Imagine the damage one of these guns, even if it was only capable of firing one shot, could do aboard a plane. Or in a government office. Or in your child’s classroom.
July 31, 2018
Alyssa Milano: A 3D printed gun is downloadable death
[Imagine the good one of these guns could do if it was used to defend your life or the life of your child. Imagine the harm it will do if the courts somehow decide the First Amendment doesn’t apply to software used to protect freedom.
I find it very telling she thinks a government office is a particularly bad place to have a gun. World history shows governments are a much bigger threat to innocent life than all other threats combined. This puts her squarely on the side of evil.
Ms. Milano, go back to your acting. These are specific enumerated rights we are talking about and we don’t want or need your acting skills to inject emotional baggage into a question of civil rights.—Joe]
No more compromise
No more compliance
Tweeted on July 27, 2018
[This reminds me of something I have pointed out before:
Have you ever noticed that crazy people will act only as crazy as you let them be?
It’s time to let the crazy people know we aren’t going to let them continue the act.—Joe]
That pile of cash is the Venezuelan equivalent of one US dollar. Behold the power of socialism.
Cam Edwards @CamEdwards
Tweeted on July 23, 2018
[The destructive power of socialism is absolutely amazing. No other political system has been so well tested and proven again and again to be such a threat to property and lives. Only an “intellectual”, completely out of touch with reality, could honestly advocate it as an improvement in the living conditions for the majority of the people.—Joe]
Right now, social justice fascism is just too valuable to them to just abandon. It works. It lets those who rightfully would have no power exploit the stupid and weak elite to exercise unearned authority. These goose-stepping aspiring Red Guards got a taste of power and they like it. And they are bad people. They have to be stopped, here and now.
July 23, 2018
Conservatives Reject Unilateral Disarmament In The Face Of Liberal Social Fascism
[He makes some very good points. There days when I think risking riots and civil war by standing up to the fascists isn’t worth it. Perhaps we should just let them throw their tantrums and don’t make a big deal about it.
No. Compliance with insane demands just encourages more insanity.
At the class this last weekend Greg make what I thought was great point that I have mentioned several times, expressed in different words, by my counselor. Greg expressed it more succinctly:
Have you ever noticed that crazy people will act only as crazy as you let them be?
We have to set boundaries and enforce them. Schlichter drew a line in the sand. I’m willing to enforce it. Are you?—Joe]
If you support this proposal then you must support a keeping homeowners honest act. While the vast majority of homeowners are law abiding citizens, studies would suggest that over 90% of illegal drugs distributed in any given area are distributed by a few bad apples. To have all homes periodically searched to prevent illegal drug sales is just common sense.
July 17, 2018 at 1:24 pm
Comment to Senators Blumenthal and Murphy offer new bill to increase gun dealer oversight
[The ATF should be a chain of convenience stores, not a regulatory agency.—Joe]
Certainly the Leftists do not want us to love freedom and liberty at all, and as soon as the streets and cities are made safe from “gun violence”, and knife and club and fist violence take its place, the lickspittle followers of the Leftists can sit in their houses and quake at every thump and bump, and think about what they did, or perhaps they will later write letters to Comrade whoever explaining why it’s a mistake they’re in the camp.
July 18, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Dov Marhoffer
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
I am a Holocaust concentration camp survivor. I am one of a rapidly dwindling number of eyewitnesses to the Nazi Holocaust, the most systematic genocide of all time.
I regularly speak at high schools, universities, and community events, sharing my eyewitness account with newer generations of Americans who have no concept of the horrors governments can inflict. I feel a duty to keep alive the memories of millions of Jews who were murdered by Adolf Hitler’s Germany and who cannot speak for themselves.
Today, misinformed students cynically led by progressives are using that event and its rallying call to confiscate guns and turn them over to government–the exact opposite of the core lessons to be learned. This is so fundamentally wrong no justification can excuse it. Naming a book Never Again!–which is a desperate call to arms–to address drug-addled, video-mesmerized, psychotic, murderous classmates –misappropriates and reverses the central messages and lessons of the Holocaust.
In the 1940s, the words Never Again! in German were scrawled on the wall of the Muehldorfer Hart Nazi concentration camp in southern Germany, where 2,200 prisoners, mostly Hungarian Jews, were murdered and buried in a mass grave. For 70 years, the slogan Never Again! has been the post-Holocaust rallying cry of Jews everywhere. It is a solemn vow that millions of Jews will never again be disarmed and defenselessly marched into camps for systematic liquidation because we can resist with the same powerful firearms we might face in the hands of totalitarian government. That progressives would take this vow, turn it upside down, and use it to grab guns is an abomination.
JPFO Board of Advisors
July 17th, 2018
“Never Again!” Belongs to the Holocaust — not an anti-gun-rights book and campaign Using the Holocaust this way is disgraceful
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
In 1776, Pennsylvania declared: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state.” Vermont copied that language in its constitution, which explicitly abolished slavery. Massachusetts and North Carolina adopted their own versions.
When the states debated adoption of the Constitution without a bill of rights in 1787-88, Samuel Adams proposed the right to bear arms in Massachusetts’s ratification convention. The Dissent of the Minority did so in Pennsylvania, and the entire New Hampshire convention demanded recognition of the right.
There was no connection to slavery in any of these historical antecedents.
Stephen P. Halbrook
June 25, 2018
The Second Amendment Had Nothing to Do with Slavery
[The background for this is that a certain professor, Carl T. Bogus, has been peddling the fiction that the Second Amendment was about keeping slaves from rebelling. In 1998 it was an open claim. More recently it is more of a suggestion. Halbrook explains why the story Professor Bogus has been telling is, as you might expect, totally bogus.—Joe]
If you guys come up with a plan to dissolve this marriage through an amicable divorce rather than a murder-suicide, I’m all in.
July 11, 2018
Facebook post regarding the political left advocating for a civil war.
[I’d give serious consideration to a “divorce” but as of now I’m not seeing the amicable path.—Joe]
The way the recording industry killed Napster in the ’90’s was by proliferating file sharing network with defective music files. People got sick of music that had random gaps of silence interspersed during the songs. Unless you were REALLY cheap, you went ahead and spent the $0.99 for the quality version.
How about distributing gun design files with fatal flaws engineered in? The yokels who download these plans would be easily identifiable by eye patches and the lack of several fingers.
July 7, 2018
Comment to Does an Arkansas-born anarchist spell the end of gun control with printable firearms?
[Anti-gun people want gun owners to be maimed and/or killed.—Joe]
“Moderate:” Someone who agrees that the plain written text of the Constitution means something halfway between what it actually says and what the Left wants it to mean.
“Extremist:” Someone who believes that the Constitution means what it actually says.
Sean D Sorrentino
July 7, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Emma Brown
[Sad but true.—Joe]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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.
May 24, 2018
21st Century Authoritarianism
[There seems to be a fair amount of support for this hypothesis.—Joe]
I plan to hunker down with several pounds of popcorn and defensive tools and enjoy “The Statist-Hunting Show.”
April 9, 2018
Remedial Practical Civics 100, Lesson 4: “A hunting we will go!”
[I wouldn’t argue with that.—Joe]
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.
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]
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.
May 21, 2018
HOW COME THEY NEVER BLAME THE MURDERER, CCRKBA WONDERS
[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]
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]