Quote of the day—Michael Beard

The pro-gun lobby is predictably using the recent school shootings as an opportunity to ask, “What if the teachers and students had been armed?” That is the wrong question.

The right question is, “What if the perpetrator had NOT been able to obtain those firearms? How many lives would have been saved?” Instead of asking what the U.S. would be like with more guns, shouldn’t we be asking what our country would be like with fewer guns? Guns do not solve problems, they create problems. A handgun is designed for the sole purpose of taking human life.

Michael Beard
April 21, 2008
The Wrong Question
[In answer to the question “What our country would be like with fewer guns?” The answer is that those with evil intent and willingness to break the law will always be able to acquire a firearm. And it will never be more difficult that it is to acquire illegal recreational drugs. Which, in case Mr. Beard doesn’t have the social awareness or intelligence to answer for himself, is so easy that any, and most, high school dropouts can acquire within a few minutes any hour of any day in any city in the country. And therefore if people with evil intent can easy get a gun then those not willing to break the law will be the ones without the skills and the tools to defend themselves from evil.

Gun do solve problems. I like R. A. Lafferty’s response to people who come with things like Beard’s asinine assertion.—Joe]

This is a clue

When people this stupid are elected to national office is it any surprise nearly all government actions are messed up beyond all hope of functionality? Just think about this:

This FBI investigation of Leland Yee reveals how easy it is to import lethal assault weapons that were previously banned,” said Speier in an emailed statement from the Representative’s office to Guns.com.

“This case should be a warning to us all that even the most trusted appearing among us are ready to do real harm,” she said.

Her solution to fix future instances of potential gun running such as in the Yee case? Call on the White House to ban the import of “assault weapons.”

Furthermore, from her congressional website:

Jackie was appointed to serve as a Vice Chair of a new congressional Gun Violence Prevention Task Force…

Apparently she is one of the best and brightest the anti-gunners have to offer yet says things like:

She is an outspoken advocate for a federal ban on assault weapons, full and complete background checks on all gun sales, including sales at gun shows, and strict limits on high capacity ammunition sales.

“High capacity ammunition sales”? What does that even mean? Is that when I bring a semi-truck to the gun show to haul away my ammo purchases? And that is disregarding all the evidence that restrictions that she is “an outspoken advocate” for do not make people safer and violates the Bill of Rights. She truly has crap for brains.

If someone’s ability to think rationally is so impaired that they are unable to comprehend how stupid the things she says are then it surely extends to every other thing she wants government involved in. If this were someone in management of a private business they would be demoted to a manual labor position, fired, or the business would go broke. As it is people this stupid are still smart enough to get elected, spend your money on stupid stuff, and tell you how to run your life. And it’s not just her. Government is filled with idiots like this and they believe they are your superiors and they “intend to do you good”.

Although Thoreau had an appropriate response when it is an individual with the obvious intent to do you good (run for your life) when it is a government official you don’t have that option available. When they have the power of government behind them they are a threat to society. As Daniel Webster said when talking of those in government with “good intentions”, “They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

I’ve said this before but it doesn’t hurt to remind people that good intentions are not a valid defense at a trial. Should, as would be appropriate, Jackie Speier be put on trial we should not let her use good intentions as a defense.

Quote of the day—Sten Deadio

Allowing anonymous gun purchases makes as much sense as allowing anonymous anthrax purchases.

Sten Deadio
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[Anthrax possession is not a specific enumerated right unless you consider it a form of arm in common use.

Their analogy is just as invalid as it would be if you were to substitute any of the following for “gun purchase”:

  • “book purchase”
  • “printing press purchase”
  • “computer purchase”
  • “association meetings”
  • “religious meetings”
  • “speech”
  • “voting”
  • “homosexuals”
  • “Jews”
  • “Catholics”

As is usual, this anti-gun person has no comprehension of principles.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Imma Commenter

All the NRA has to do is scream that Obama is coming for your guns & these gunsterbating animals foam at the mouth and dance like the monkeys on the string they are.

