Here is a website devoted just to mocking anti-gun people modeled after the Onion. For example; in regard to D.C. suddenly becoming Constitional Carry they posted Washington, D.C. area-rapist “staying in tonight” totally unrelated to Washington, D.C. area-residents “carrying guns legally”:

When asked about his routine, area-rapist Dan stated that, “Normally, Friday nights are ideal for my pastime, but right now, gosh, my kitchen’s spice-rack is a jumbled disaster and I should probably straighten that situation out instead of doing rape-stuff.”

The fact that he could now be shot and killed by a woman defending herself apparently has nothing to do with his homebound plans for the night. “Nah, it’s absolutely TOTALLY not that…besides my cat also seems a little pensive lately. I really ought to stay home and soothe Señor Boom-Boom and not go out to rape people.”

Gun cartoon of the day


When has the NRA or even an NRA member caused harm to anyone in our schools? Sure there probably has been someone, somewhere, who abused his or her spouse or kids, but the correlation of the NRA with violence of any type anywhere is almost for certain to be near zero or even negative. Get me a citation and then we can talk about it. But violence in the schools? Only in their dreams. Such a correlation would be their favorite wet-dream come true.

What if they had drawn the 2nd Amendment or the Bill of Rights at the door trying to get in? That would have been more accurate portrayal of their true concerns but their ill intent would have been more obvious.

These people are the enemies of freedom and want to knock down all barriers to unlimited government power. Private ownership of firearms is one of those barriers.

Quote of the day—JamesBondo

Do you mean every time a police officer prevents a crime or captures a criminal – without getting off a couple of shots – that is a defacto OFF LABEL use of a deadly device?!?!?!

Do you think it is wise for police to operate outside the manufacturer’s design and application? What is really atrocious is when a sportsman uses it to shoot paper donuts, don’t they know they are supposed to be killing or maiming everything in sight?

July 31, 2014
Comment in Canadian Politics Forum in response to bluebrd35 who said of guns “…the only purpose of which is to kill or maim”.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Connecticut Carry Responds to ‘Will You Stop This?’ Video

From Connecticut Carry here. Well done!

Releases Transformative Video With a Worthwhile Message

North Branford CT, July 31, 2014

Connecticut Carry has released on its You Tube channel a transformative video meant as a commentary to the ‘Everytown for Gun Safety’ video campaign ‘Will You Stop This?’. In their graphic video, the anti-rights group inadvertently provide an advertisement for women to be armed while arguing that citizens should be less armed. The video shows an enraged man kicking down a door, taking a child and pulling a firearm on the defenseless woman in what appears to be her own home. If the woman was armed, the video could have a very different ending; a positive one instead of the negative one that was portrayed.

As women all over the state of Connecticut are arming themselves and seeking firearms and self-defense training, Connecticut Carry felt it was appropriate to transform this video into an educational message for women everywhere:

“Refuse to be a victim. Get Armed. Get Trained.”

That is a positive and empowering message that stands a chance of saving lives instead of the gun bans and restraining orders advocated by anti-rights citizen disarmament groups. Studies like the Kleck study have shown that annually there may be up to 2.5 million defensive gun uses. Only 8% of those actually involve gun fire to stop the threat. Guns save lives.

Connecticut Carry cares for all of its members and the public alike. We want women to be safer, and that means that women have the means and the ability to defend themselves against violent criminals who do not obey laws or restraining orders. As the nation saw in Castle Rock v Gonzalez, a restraining order cannot replace lawful self-defense.

“We see and hear from women and men alike on a regular basis that have an immediate need for a firearm to defend themselves against violent criminals in domestic situations. We find it shameful that Connecticut residents end up having to wait 2 years or more in some cases to get a pistol permit to be able to lawfully defend themselves.”

-          Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess

“This video is a great exercise of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech. This is speech that is far too important to be restricted in any way.”

-          Connecticut Carry Director Edward Peruta

“Everytown for Gun Safety has made the best NRA commercial I have seen in a long time. What better argument could be made through a 30 second video for being armed and trained in using force with a capable tool?”

-          Connecticut Carry Director Raymond Johansen

Watch the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3VCqyHRC2g

Progress on Fast and Furious

This just now in the news via Katie Pavlich. BREAKING: Judge Orders DOJ to Release Fast and Furious Documents Withheld From Congress Under Obama Executive Privilege Claim:

This order forces the Obama DOJ, for the first time, to provide a detailed listing of all documents that it has withheld from Congress and the American people for years about the deadly Fast and Furious gun running scandal,” Judicial Watch released in a statement.

