Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Robert A. Heinlein

Posted on by
7

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein
1942
Beyond This Horizon
[I went looking for this quote when making a comment the other day and found I had never posted this on my blog. It’s such an important and famous quote for our culture I decided that I should include it even though it is going to be rare that someone reading my blog will have not seen or heard it before.

While I agree with the first sentence I’m not so sure about second. I think there is something else going on. I think the more significant changes that occur are in the armed person(s) rather than those around them. I have carried a gun nearly every day for nearly 20 years and while it is difficult to recall exactly how I felt and acted before I started carrying I think the mostly subconscious thought process goes something like the following.

I shouldn’t, and don’t need to, let my emotions dominate in a conflict with another person. I have a gun. If my emotions rule me I might use it when I should not. Should my adversary get so far out of line that I, or another innocent person, be in physical danger I can probably handle it because I have a gun. There is no need to “get back in their face” if they are getting all wound up. I can let them blow off their steam and coolly observe and be prepared to defend with decisive force rather than attempt to confront them early in their emotional escalation. Hence my response to conflict tends to be more subdued than unarmed people. This, in most cases, results in the other side deescalating or at least getting completely out of control. When both parties are armed the response on the other side is also subdued and we arrive that the observable result of “an armed society is a polite society.”—Joe]

Possible path in CT

Posted on by
16

Following the gun and magazine restriction news I didn’t like who things were playing out. Looked like there were way to many ways to make it turn ugly all around. While I’m sure someday tyrants will need to be used as tree-watering sources, I’d really rather not have it happen during my life- revolutions are expensive. I thought of a possible path out after watching this clip.

Stage an arrest of a “known offender” as a test case. Arrange for someone with an “unlawful” magazine and a barely illegal rifle (maybe something like a Nylon 66, or whatever the most innocuous technically illegal arm you can find) who is retired and can afford to spend a little time in jail. Roll the cameras, arrest and charge him, and have everyone on the scene know what’s going on so that nobody gets shot. Get him before a judge that day, and have a temporary order to put a hold on the law until it can be officially decided by a court. That gives the police an out to not enforce the law, but it also gives the citizens an out because it can’t be held over them for anything else so things do go all Waco on anyone. It gives everyone time to “let the court sort it out” without claiming any unnecessary lives. It also gives time for a new legislature to be elected if needed, because it will become a more well-understood topic by a broader range of the population.

Quote of the day—David French

Posted on by
21

The Left has to change the subject to vigilantism because the case for self-defense is so manifestly obvious. Is the state respecting the fundamental rights of citizens — including their right to life — if it mandates passivity in the face of violent attack? Of course not. It does, however, respect the right to life when it empowers self-defense while also prosecuting those rare few who seek to mask murderous intent behind a self-defense pretext.

Protecting the right of self-defense is just. Mandatory disarmament is not.

David French
February 24, 2014
Dear New York Times, Self-Defense Is Not Vigilantism
[In other words, as is usual, they have to lie to win.

It is the right to self-defense that is our strongest point in the debate and the one they will lose when the debate takes place in the U.S. In some other countries and cultures a reference to the right of self-defense will get a blank stare.

I would like to suggest those who find the right of self-defense incomprehensible should be encouraged to leave this country. Surely they would be more comfortable in a time and place where the government had or has a monopoly on violence such as one more of the following (from here):

And that doesn’t even include Uganda, Nazi Germany, communist China, and Stalin’s USSR.—Joe]

Quote of the day—FightingIrish

Posted on by
16

Your assumption that we only take their guns away by physically confiscating them is very simplistic and not very imaginative. We take their guns, and I assume yours, by taking away the cachet of gun ownership. We did that with cigarettes. We take their guns away by having reasonable restrictions on what arms are tolerated in civil society and where they can be present. We take their guns away by teaching our children that pulling a trigger is not a valid form of expression.

FightingIrish
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But no one wants to take your guns away.—Joe]

Quote of the day—baldguy

Posted on by
10

As long as the community of gun owners prove themselves to be unable or unwilling to keep their weapons secure from people who would kill, a national gun ban would be the only right & reasonable solution.

baldguy
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

“Gun control” in a nutshell

Posted on by
4

This in response to Uncle‘s post about NJ banning tube-fed 22s;

Well sure. If criminals already enjoy a government-enforced monopoly on more powerful guns, why not grant them a government-enforced monopoly on some of the most popular rimfire 22s as well?

It makes perfect sense to me– A corrupt government has more to fear from honest citizens than from other corrupt individuals, and so they’ll invariably attack, impugn and attempt to weaken honest citizens in every way imaginable. It comes from a simple and obvious (and entirely correct) threat assessment.

“We struggle not with flesh and blood, but with Principalities, and corruption in high places.”

That’s the long and short of it. It’s all you need to understand about weapon restriction (and politics in general). To put it even more simply; To consolidate power you must weaken the individual.

If there is a Prince of Darkness, this is his motto. So what then is the antidote? Strengthen the individual of course, and it starts with you.

They want a list? We have a list

Posted on by
50

In Connecticut, after the massive non-compliance, there is talk of the police confiscating ordinary, in common use, firearms from people who refused to register them. The media is saying such a crime “cannot go unenforced”. Some people are even saying these, estimated, 330,000 people should be “rounded up”. There are people who believe there might be “enough information on gun owners to start a confiscation effort, lets get started.”

Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta says:

From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to shit, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur.

See also Says Uncle who says, “This will get out of hand.”