Imma Commenter
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[Citation needed.

This one almost qualifies as an example of Markley’s Law. And they do qualify for the category of “Crap For Brains”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—happy48

The NRA officer board needs to be put in prison. They’re bad people. If I ever found it necessary to own a gun, I’d never support that organization. They don’t represent me, a responsible person. They represent the people that shouldn’t have guns. That’s why we have such a problem. They’re the devil. You’re safer without a gun in hostile situations then with one. How is a cop going to tell the difference in a shoot out. What are you going to do put out a sign that says I’m a good guy.? Guns are a big business. And money is their God. The devil supports the Republican party. Their policies support abortions and murder.

happy48
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[And if an organization such as the NRA did not exist and he found it necessary to own a gun it would not be possible for him to legally purchase one.

“You're safer without a gun in hostile situations then with one.” I didn’t know that! I guess that is why when cops go into hostile situations they always leave their guns behind, right? Yeah. Right. And stealing the words of Roberta, “What color is the sky up his ass?”

This is what these people think of you. Imagine what they would do to you and the Second Amendment if they wrote the laws. Oh, that’s right. You don’t have to imagine. Just read the laws of Washington D.C, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, and Chicago. It is people like this that we need the Second as well as the 13th Amendment. And it is people like this that should be put on trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lee Viola

Essentially, gun advocates in 2014 are of the same mindset as cigarette smokers in 1964—just deny, blow some smoke in a rationalist’s face, and toss a butt on the street as though you own it.

Reasonable gun control will happen in the US, but it will require about fifty years of education, needlessly lost lives, price increases, lawsuits, and the same social/sexual shunning that have made smokers a powerless minority.

In the future, gun ownership will be rare and expensive.

Lee Viola
March 28, 2014
Comment to The Gun-Control Conversation Happened—and the NRA Won Again
[Apparently he hasn’t been paying attention in his gun political history class. He has it exactly backward and the time frame wrong. Rational arguments, taking new shooters to the range, court decisions, and political action is driving anti-gun people into political oblivion. At the present rate of advance we can expect that in 25 years we will have constitutional carry in all 50 states and “full auto” will be a selector switch option on nearly all new detachable magazine and belt fed firearms. Gun ownership will be as common as cellphone ownership today. More so if you count the number of guns owned per capita. The average gun owners has more guns than the average cell phone owner has cell phones.

He does have one thing right. Fifty years of mandatory government education could have the effect he desires.—Joe]

Quote of the day—jaxas4

… essentially a useless right that simply clutters up our Constitution and confuses people to no end because all it does is give violent right wing zealots a constitutional basis for inciting their emotional hyped up masses to form insurrections against enemies that do not exist, to promote idiotic gun laws that defy rational thinking and to quite literally turn our country into a seething cauldron of squabbling factions who have neither the intellect nor the patience for a civil discussion of the pros and cons of gun ownership. The most odious of these factions are the ones who hold to the lunacy that the right to own guns has the ultimate purpose of arming citizens against a tyrannical government, as if we do not have a professional military and law enforcement system to enforce the laws and keep order. What these factions want is what we had under the Articles of Confederation–mindless, lawless, anarchy in the streets.

jaxas4
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[“Squabbling” is something to be suppressed in the name of law and order?

This is what they think of the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment in particular. —Joe]

Quote of the day—ChrisFu1

Most of these tech workers make too much money anyway. The only issue I have is that instead of that saved money being taxed and given to the poor, it’s being kept by the company. It’s time we limit all wages to $32,000/yr for everyone.

ChrisFu1
March 22, 2014
Comment to Revealed: Apple and Google’s wage-fixing cartel involved dozens more companies, over one million employees
[Once you had maxed out your wages what would be the point of getting more training or coming up with new ideas that might save the company money, or starting a new business?

