Quote of the day—AWR Hawkins

According to Suffolk University, in addition to not wanting to hear about gun control in 2016, a majority of Americans do not believe increasing gun control via expanded background checks will curb mass violence. Fifty-six percent of respondents said it would not, while only 40 percent of respondents said it would.

This makes sense, when you consider that Roof allegedly purchased his gun via a background check at a Charleston gun store.

AWR Hawkins
June 30, 2015
Survey: Majority of Americans Not Interested in Gun Control for 2016
[Makes sense? It would make sense if it were 95% instead of 56%. That 40% think expanded background checks would “curb mass violence” when the example immediately in front of them is completely counter to that hypothesis is proof of their inability to draw even the simplest of logical conclusions.

This is a demonstration the fact that for a very large percentage of the population they, at best, make reasoning sounds. The concept of reason is completely alien to them. This is really frightening to me. I would expect dogs, cats, dolphins, and some birds, let alone all primates, to have that good of reasoning skills with similar problems. Apparently humans, on the whole, can do little better than chance.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jo Ed

Accept the fact that freedom is risky. If it weren’t risky, it wouldn’t be freedom.

Accept the fact that the very worst mass murders were not committed by gunmen, but arsonists, bombers, and pilots.

Jo Ed
June 29, 2015
Comment to LETTER: What gun control measures would work?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jonathan Hutson

Through simple, common-sense solutions, supported by nearly all US Americans, including the vast majority of gun owners, the Brady Campaign plans to realize the audacious but achievable goal of cutting gun deaths in half in the United States by 2025.

Jonathan Hutson
Chief communications officer for the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence
June 30, 2015
Is Strict Gun Control the Best Way to Prevent Shootings?
Another Massacre Begs What Can Be Done

[It’s fascinating to read his entire answer to the question. He writes entirely about how great and wonderful background checks are. But not once does he say they would have prevented the Charleston massacre. Not once does he even hint at any evidence that “simple, common-sense solutions” will cut “gun deaths” by any amount let alone half in the next 10 year.

His entire response is an exercise in avoiding the question asked. There are two possibilities here:

  1. He knows gun control, of any type, will not prevent the shootings that make headlines and he is deliberately avoiding the question.
  2. He has mental problems similar to Peterson Syndrome. He literally sees and hears something very different from what others write and say. He brain is malfunctioning and he is incapable of rational thought.

In either case Hutson is making it clear to everyone that he and his organization are either malicious or have crap for brains and are to be ignored in the political debate.

Because of the evidence supplied by Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson, for which Peterson Syndrome is named, and the actions of their lawyers, I’m inclined to believe crap for brains is a requirement for everyone aligned with them.—Joe]

Quote of the day – Roy Masters

“Liberty lives in the hearts of men and women. If it dies there, no constitution, no law and no court can save it.” — Roy Masters, June 29, 2015

To that I would add “no military and no armed citizenry” can save it.

I heard him say it while listening to his radio program on internet re-feed on the way to work. He may have been quoting someone else for all I know, so don’t hold me to the attribution. It’s the kind of thing he’d blurt out spontaneously anyway, so I figured it was his.

Quote of the day—Michelle Ye Hee Lee

Lawmakers have a responsibility to check out the facts in the reports they use, especially ones that come from advocacy groups. If they are aware there are definitions that are disputed, or that are defined in other ways depending on who uses them, it is incumbent on lawmakers to clarify exactly what they are talking about and not mislead the public. In particular, lawmakers should rely more on official government statistics, such as from the FBI, rather than misleading metrics cobbled together by interest groups.

We wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios. But this is a definition of “school shooting” that was widely disputed a year ago, and lawmakers need to present information — especially for such a controversial topic as gun control — in a clear, responsible and accurate way. Murphy’s failure to do so tipped the rating to Four.

Michelle Ye Hee Lee
June 29, 2015
Has there been one school shooting per week since Sandy Hook?
[Gun control advocates lie because it is in their nature and they have to if they are to have any hope of achieving their goals. That people at The Washington Post are pointing out their lies is a really big deal.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Lords Taint @UtopiasTaint

@wallsofthecity @tesstoro like the irrational fear that only subsides by carrying a penis extension, I mean binky, wooos I meant gun

The Lords Taint‏ @UtopiasTaint
Tweeted on January 18, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Mental problems

Having more than a casual interest in the mental problems of people I recognize a trait described by Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch regarding The Brady Campaign lawsuit against Lucky Gunner, THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE, et al.:

plaintiffs try to have it both ways by complaining that the injury was foreseeable to the defendants on the one hand, and complaining that defendants knew nothing about their customer on the other.

