The police of a state should never be stronger or better armed than the citizenry. An armed citizenry, willing to fight, is the foundation of civil freedom.
Robert A Heinlein
1942
Beyond this Horizon
[This is the same character in the same book which made this famous quote.
Also, from here:
This should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer of the 20th Century. But somehow many people have not done much observing and/or have no interest in civil freedom.—Joe]
If you are a registered Washington State voter please sign the petition for I-1094. Do it soon! The last day to sign in December 28th, 2019.
If passed I-1094 would repeal I-1639. Here is the website for the good guys.
Here is the list of addresses where you can find copies of the petition to sign. Here is a map of the locations where you can find copies of the petition to sign:
If you’ve taken away that person’s ability to protect themselves, then it’s incumbent on you to protect them.
W.Va. Del. Brandon Steele, (R) 29th
October 14, 2019
W.Va. delegate seeks to hold ‘no-gun zones’ legally liable for shooting injuries
[H/T Glenn Reynolds.
The best defense is a good offense. This would appear to be a good offensive play against the anti-gun people.—Joe]
Anytime someone talks about taking away your ability to defend yourself you’re in danger.
Chad Prather
November 11, 2019
Chad Prather: ‘Anytime someone talks about taking away your ability to defend yourself, you are in danger.’
[And, as frequently pointed out by pkoning:
Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anyone has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.
Alexander Hope
In the novel “Hope” by Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman.
And there are a lot of people talking about taking away our ability, and even right, to defend ourselves.
Respond appropriately.—Joe]
It is beyond comprehension—ambitious candidates of an entire party—are campaigning on things the Constitution bans, and getting cheering support.
I certainly don’t advocate violence. On the other hand, like my armed countrymen, I vigorously support self defense and am prepared to act if desperate immediate proximate criminal trouble were to arise, God forbid. I’ve been through intensive training, classes, reading, for decades. I’ve written ten books on the subject—so far.
What I haven’t done is consider the dire threat politicians present to the nation, when they stoke the flames of revolution by doing precisely what the British did that got us there those many years ago. They have announced they’re coming for our guns. It is not subtle. It is not limited. It is not allowed.
Alan Korwin
November 10, 2019
THEY’VE GONE TOO FAR
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
San Francisco recently passed Proposition H, which bans the ownership of guns in homes and businesses.
I for one am comforted by the fact that San Francisco has taken this safety measure. Now when some big dude meets you along a dark street, you’ll know that it’s not a gun in his pocket. The downside of course is that he’s really happy to see you.
Right Wing Duck
November 11, 2019
IMAO Time Machine: Proposition H – A fun look at gun control
[Note the phrase “Time Machine” in the title. Proposition H was passed 14 years ago on November 8, 2005.
While this quote has a high humor value it has a lot of truth in it.—Joe]
Yes, the framers intended We the People to have “weapons of war”.
Where in the 2nd amendment does it say that civilians can have one form of arms and the govt can have the superior form?
If that were true then what type of equal playing field would that leave us with?
Antonia Okafor Cover @antonia_okafor
Tweeted on November September 23, 2019
[See also United States v. Miller 59 S.Ct. 816(1939).—Joe]
Charlie should automatically be dismissed as irrelevant to the conversation. He apparently has an obsession with comparing guns to male genitalia. That’s a sure sign that he’s an ignorant, uneducated, demented leftist.
They are the only ones who view guns as penises.
Cowntess Of Austerity @_MoCowBell_
Tweeted on November 9, 2019
[I was tempted to post the tweet Cowntess is referring to. But this is better.—Joe]
The only reason why the government would want to disarm you after 243 years is because they intend to do something that you would shoot them for.
Kathy Zhu @PoliticalKathy
Tweeted on November 7, 2019
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
There are zero reasons to believe a gun offers personal protection against a felon or any protection against any attack. Normal people don’t have the disregard for life to pull the trigger against a threat. The felon enters the scene prepared to shoot at the slightest resistance. Guns are virtually useless for personal protection.
Prosper
Posted at Democratic Underground on November 2, 2019
[Interesting. Apparently in this world view the police and military are not “normal” people. Nor are the thousands of ordinary citizens who fire their guns in self-defense each year. I think the more likely case is this is a troll.