Communists/socialists/liberals/whatever. He/she might as well have said, “From everyone according to their ability.” I would like to invite them to North Korea so as to enjoy a much closer approximation to equality for a short time in extreme poverty until they reach true equality in death.—Joe]

Unilateral disarmament

Obama wants it for the nation. If this report is true, and it happens because it’s more than just a stupidly stupid budget-battle bargaining chip, Obama wants to eliminate the Tomahawk and Hellfire missile programs. And what’s he plan to replace it with? A plan for a missile that likely won’t be ready for another decade…. Urk?

I think the guy is both a fool AND actively trying to destroy the nation. This isn’t just anti-hawkish, or dovish, it’s an invitation to a serious mauling of our allies. I cannot fathom the idiocy of anyone still retaining an “Obama-Biden” bumper-sticker on their car.

Quote of the day–THE EDITORIAL BOARD of the New York Times

The N.R.A. objected to the letter’s support for a federal ban on the sale of assault weapons and ammunition, a buyback program to reduce the number of guns in circulation, limits on the purchase of ammunition, mandatory safety training for gun owners, and mandatory waiting periods before completing a purchase.

These sane, mainstream proposals will not prevent law-abiding citizens from acquiring and keeping firearms.

THE EDITORIAL BOARD of the New York Times
March 17, 2014
The Gun Lobby’s Latest Bizarre Crusade
[And as long as it is possible for law-abiding citizens to acquire and keep firearms the NYT editorial board will insist further infringement is “sane and mainstream”. What they don’t address is that such infringement does not accomplish any worthwhile goal and is clearly unconstitutional. They want bans on guns and ammunition in common use.

Don’t ever let anyone get away telling you that “no one wants to take your guns”. The Editorial Board of the New York Times is just one of many that have repeatedly said they do want to take them.—Joe]

Update: A comment from Mark Alger:

John Lott’s scholarship demonstrates clearly that restrictions on gun ownership do not have a positive effect on violent crime. That is to say, reality does not comport with the writer’s claim that infringements on the RKBA is sane, as they ignore the facts — reality. And, given that the overwhelming majority of We the People support RKBA, the outlook is NOT mainstream; it’s fringe, extremist, backwater. But, what’s dispositive is that RKBA **is** a right, long recognized in common law, infringed or abridged only by tyrants, and (almost an aside) recognized and protected as such by our Constitution. I therefor urge you to add this post to the crap for brains category.

Done. “Crap for Brains” category has been added.

Quote of the day—Dustin Pardue

Nobody is coming to take your guns and weapons. The National Rifle Association, which lays its roots as an off-shoot of a faction of the Ku Klux Klan, wanted you to think so, didn’t they? … In fact, no piece of federal legislation was ever presented in regards to gun restriction in Washington, DC under President Obama that limited gun ownership.

Dustin Pardue
March 10, 2014
Editorial: A pragmatic look at gun control
[Wow! Nearly every sentence in this guys editorial is opposed to the known facts in my universe. I have always discounted the possibility of those sci-fi plots with everything being the opposite of our universe. I always figured that as soon as a few major things are different the universes would radically diverge. In a short period of time, like in a decade or ten, there would be little resemblance between the two universes. But here we appear to have evidence to the contrary.

In Pardue’s universe the NRA was apparently formed by Confederate veterans instead of Union vets and helped supplied arms to the KKK instead of the victims of the KKK such as Robert Williams.

And in his universe Senator Feinstein never introduced the Assault Weapon Ban of 2013.

The divergence from our universe just goes on and on in this guys post. Another example is where he quotes the what in our universe is the 1875 Cruikshank decision but in his occurred in 1876:

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

In our universe there is more to the quoted sentence which changes the meaning:

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

So, I wonder if this is sufficient evidence to confirm the existence of alternate universes. I almost wish it were true. I could use the money from a Nobel Prize in physics. But I suspect the truth is this guy is just another passenger on an overloaded crazy train and there isn’t any money to be had from identifying the existence of something as common as crap for brains.—Joe]

Free availability of guns

Via Cemetery’s Gun Blob:

Free availability of guns is madness. Ban them all!