One of the traits present in people with Borderline Personality Disorder and some other personality disorders is they create or complain about situations of which you cannot win. For example, “You must be home in time for dinner” and simultaneously imposing the condition, “You must complete your work before you come home regardless of how long it takes.” Or “You must bring home more money.” and “You must work fewer hours.”

Read my post Crazy talk for numerous anti-gun examples.

When you point out the impossible situation they have created they will probably attack you (verbally and/or physically). It is always your fault they are angry with you because you violated some “rule” they imposed or you “should have known” about. They insist upon a myriad of rules which are conflicting, nonsensical, and impossible to meet. They then insist you are the problem when you fail to abide by the rules. This is the Brady Campaign, and anti-gun people in general, mindset. This is conclusive proof they have mental problems.

The exact diagnosis of their mental problems is not particularly important. What is important is how to deal with them. In still another anti-gun crazy talk example Stacy, my counselor on such matters, has some advice on how to deal with these people.

Quote of the day—A Reader

I think genocides were/are actually useful to the planet’s preservation. Imagine if all these ppl would have not died how much more pollution there would be? I did follow this statement by ” yes genocide is horrific…but” I honestly know that genocides are terrible things however I actually don’t feel bad for these humans that were killed.  I don’t care  at all….. I know it’s wrong as society thinks it’s wrong but I actually think it’s not entirely a bad thing….it has its positives?

A Reader
June 21, 2015
Sociopath?
[Yes. These people exist.

And the interesting thing is that it doesn’t take very many of them to implement a genocide. I think it was in Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust that I found it was something like only 2% of the population were directly involved in the genocide. That can explain why gun control is an essential component of every genocide. If that 2% is attempting to exterminate 20% of the population and half of the intended victims are armed then that means the intended victims outnumber the bad guys by about five to one. Even with an equipment advantage it’s going to be “challenging” to put those “reluctant” victims in the boxcars without losing a lot of bad guys. Which tends to make them “reluctant” to proceed.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert W. Tyson

Former supreme courts could just as easily have interpreted that amendment to require gun ownership, be well-regulated and linked to a militia, except for single-shot rifles for hunting.

But that ship has sailed. To unilaterally disarm citizens would only leave them vulnerable to bad guys with guns. The darkness has won. Get used to the bloody carnage. Beelzebub must be gleeful.

Robert W. Tyson
June 23, 2015
Letter: Gun control ship has sailed
[“…courts could just have easily..”? I guess there are people that think that. There is no “original intent”. The words used don’t mean what they say. The courts can just make up whatever they want and insert words like “hunting” that have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

Then Tyson goes on to say citizens can’t be unilaterally disarmed because they would become vulnerable to the bad guys. But then immediately says the current situation with citizens being armed results in “the darkness” having won and “bloody carnage”. But wouldn’t people have been vulnerable to bad guys even if they had been disarmed decades ago?

I think this guy has crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rich Hanlon

74% of gun owners support closing the gun show loophole. Not the subhuman NRA.

Rich Hanlon
June 23, 2015
Comment to Here’s the deal with the Australian gun control law that Obama is talking about
[This is what they think of us. We are subhuman if we don’t support closing a loophole that doesn’t even exist.

There is a reason they describe us as subhuman. It makes it easier to implement their solution to the “gun owner problem”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian Doherty

Certain anti-gun folk seem to sincerely believe that the only reason Second Amendment advocates want to have a gun, or want other people to have the right to have a gun, is because guns are so great at killing people; that a gun not used to kill someone isn’t really worth having. But it isn’t true.

Brian Doherty
June 22, 2015
Gun Rights Advocates Don’t Just Want Guns in Order to Kill Criminals (Believe it Or Not!)
A much-hyped new Violence Policy Center study grossly misses the point about guns’ value in self-defense.
[Doherty points out the straw man almost all of us have encountered with the anti-gun people. It comes in various flavors, such as

  • The only thing a gun is good for is killing.
  • Guns are designed to kill.
  • If you own a gun you must want to kill something.

