunfire.

some officers carry semiautomatic weapons, which fire a single shot with every pull of the trigger and automatically reload between shots.

Jennifer Cicolani, of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, noted that a semiautomatic gun can shoot more bullets in less time than a small-caliber weapon.

Jerry Larson/The Associated Press
June 6, 2015
Semiautomatic gunfire dominated Waco biker shootout, several witnesses say
[There is so much crap for brains demonstrated here that I don’t even want to think about it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert W. Tyson

Former supreme courts could just as easily have interpreted that amendment to require gun ownership, be well-regulated and linked to a militia, except for single-shot rifles for hunting.

But that ship has sailed. To unilaterally disarm citizens would only leave them vulnerable to bad guys with guns. The darkness has won. Get used to the bloody carnage. Beelzebub must be gleeful.

Robert W. Tyson
June 23, 2015
Letter: Gun control ship has sailed
[“…courts could just have easily..”? I guess there are people that think that. There is no “original intent”. The words used don’t mean what they say. The courts can just make up whatever they want and insert words like “hunting” that have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

Then Tyson goes on to say citizens can’t be unilaterally disarmed because they would become vulnerable to the bad guys. But then immediately says the current situation with citizens being armed results in “the darkness” having won and “bloody carnage”. But wouldn’t people have been vulnerable to bad guys even if they had been disarmed decades ago?

I think this guy has crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian Doherty

Certain anti-gun folk seem to sincerely believe that the only reason Second Amendment advocates want to have a gun, or want other people to have the right to have a gun, is because guns are so great at killing people; that a gun not used to kill someone isn’t really worth having. But it isn’t true.

Brian Doherty
June 22, 2015
Gun Rights Advocates Don’t Just Want Guns in Order to Kill Criminals (Believe it Or Not!)
A much-hyped new Violence Policy Center study grossly misses the point about guns’ value in self-defense.
[Doherty points out the straw man almost all of us have encountered with the anti-gun people. It comes in various flavors, such as

  • The only thing a gun is good for is killing.
  • Guns are designed to kill.
  • If you own a gun you must want to kill something.

No matter how many times we correct them they keep coming back with the same or essentially the same straw man. And we keep pointing out the data, as Doherty does in his article quoted above, that successful defensive use of firearms seldom involves killing anyone or anything.

So why do they keep attempting to use this straw man when each time they get what appears to be a full mouthful of reality shoved in their face? I believe it is because their minds don’t operate in our reality. They live in their own imagined reality.

I’m reminded of something Richard Feynman observed in one of his books. I think it was a musician friend was teaching Feynman music and Feynman was teaching the musician physics. After a few weeks the musician told Feynman, “When you say you know something, you really mean it.”

What this means to me is that there a lot of people who believe knowledge is a personal thing. One person’s beliefs, knowledge, and opinions are just as valid as anyone else’s. This is emphatically not true. But yet I am certain there are a great many people who believe this. These people cannot understand facts and logical trains of thought. You can no more teach them logic than you can teach colors to someone blind from birth.

Personal interactions with these people should elicit your sympathy. Their public claims of relevance should be greeted with mockery.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James Burdick

I believe he’s never seen a tough guy close up, or a drunk or a tough guy drunk on liquor or pcp. So I know he has no idea what he’s doing, but that he also probably has a very tiny wee-wee, which explains the gun.

James Burdick
June 15, 2015
James Burdick: My Visit to Costco in Bloomfield Hills and the Gun-Toting Twerp
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via Sean Sorrentino on Facebook.

What I found most interesting about the article was that Burdick constructed a fantasy world around someone open carrying then started insulting the guy based upon the fantasy he had created. There were similar things in the comments too. What they “believe” is more important than reality. There is a technical term for that. Crazy.

I just call it crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John M. Snyder

These trying times demand that traditionalist Americans develop, defend and promote a manifesto of freedom

Let us fight for the right to life, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to be free from the abomination of same-sex marriage.

John M. Snyder
June 16, 2015
Manifesto of Freedom Needed
[I don’t think that word means what you think it means John. Both laws against abortion and “the right to be free from the abomination of same-sex marriage” would appear to require the use of the force of government. That’s not “freedom”.

You aren’t helping when you don’t even make sense.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Firearms Policy‏@gunpolicy

How do you “prevent” people from violating laws? You can’t –there is no “pre-crime” division.

Firearms Policy‏ @gunpolicy
Tweeted on June 18, 2015
[I have tried to say the same thing over the years but this expresses it so much better.

You know The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is nonsensical simply by it’s name.—Joe]