There is so much stupid in the thread that I could only deal with one or two sentences of it at a time.

As we know the number of guns in private hands as increased dramatically in the last decade or two while the crime rate has fallen so the availability of guns is beyond my comprehension why someone would think it is madness and demand they be banned. On the other hand believing it to be practical or wise to attempt enforcing a ban on them is madness.

But what I really want to know is; In what alternate universe can we find these free guns?

Quote of the day—anonymous

In a 2010 interview, Khalezov explained that you can’t build a skyscraper in NYC without an approved demolition plan. On 9/11, the World Trade Center’s demolition plan was put into action to demolish the complex.

Khalezov learned of this demolition plan from his job in the Soviet Union. He had worked in the nuclear intelligence unit and under an agreement between the Soviet Union and the USA, each country was obliged to inform the other of peaceful uses of nuclear explosions. The WTC was built with 3 thermo-nuclear charges in its foundations.

anonymous
February 15, 2014
Comment (which I marked as spam and hence can only be seen by administrators) to Quote of the day—Larry P. Card
See also 9/11 was a Mossad operation
[I’ve seen (and debunked) some truther stuff before but this is really out there. It’s amazing what people will believe and proselytize. I would like to know the psychology behind these sort of delusions. How does it benefit these people to believe such outlandish things? It’s even worse than those who believe gun control is a benefit to society.—Joe]

Quote of the day—jy151310

The constitution is supposed to protect the government from the people. I can’t see how this will help.

jy151310
February 13, 2014
Comment to Ninth Circuit holds Second Amendment secures a right to carry a gun
[Sarcasm?

Maybe. But I know people that are mentally messed up enough to believe that and yet they are professionally functional.

I believe that people like this actually exist and this is part of why we have the IRS, NSA, and TSA routinely abusing their power.—Joe]

Update: It’s sarcasm.

Something to ponder while we’re working on “shall issue”

I pointed out some years ago that the left, even the most radical, fringe, America-hating communist revolutionary leftist (like some of those in the Whitehouse) understands exactly how a right is supposed to work. We know they fully, completely and thoroughly understand because they’ve spent decades strenuously SHOWING US that they fully understand how a right works, that it means HANDS OFF, NO MATTER WHAT, END OF DISCUSSION, PERIOD!

They therefore can never, ever claim that they just didn’t get it, or hadn’t though enough about it, or didn’t have it presented to them in quite the right ways, or they were too busy, etc.

They’ve even taken their definition of a right beyond mere, total and absolute non-interference no matter what, ever, don’t even THINK about it, and into encouragement and even subsidy of the exercise of a right.

Keep all that in mind during their trials.

If bearing arms is a right, and of course it is, then any permit requirement or any special tax, or any special paperwork, licenses, lists or permission requirement of any kind, ever, is a violation.

To hell with permit reciprocity. The second amendment and incorporation is your legal, reciprocal carry permit, and if ANYONE attempts to hinder or discourage you in that right in any way whatsoever (infringe) they are a scum-sucking criminal, a threat and an enemy, and should be in jail, right now.

This is the Progressive/leftist’s own definition of a right, and I agree with them.

Sure; you can get your permit (I have one) but to fight for the “right” to pay the government for a “permit” to exercise your guaranteed rights is a bit like Jews fighting for the “right” to wear yellow arm bands in 1930s Germany. So I’m a German Jew, proudly wearing my yellow arm band and dutifully showing it any officer of the law who asks, “papers please” and if I don’t happen to have it on me because I forgot or lost my wallet somehow, I get a “beating” for it.

And for THIS sack-of-shit situation we celebrate! Imagine homosexuals celebrating that they can now walk around in MOST public places (but only in their home state and maybe a few others) ONLY SO LONG AS they’re registered with the government as homosexuals and have their homo-card on hand to show police at any moment’s notice for any reason. And as gun owners we celebrate exactly that situation for ourselves.