No matter how many times we correct them they keep coming back with the same or essentially the same straw man. And we keep pointing out the data, as Doherty does in his article quoted above, that successful defensive use of firearms seldom involves killing anyone or anything.

So why do they keep attempting to use this straw man when each time they get what appears to be a full mouthful of reality shoved in their face? I believe it is because their minds don’t operate in our reality. They live in their own imagined reality.

I’m reminded of something Richard Feynman observed in one of his books. I think it was a musician friend was teaching Feynman music and Feynman was teaching the musician physics. After a few weeks the musician told Feynman, “When you say you know something, you really mean it.”

What this means to me is that there a lot of people who believe knowledge is a personal thing. One person’s beliefs, knowledge, and opinions are just as valid as anyone else’s. This is emphatically not true. But yet I am certain there are a great many people who believe this. These people cannot understand facts and logical trains of thought. You can no more teach them logic than you can teach colors to someone blind from birth.

Personal interactions with these people should elicit your sympathy. Their public claims of relevance should be greeted with mockery.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John M. Snyder

These trying times demand that traditionalist Americans develop, defend and promote a manifesto of freedom

Let us fight for the right to life, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to be free from the abomination of same-sex marriage.

John M. Snyder
June 16, 2015
Manifesto of Freedom Needed
[I don’t think that word means what you think it means John. Both laws against abortion and “the right to be free from the abomination of same-sex marriage” would appear to require the use of the force of government. That’s not “freedom”.

You aren’t helping when you don’t even make sense.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jewel Staite ‏@JewelStaite

Maybe that last tweet wasn’t clear enough: let’s take all the guns, lock them in a box, and drop it in the middle of the fucking ocean.

Jewel Staite ‏@JewelStaite
Tweeted on June 18, 2015
[She deleted the tweet above a short time later. Here is what she said about it:

Had to delete a tweet cuz someone whose name rhymes with Dadam Raldwin pointed his nutjob followers in my direction. The crazy be out today!

That would be Adam Baldwin who said:

@JewelStaite Would the “taking” be worth the bloodshed necessary to “take” all of the guns?

While I doubt that she has been convinced of the error of her thinking she has probably been harassed enough over this and it wouldn’t do any good to further aggravate her.

Think of it this way. In this case we have the police and the military on our side of the issue, as well as nine Supreme Court Justices who agree the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The anti-gun side has someone who plays make-believe for a living.

Basically I just wanted to remind you to never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Firearms Policy‏@gunpolicy

How do you “prevent” people from violating laws? You can’t –there is no “pre-crime” division.

Firearms Policy‏ @gunpolicy
Tweeted on June 18, 2015
[I have tried to say the same thing over the years but this expresses it so much better.

You know The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is nonsensical simply by it’s name.—Joe]

Quote of the day—George M. Lee and John R. Lott

Despite assertions that the benefits from waiting periods and background checks are obvious, the complete lack of empirical studies to support those claims is stark. No evidence is offered that either of these laws reduce violent crime, nor that they reduce overall suicide rates. Even more striking, the discussions that Appellant and amici use are not relevant to the case before the court.

Evidence provided in this brief shows that for at least concealed handgun permit holders, one of the classes of plaintiffs in this case, are demonstratively law-abiding, and that it is unlikely that waiting periods or background checks for additional gun purchases could lower crime rates.

George M. Lee
John R. Lott
June 2, 2015
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CRIME PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTER
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES JEFF SILVESTER, ET AL., AND SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE
JEFF SILVESTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
KAMALA D. HARRIS,
in her official capacity as the Attorney General of California,
Defendant-Appellant.

[This is about California having 10-day waiting periods for people purchasing a gun even though they already have one or more existing guns and/or a concealed weapons permit.

You might be interested in reading the whole brief but it can be paraphrased as:

Kamala D. Harris and the supporters of this law must be living in an alternate universe. Not only don’t they have any data to support their half-baked ideas, they aren’t even talking about the topic at hand, and they misconstrue the data they do offer.

And if we were talking about what they want to talk about, which we are not and never were discussing, here is the data which destroys their view and proves they have at best a tenuous grasp on reality.

