Quote of the day—ACLU

The ACLU generally will not represent protesters who seek to march while armed.  It is important that this content-neutral rule be applied without regard to a speaker’s political views.  It should also apply whether or not state law permits or prohibits the carrying of weapons in a protest.  To this end, and consistent with time and resource constraints (including assistance from the national office to affiliates and vice versa), we should exercise due diligence in assessing whether the potential client seeks to march while armed.  If there is reason to believe that the clients do so intend, and we are unable to satisfy ourselves that they will not do so, we should be reluctant to accept representation.

ACLU Case Selection Guidelines: Conflicts Between Competing Values or Priorities
[H/T to Chet in the comments.

See also: Memo: ACLU Will Weigh ‘Effect on Marginalized Communities’ in Free-Speech Cases

Apparently some speakers are more protected than others. Neo Nazis marching down the streets of Jewish residents should be protected. Gun owners advocating for the right of Jewish residents to have the ability to defend themselves should not be protected.

Okay, that makes things perfectly clear for me. Whatever “principles” the ACLU claims to have do not have a significant overlap with mine.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Z. Williamson

And as to the solution to the problem you think you see: That has to be social and cultural, just as it was with the “problem” of liquor leading up to and during Prohibition, and as it is for marijuana and other recreational and potentially pharmaceutical drugs.

Which, as you might recall, also became “epidemics” because ignorant idiots insisted they knew the answers, until experts finally talked some sense into them.

Now please be quiet, the adults are talking.

Michael Z. Williamson
February 16, 2016
So You Want To Have A Conversation About Gun Control?
[If you think about it just a little bit you probably will find it odd that ant-gun people can’t see the similarities between prohibition of alcohol, recreational drugs, and guns. Prohibition of the first two did not work and the prohibition of the last isn’t and won’t work. But the anti-gun people somehow belief things will be different with guns. But, they can’t be that stupid, can they?

Some, of course, are. Others have no ability to think rationally. But the higher up the food chain you go the more you realize that can’t explain things. Leland Yee is a special case all his own. But there are numerous others that don’t fit any good model. There is one hypothesis that does seem to work in nearly all the remaining cases and has historical support in other countries.

They want a compliant citizenry.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Oleg Volk

In going after rifles, prohibitionists are more concerned about politically significant firepower than they are about crime. The authoritarians aren’t comfortable with constituents who don’t need state services, however unwanted those “services” may be. This is why shotguns with short effective range remained legal in many countries where rifles were banned from private ownership.

Oleg Volk
February 26, 2018
Rifles as canaries in the coal mine.
[I interpret “politically significant firepower” as meaning significant firepower to affect the balance of power between the state and the people.

This is a profound point. By attacking the ownership of rifles, involved in a such a small portion of the violent crime, anti-gun people are admitting it is not crime they are interested in reducing. It must be something else which motivates this action. The obvious answer is they want people less able to resist a powerful government.

Let that sink in for a while and then take the appropriate action.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Robb

These networks don’t rely on government bureaucracies to coerce people.   They coerce bureaucracies.

Moreover, they are more effective than bureaucracies in the elements of power that matter.

They are capable of spying on more people than the East German secret police and they can stifle free speech without recourse to a gulag. 

They don’t have any need for state produced propaganda or the media to control the narrative.  They can produce a blinding blizzard of spin that can overwhelm official narratives.

John Robb
May 24, 2018
21st Century Authoritarianism
[There seems to be a fair amount of support for this hypothesis.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Lott

Gun control advocates are used to getting their way without having to address the stronger arguments made against their proposals. That doesn’t create a productive dialogue, and it doesn’t help us figure out what laws will actually save the most lives.

John Lott
June 1, 2018
Little evidence to support the efficacy of more gun control
[It is quite clear to me that a large number of gun control advocates aren’t interested in saving lives. They are interested in “poking a stick in gun owner’s eyes” and/or enabling criminals. These criminals vary from individuals to a tyrannical government). Hence, to address your arguments in terms of “saving lives” is totally missing the point.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Over the weekend Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety was quick to push its gun control agenda, and the Alliance for Gun Responsibility was asking for donations to ‘take a stand…against the gun lobby.’ When was the last time either of these groups demanded swift justice and certainty of punishment for the actual perpetrators?

Time after time, with endless fund raising appeals and inflammatory rhetoric, we’ve seen these anti-rights lobbying groups immediately try to shift blame to the NRA, or the Second Amendment, or the firearms industry, or some mythical loophole in the law. But they never seem to point their fingers at the culprit, and we think it’s time for the American public to ask why?

By diverting public attention away from killers and toward law-abiding citizens who had nothing to do with the crime these lobbying groups have created a very strong impression that they’re not really interested in punishing criminals, but only in penalizing honest firearms owners for crimes they didn’t commit.

Time and again we’ve heard these groups demand a national dialogue on guns. But how do you have a rational discussion with people or groups that repeatedly demonstrate that they cannot tell the difference between the bad guys and the good guys?

They are so preoccupied with demonizing gun owners and eroding the Second Amendment that they have either lost sight of the goal of taking dangerous or deranged criminals off the street, or that was never their intention in the first place. If all they can do is blame innocent citizens while diverting attention from murderous monsters, then it is time to ask these people just whose side they are on.

Alan Gottlieb
May 21, 2018
[It would seem the last question proposed was rhetorical.

We have known, as does Gottlieb, for a long time they are on the side of criminals. They are natural allies in the destruction of our way of life.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cheryl K. Chumley

Citizens of America have Second Amendment rights because they live and breathe — not because government officials have chosen to bestow them with such, as some sort of privilege.