If someone with children tries to make a such a claim ask them if they would be unable to shoot someone about to beat their young child with a club.
If they have no children of their own then ask about a mass shooter at a children’s school. Do they think they would be unable to pull the trigger if the alternative were to run away and/or watch a dozen or more children be killed?
If they are unable to pull the trigger when confronted with murderous evil in action then it is they who are not normal and should be treated as such.
Continuing on a different path…
Even if we were to grant the absurd proposition that 90% of the population can be characterized in this fashion there is still a problem. The statistics of the masses cannot justify denying the individual their right to defend themselves using the most effective tool for the job.
This type of person belongs in a collective of some sort. They apparently have no concept of the individual or individual rights.—Joe]
No law can limit the methods available for a motivated person to do violence unto others sufficiently enough to justify the infringement of natural civil rights through prohibition, even if democratically agreed upon. The people lose and nobody gains anything except an illusion of safety. That illusion will break every single time it is tested with even the most remote bit of competence.
Keith Finch
November 2, 2019
A Constitutional Case for… Gun Control?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Dear Politicians,
We are not buying all these guns just to give them up.
bakerjrae
T-shirt design
[We live in interesting times.—Joe]
They should not tell everything they’re going to do. If you’re going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected — then take the guns away. Don’t tell them ahead of time.
Joy Behar
November 4, 2019
Joy Behar: Don’t tell Americans before you take their guns
[Behar was discussing failed 2020 presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke.
Good advice. A little too late. But good advice.
But then, it appears that these days if a candidate has a ‘D’ after them name gun confiscation is their game plan so one should just automatically assume the worst regardless of how public they make their gun confiscation plans.—Joe]
We are taking your guns. Period. The tide is turning rapidly. The NRA is toast. As soon as trump is gone, guns are gone.
NitramLand @NitramLand
Tweeted on October 27, 2019
[Who’s “we”?
And as if the NRA and President Trump were protecting gun owners from him and others like him. It’s more like he and his unindicted ideological coconspirators are being being protected from us by the presence of the NRA and a president who gives lip service to the 2nd Amendment.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
My service to the country will not be as a candidate or as the nominee. Acknowledging this now is in the best interests of those in the campaign; it is in the best interests of this party as we seek to unify around a nominee; and it is in the best interests of the country.
Beto O’Rourke
November 1, 2019
Gun control advocate Beto O’Rourke drops out of US presidential race
[Certainly it’s in the best interests of the country if he never sees political power again. I would prefer that he be given a fair trial, convicted, then sentenced to hard labor. But this is good enough for now.
Although, I will kind of miss the opportunity to collect more “No one wants to take your guns” quotes.—Joe]
The necessity for this Court to clarify the role of history in defining the right is illuminated by so many outcomes depending on whether the reviewing court considers history. Disregarding history and merely interest-balancing Second Amendment rights has allowed the Second Amendment to be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment. Many courts have boldly admitted doing so, offering justifications that this Court has previously rejected. Until this Court reinforces its precedents, lower courts will continue to treat the right to bear arms as a second class right.
Joseph G.S. Greenlee
Counsel of Record
Firearms Policy Coalition
October 30, 2019
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, FIREARMS POLICY FOUNDATION, CALIFORNIA GUN RIGHTS FOUNDATION, MADISON SOCIETY FOUNDATION, AND SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
[This is an Amicus brief before SCOTUS in Brian Kirk Malpasso, et al., Petitioners v. William M. Pallozzi, Superintendent, Maryland Department of State Police
Things are moving in the courts. It’s a good sign that gun owners are choosing the cases to back.
I believe this is our best chance for making progress on the gun owner rights front. I and, through matching funds to 501(c)(3) corporations, my employer donate thousands of dollars every year to FPC and SAF.—Joe]
Extreme liberals like Nancy Pelosi and my opponent, Jared Golden, want to take away your guns.
But I want to give you one!
Eric Brakey
October 23, 2019
Eric Brakey for Congress
[Via email from Paul K. who provided this link.