So with the politicians being encouraged to use somewhat nebulous lists of gun owners that might still have their evil black rifles Dutchman6 posted a precise list of the 131 politicians, and their home addresses, who voted for the repressive law.

Apparently some people are getting upset about this. I don’t see what the problem is. People wanted a list of people they thought were a problem and needed to be “dealt with”. We have a list. And our list is much shorter. If people need to be “rounded up” to get past this impasse isn’t it better to “round up” a relatively small of people rather than hundreds of thousands? This is especially true when the people on the large list are saying Molon labe and the people on the short list apparently don’t have any fight in them and want others to fight for them. It would seem that there would be far less bloodshed and disruption of society if Federal Marshals went door-to-door and arrested the people on the short list so they could be prosecuted.

Quote of the day—anonymous

Posted on by
28

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—Pam Bergren

Posted on by
16

Today’s Courant says that there could be as many as 330,000 people with assault weapons who refused to register them according to the law. Then now is the time to increase the penalty and start rounding them up.

Pam Bergren
East Hartford
February 12, 2014
Prosecute Illegal Gun Owners
[Just so you know what they want done to you for exercising your specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Ms. Bergren should be careful what she says. It may be used as evidence against her at her trial.—Joe]

Coyote attack

Posted on by
30

Going down the youtube rabbit hole I came across this. It was in Northern BC, where it’s far, far less populated than around here. Here the coyotes tend to keep their distance, or they generally get shot. Or they get shot from long distance. The closest I’ve ever got to one, that I knew about, was around 30 yards– Three different occasions in winter while I was out hunting. Their heavy winter coats are quite spectacular, and I’ve yet to have the heart to kill one. Beautiful or not though, if a ‘yote were putting its teeth on me, even my boot, it’d be dead right quick I think. If the bugger is that bold, I may respect it in a way, but it’s going to be causing serious trouble for someone if it isn’t stopped. Kind of like Progressives– They’ll push things until someone gets hurt.

Quote of the day—David Carr

Posted on by
3

Mr. Morgan’s approach to gun regulation was more akin to King George III, peering down his nose at the unruly colonies and wondering how to bring the savages to heel. He might have wanted to recall that part of the reason the right to bear arms is codified in the Constitution is that Britain was trying to disarm the citizenry at the time.

David Carr
February 23, 2014
Piers Morgan and CNN Plan End to His Prime-Time Show
[Carr seems to get it even if he (reading the rest of his article) doesn’t agree with it. Morgan’s attitude and simply calling Alan Gottlieb and others “stupid” rather than having plausible argument made his position much, much worse.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Perspecticus

Posted on by
7

Sure, you could be a “protector”. Or you could be a tiny-dicked meathead who likes to show everybody what a tough guy he is.

Perspecticus
February 10, 2014
Comment made at 2/10/2014 8:35 AM PST to Second Amendment applies to carrying guns in cars
[It's another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

About that “common use” argument

Posted on by
19

Sometimes anti-rights cultists use the “2nd Amendment only protects guns in common use” canard in their efforts to ban or limit their vaguely described “assault weapons.” Seems the AR15 is becoming what can easily be described as “common.”

Short version: Gun production up 32% overall (to about 8.3 million produced domestically), and production of AR15 variants more than doubled in 2012 from the previous year, “825,000, not counting the large numbers made by Remington, Bushmaster and Sturm, Ruger” (italics in original, not sure why they excluded them or didn’t give a total). In any case, that’s a metric boatload of bean-launchers, and somehow I doubt it all rednecks buying second or third ARs.

With numbers like that, sort of hard for the gun-Nazis to claim they are winning much of anything.

Quote of the day—Mark Wahlberg

Posted on by

Well, I would love it if they could take all the guns away. Unfortunately, you can’t do that so you hope that good people in the world have them to protect the people who can’t protect themselves.

Certainly, I haven’t used a gun anywhere other than on a movie set and I’d like to see if we could take them all away. It would be a beautiful thing.

Mark Wahlberg
April 26, 2007
Straight shooter
[This is a much more interesting quote that I originally expected.

I originally ran across this quote with the preceding paragraph that I quoted:

I’d like to see if we could take them (guns) all away. It would be a beautiful thing.

Which is attributed to Wahlberg in several places:

It is rarely (only once that I discovered) is it pointed out that the actual quote (that I used above) is more ambiguous than the more common one. In fact I could see the second paragraph of my selection being taken out of context in such a way that it completely changed the meaning. The “I haven’t used a gun anywhere other than a movie set” could mean something like “used a gun against people or animals”.

I don’t trust Hollywood actors to have solid political sense or philosophy but I trust the accuracy of reporters even less.—Joe]

Quote of the day—jrharvil

Posted on by

If one man, or woman, in 3000 can zero in on and ventilate just one of the loyalists who are supporting the unconstitutional government, the war will be over rather quickly.

The power of a single bullet cannot be understated.

jrharvil
January 12, 2014
Comment to Tyrants beware. 4th Generation Warfare: How the next civil war will be fought.
[Interesting reading.—Joe]

Extermination Order in Missouri

Posted on by

There was an extermination order against the Mormons in Missouri. It was an executive order by Governor Lilburn Boggs in 1838 and it was technically in effect until 1976.

More on all that here. Something leads me to believe that the story of the Mormon War is relevant to today. Anyway, you might want to read up when you have some time.

Maybe you all knew about it, but I was unaware of that executive order until recent months. Hat tip; Glenn Beck