We know this because our country was founded on the principle that our rights come from God, and that our government is only instituted among the people to secure those rights and protect them from infringement. Moreover, when our government begins to overstep its rightful bounds, and when the public servants who are hired by way of vote begin to trample those God-given rights and usher in an form of governance that is destructive of that idea, then it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that governing system and institute a new one.

That’s in our DNA; that’s our country’s guiding principle.

Cheryl K. Chumley
May 29, 2018
God-given, not government granted, guides 2nd Amendment
[It would appear we are constantly getting closer to the day when abolishing the existing governing system is a necessity. The proper way to do that would be through the state governments but it doesn’t seem the states are all that interested.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Liberal feminists pick and choose which types of violence against women are worthy of this studiously nonpartisan approach. For example, female genital mutilation, forced marriage and honor violence seem not to be considered egregious enough to be taken up by the broader women’s movement. Instead, these barbaric violations of human rights don’t make it onto progressives’ radar. Rather, they’re excused or ignored by feminists because the perpetrators inflicting the violence tend to have brown skin.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
May 24, 2018
The anti-woman violence feminists are afraid to confront
[I don’t think it is fear.

Progressive feminists also are very anti-gun. A woman who owns and knows how to shoot a gun has become empowered to such a level that in a physical confrontation she is virtually equal to thugs twice her size.

Here we have two very clear examples of where progressive feminists have deliberately made choices to increase the number and severity of the female victims. There can only be one conclusion. For whatever sick reason or messed up emotional decision making process they want more victims.

I think it is some sort of mental illness in which victimhood equates, in their sick minds, to status and/or power.

Give them the gateway drug to freedom, healthy minds, and true equality. Teach them to shoot.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jay Hafemeister

The 4th Amendment wasn’t meant to protect criminals.

If you have some extraordinary reason why you need to keep your papers and things from government view, you’re going to need a concealed documents permit.

Jay Hafemeister
May 23, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Maj Toure‏ @MAJTOURE
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Do the math, “Do you need an AR-15?”

Via email from daughter Jaime.

The Surprisingly Solid Mathematical Case of the Tin Foil Hat Gun Prepper: Or, “Who Needs an AR-15 Anyway?”

Do the same math … we see a 37% chance that any American of average life expectancy will experience at least one nationwide violent revolution.

This is a bigger chance than your floodplain-bound home flooding during your mortgage.

Following the same procedure, we can see that even over an 18-year span we have a 10% chance of violent revolution, which is an interesting thought experiment to entertain before you have kids.

He goes on to look at it from several other viewpoints and shows the above estimate is probably low. It’s easy to argue the odds are MUCH higher. And furthermore, things change very rapidly making it difficult or impossible to prepare once you are almost certain you need to prepare.

Quote of the day—Tom Knighton

The only people being hurt are people like Rhode who want to be law-abiding citizens but are thwarted by rules that keep them from doing something they should lawfully be able to do.

But then again, it’s California. What do you expect?

Tom Knighton
April 29, 2018
Olympic Medalist Files Suit Against California Over Bullet Control
[It would seem that in California the only hope we have are the courts.

It is very clear the intention is to harass and have the ability to imprison innocent gun owners at their whim (see Ayn Rand quote). It has nothing whatsoever to do with public safety. Now, if the courts see it that way and decide to intervene instead of cheer the authoritarians on remains to be seen.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Steve Hornady

Today, the State of New York did one of the most despicable acts ever perpetrated by any state by asking New York banks, financial institutions and insurance companies to stop doing business with the gun and ammo industry.

While it may not make a difference to New York, Hornady will not knowingly allow our ammunition to be sold to the Government of the State of NY or any NY agencies. Their actions are a blatant and disgusting abuse of office and we won’t be associated with a government that acts like that. They should be ashamed.

Steve Hornady
President of Hornady Manufacturing Company
April 23, 2018
[I just ordered 500 Hornady bullets for reloading in response to this announcement. I’ll order more if the price stays competitive and they work out well.

I’ve had this sort of restriction on the use of Modern Ballistics since it’s creation over 20 years ago. Not that I have any means to enforce it.

It’s nice to see big players doing something similar with at least some ability to make it stick.—Joe]

International Workers’ Day

Today is International Workers’ Day. Don’t forget there never seems to be an end to the number of positions available at either end of the guns needed to implement utopia. It’s job security for the rest of your life. What more could you want? Freedom from want, that’s one of the rights guaranteed by the socialists and communists, right?


Use cash

Scary stuff:

Banks and credit-card companies are discussing ways to identify purchases of guns in their payment systems, a move that could be a prelude to restricting such transactions, according to people familiar with the talks.

I already use cash for any gun related purchase that isn’t online.

But what really needs to be done is to prosecute these people who are conspiring to deny people their constitutionally protected rights.

Quote of the day—John Legend @johnlegend

The NRA is a danger to this nation and to the police.

John Legend @johnlegend
Tweeted on April 27, 2018
[For certain definitions of “this nation” he is correct.

One must necessarily conclude Legend’s definition is a nation in the process of becoming a police state.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Timothy Callahan

Somewhere out there, there are british cops who are, no shit, filing charges against people for saying how shitty they are for protecting a bureaucracy that is actively preventing a third party from treating a sick child.

And here’s us, talking about how best to range them under field conditions.

If that doesn’t sum up the vast gulf between our nations, I’m not sure what else will.

Timothy Callahan
April 26, 2018
On Facebook regarding commentary on this photo:

[I have nothing to add.—Joe]