We’re all damned.

I want to stop arguing over this crap and JUST GET ALONG WITH MY LIFE, UNMOLESTED, but I know that will not happen. You stupid criminal motherfuckers doing the dirty deeds had best be begging for forgiveness from God, because I know it’s not within my power to give it to you and I won’t even try.

Law for thee, not for me

I’m sure we are all shocked when a gun-control activist is caught with a gun. Oh, the horror, how could it happen? But when he’s caught carrying in an elementary school? That’s just another day in Buffalo, NY. He committed what was a simple misdemeanor, that was turned into a felony by a law he helped pass. The SWAT was a total over-reaction, but I hope they make him rot in jail for a LOOOOONG time. Not because I think what he did was wrong, but because it’s a law he supported and help pass to punish people exercising an enumerated right.

Schadenfreude at it’s most ironic.

What we all knew- safety is job #3

From the Department of “Duh” comes this little Kiwi gem. Seems a researcher ran an experiment on playground rules and child development. Making things too safe, having too many rules, was bad all the way around. Safe=boring and they didn’t learn about natural consequences of acting like idiots.

As a father of two kids, one girl and one barbarian, I see them do things that make me cringe, but I also know they have fun, play hard, and learn fast when you give them a fair bit of rope. Bones heal, bruises are great for showing off to friends. I’m sure I’ve watched them do things that would make the Risk Management head of any school district stroke out. But the kids are the better and healthier for it, and their mom gets a break because she can’t bear to watch.

Only white men get asked…

…this sort of question.

Ergo it is a disingenuous question, and/or the person asking it is a blithering fool. QED.

Bill Cosby, for example, never gets asked why white people are under-represented in his show, nor should he ever be asked. What a stupid question.

BTW; I had watched Cosby’s shows (including live action – the cartoon came later) on TV since I was a little kid, and I never knew he was black until I heard someone say so. It surprised me, in a way. That happened when I was entering adulthood, so my “ignorance” lasted through quite a few years of watching him. He never made an issue out of it, so I never noticed. The Cosby Kids cartoon showed kids just like us and our friends, doing crazy stuff just like we did. Same with Sanford and Son for the most part. They were a fairly typical father and son, much like the first-generation European immigrants and their kids that I grew up with in my home town.

Now you get crap if you don’t tow someone else’s agenda line or something. So ignore the crap and mind your business– It’s not that difficult, as Seinfeld points out..

Cold Call

It happens over and over, and over again. Note to sales people in all fields; you might want to learn at least something about a business, or at least take a cursory glance at their web site before you call them and offer your services.

Today I got a call from a company that makes enhanced web site features for the visually impaired. I asked him if he (who offers web services) looked at our web site, “…because I don’t think you have.”
He says “Well, that’s something we would do…”

We sell gun stuff.

I’ve gotten several calls from advertisers asking for our address (?) asking what kind of business we’re in (?) what kind of corporation we are, etc., all of which is public information and most of which is blatantly and repeatedly displayed on our web site. I get several calls a month from various “yellow pages” companies (people still use those?) asking what business we’re in.

Sorry, but if you’re that unobservant I don’t want to do business with you even if you’re offering something I might want. It’s an extremely simple and highly relevant filter. Same goes when someone wants my vote or other political support. It usually only takes a few seconds to know who’s done their homework and who is just playing a game they don’t really understand.

Then there was the guy who called me last week, openly and for no practical reason telling me he was willfully breaking the gun laws in California and wanted my participation in the form of selling him stuff to help him break the law. When I explained it to him in just that way, and said I’m not doing business with him for that reason, and apologized to him saying none of this made any sense, I understand, and it makes neighbor suspicious of neighbor but unfortunately there it is, he asked me what I was talking about. “I’m not going to argue about it. Bye” and that was that.

I may really like your spirit, but… geeze.