Lee and Lott were much more polite in their choice of words but that is what they said.—Joe]

Quote of the day—©Wonder Sammon™ @WonderSammon

@goodgreg42 @andreajmarkley @wallsofthecity All I know is that gunowners have tiny cocks. That’s why they spend their life cowering in fear.

©Wonder Sammon™ @WonderSammon
Tweeted on January 16, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a Tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Pacifist makes terrorist threat

The title could also be “Why are anti-gun people so violent?” From here:

After a gun-control advocate posted “Which one do I need to shoot up a kindergarten?” on a pro-gun Facebook page, Missouri police arrested him illegally, he claims in court.
     James Robert Ross posted the remark in the comments section of a pro-gun article on a Facebook page on Jan. 25.
     Jackson police arrested him the next day, for disturbing the peace and making a terrorist threat, Ross says in his federal lawsuit.
     Ross, 20, sued the City of Jackson, and its police Officers Ryan Medlin, Anthony Henson and Toby Freeman, on June 5.
     Ross says in the lawsuit that his comment “was worded in the form of a rhetorical question and did not make any specific, direct threat against any specific, identifiable person or persons.”

He was held in jail for 72 hours and was released on a $1000 bond. The charges were dropped a little over three months later on April 7. I agree with the prosecutor’s decision but still it was a stupid thing to say. It was pushing the envelope a little bit, but had it been someone who owned guns I could see it going the other way. Especially if it had been in New Jersey, New York City, Maryland, or California.

I’m inclined to say he should lose his lawsuit. I think it was appropriate that the police investigate but I’m torn on the arrest. I think it would depend a lot on his attitude when they went to talk to him.

Quote of the day—Gaia’s Dancing Indigo Children

#GunOwners cry about their #SecondAmendment rights but they don’t give a shit about the fact that thousands of innocent people are killed each year by their sinister death machines. It is time for us to do away with private gun ownership entirely. The only people who feel the need to own guns are paranoid, mentally ill people. If you own a gun, you are a terrible human being and if you own a firearm and you have children you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. A child who is raised in homes with firearms is 43% more likely to die of a gun shot wound. It should be considered abuse to keep firearms in a home with children and the state really should step in and take them into custody. Every gun owner in America is a potential #MassShooter, it’s only a matter of time before the snap and start spraying innocent children.

Repeal2A

Gaia’s Dancing Indigo Children
Posted on Facebook June 11, 2015
[Via a Facebook post from Sean Sorrentino.

This is what they think of you.

There is speculation this is the work of a troll. But it’s consistent with other anti-gun people.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Andrew Scott

We’ve seen massive decreases in violent crimes over the past two decades, but that hasn’t appeased gun controllers in the slightest. So we know that no matter how low the crime rates drop, no matter what legislation has already been passed, they will always want to further encroach on our 2nd Amendment rights.

This is why we’ve drawn the line in the sand. This is why we don’t want to give up another inch. We know that gun controllers will simply never be satisfied until there are outright bans and confiscations. It will be done piecemeal, using every “mass shooting” as an opportunity, with acknowledgements made the whole way that “this won’t solve the problem, but maybe it will help.” And then, when the problem isn’t completely solved, they will do it again. And again.

Andrew Scott
June 12, 2015
Gun Control Negotiations & the Lack of Compromise Claim
[Scott is correct. But there is more.

When they say “…maybe it will help” I don’t think the politicians believe it anymore than I do. I think they have some other reason for infringing upon this specific enumerated right. And I think they need to be asked, “What’s the real reason you are doing this?” And their response, whether it be silence, excuses, feigned insult, whatever, needs recorded and remembered.

Then, when the time comes, that response should be used as evidence at their trial. The evidence that they knew they were lying and doing something wrong at the time they were doing it will demonstrate premeditation.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Randy Barnett

If all this evidence of original meaning is not enough to persuade you, then you are simply not persuadable by evidence.

Randy Barnett
June 5, 2015
More evidence that the “judicial power” included the power to nullify unconstitutional laws
[Via a Tweet from Alan Gura who says, “Slaaaaaam dunk.”

Barnett’s article is about the power of the judiciary, in general, to declare laws “null and void”. Some people are apparently questioning this and Barnett supplies “Slaaaaaam dunk” evidence showing they are wrong.

The quote above was in reference to those people but it is also applicable to people who advocate for infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]