The gun he is talking about is an AR-15 worth about $1200.
Without reading the fine print one might assume he wishes to use tax money to give away guns. One can constitutionally justify this much more easily than taking them away but that isn’t what he is doing. If you sign up to donate $5.00 or more a month to his campaign he’ll enter you in a drawing for the gun.
Fair enough.
I hope he wins and continues to tweak the noses of the gun grabbers.—Joe]
The drum that they beat that if you allow any [gun control] policy to pass then they’re just going to take your guns away. Then when we have candidates that say yes, well I am going to take your guns away, that doesn’t send the right message in my opinion.
Cassandra Crifasi
Deputy director of the Johns Hopkins Center For Gun Policy and Research
October 23, 2019
From Toxic To Staple: Gun Control Is Now Front And Center On The Campaign Trail
[And nowhere in the article does she, or anyone else, say the goal isn’t to take guns away. So, it appears she is saying the “right message” she wants the candidates to send is something other than their true intentions.
Lying, it’s what they do. It’s an essential part of their culture.—Joe]
Last week it was the city of Edmonds which got its hands slapped for playing with gun control even though the state of Washington told them it was none of their business decades ago:
In the latest round of legal actions over Edmonds’ safe gun storage law, Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Anita Farris ruled on Friday that while the City of Edmonds cannot tell people how to store their guns, it can levy fines against gun owners whose firearms are possessed or used by unauthorized persons.
Via Firearms Policy Coalition, today it’s the city of Seattle:
Superior Court Judge Anita Farris struck down Seattle’s gun storage ordinance Monday, ruling it violates the state’s 36-year-old preemption law.
The Second Amendment Foundation was involved in both cases and I think they coordinated with the NRA as well.
Update: Wrong. There was only one case. The second one appears to be an error by the author in thinking that the Edmonds law was the same as the Seattle one. It was my mistake that I didn’t notice the date in the second article. It is also from last week.
Gun confiscation is the goal. Gun confiscation has always been the goal. Thanks to a recent outburst by 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Robert (Beto) Francis O’Rourke, potentially millions more Americans are now aware of this fact.
NRA-ILA
September 20, 2019
Beto’s Confiscation Plan Shows Why Gun Owners Must Reject Appeasement
[This quote, from over a month ago, is nothing new. It’s mostly my lead in to this:
The NRA’s PAC raked in $1.3 million in total contributions throughout September, an increase of nearly $400,000 from its previous month, with an overwhelming majority of its cash haul coming from small donors. Of the $1.3 million, $981,277 was sent from individuals contributing less than $200. September was the fourth month in 2019 that the PAC has collected at least $1 million; it currently has $10 million on hand.
…
FEC documents show the NRA PAC brought in $50,902.20 from itemized donors before Beto’s comments on September 12—about $4,627 per day. After them, the group brought in $276,208.20—about $15,344 per day. That represents a threefold increase in daily giving to the gun-rights group.
…
The Giffords PAC, which works to elect gun-control proponents, reported just $11,000 in contributions in September, a major drop from the $195,000 it reported in August. Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund, an independent-expenditures only PAC, does not have to submit its next report until the end of the year. However, its mid-year report showed that the committee was given just $5,000, which was transferred from the group’s action fund. The Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc. PAC has taken in just $18,000 this year from six donors and currently has less than $90,000 cash on hand.
…
The more than $10 million in the bank the NRA PAC ended September with is more than three times that of Beto O’Rourke, and even outpaces Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden.
There are multiple ways to spin this:
It may be insightful to read the entire Mao quote. Marxism, Socialism, Communism all require a powerful government to enforce the redistribution of food, housing, health care, jobs, etc. to the politically loyal. A government can increase their power in absolute terms by increased spending on the military and/or police. More subtly, they can increase their relative power by reducing the private ownership of guns. The second route is less costly and less likely to alarm the general population. In fact, the second route can be, and is, spun as improving the safety and security of the average person even as it makes them more and vulnerable to the abuse of government power.
It should come as no surprise the Marxists, socialists and communist running for the most powerful political positions in the world want to take your guns. And if you value your freedom, wealth, and health don’t allow these villains access to the power they crave.—Joe]