It doesn’t mean the DOJ has to turn over the documents being requested. It just means they have to give a list of all the documents and the reasons they were withheld. The judge and the FOIA requester can then evaluate the justification for withholding them. It’s a step in the right direction. It’s still a long and difficult trail before anyone in the DOJ or Whitehouse goes to jail over this.

Gun cartoon of the day


This is what they think of the NRA. They think guns are more important to us than the lives of children. If this was true then why, after the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre was it that the NRA advocated for armed guards at schools? And why did President Obama advocate for restrictions on gun owners that would not have affected any of the school shooters?

The more accurate cartoon would have been one where President Obama is depicted as hating guns more than wanting to protect children. Every school shooting is another opportunity for him and his ilk to attack the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms rather than mitigate or solve the problem.

Gun cartoon of the day


This is what they think of you.

They think gun ownership is a relic from the past. What they don’t realize or want to admit is that restrictions on weapons is from the dark ages and the time of kings and tyrants. Free people own weapons to protect themselves and other innocent life. Serfs, peasants, and slaves may not. They want to return to the time of serfs, peasants, and slaves. They are the ones stuck in the distant past.

Quote of the day—Windy Wilson

What right wing nut job massacring children is he referring to? Or is there a sort of poshumous declaration of rightwingedness similar to how the deceased in Chicago all begin to vote Democrat?

Windy Wilson
July 27, 2014
Comment to Quote of the day—Mark Wilson
[The closest thing to a right wing nut job who massacred U.S. children in recent times that I know of is Timothy McVeigh. I was unable to identify a political affiliation for The Sandy Hook Elementary shooter but the Columbine shooters were most closely linked to the left, not the right.

In general Wilson’s speculation is correct. Initially the right gets blamed for mass shooting, the truth comes out that they were most closely associated with the left, and the media go silent about the political affiliation. The mass of people on the left remember the initial accusation and use the accusation as if it were a conviction.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Don Gwinn

We’ve reached a level of cultural domination where the most effective anti-gun groups have adopted a strategy of demanding concealed carry.

Don Gwinn
July 27, 2014
Comment on Facebook about MDA Supporters Protest TOPLESS Against Texas Open Carry Group (bonus Markley’s law in one of the pictures)
[There is a certain amount of truth to that.

In the article the author says he failed to see the connection “between bullets and boobs”. But it seems to me it was all about open carry. Just for the record, I’m fine with the open carry of bullets, guns, or boobs.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day


This is what they think of you:

  • They have some sort of empty headed mutant view of NRA members.
  • They believe gun manufactures influence gun owners more than the other way around.
  • They believe increased gun ownership increases “the carnage”.

All those beliefs are easily disproven. They have a prejudiced view and they are sticking with it. This makes them bigots.

Quote of the day—Mark Wilson

Here we go, some racist right wing wacko judge being an “activist”. Let’s see how fast the cowardly GOP lawmakers allow guns at the Capitol building or at their Snow White political conventions. They won’t because they are full of you know what. Meanwhile the terrorist NRA organization celebrates getting closer to another massacre of kids by some right wing nut job.

Mark Wilson
July 27, 2014
Comment to Judge: D.C. ban on handguns in public unconstitutional
[“Snow White political conventions”? “Terrorist NRA celebrates … massacre of kids by right wing nut job”?

I wonder what color the sky is in his universe.—Joe]


Quote of the day—Robin L. Kelly

What the Kelly Report is NOT is a manifesto against guns or gun owners. Let me be clear: I am not anti-gun. I am pro common sense. I believe America is capable of striking the right balance between protecting our Second Amendment rights and promoting public safety by keeping guns out of the wrong hands. This report strikes that balance. I trust that people on both sides of the gun reform debate will find in the Kelly Report legislative and policy proposals that their communities can get behind.

Reauthorize the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (H.R. 437—Rep. Carolyn McCarthy). The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 would extend and reauthorize the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, an expired federal law that prohibited the manufacturing, transportation or distribution of semi-automatic weapons and ammunition feeders.

If every gun had an irremovable tracking number, it would be significantly easier for law enforcement to minimize gun trafficking and track illegal gun transfers. Similarly, inclusion of RFID (radio frequency identification) tags on guns that allow them only to fire if read by a corresponding chip worn by the owner would prevent gun violence that results from gun theft or wrongful use. The technology for smart guns currently exists.

Robin L. Kelly
Member of U.S. Congress
Kelly Report 2014: Gun Violence in America
[Don’t ever let anyone get away telling you that no one wants to take your guns. This is another member of Congress that specifically supports a ban on the most popular rifle in America. She says she wants to protect Second Amendment rights but does not give us any clue that she knows what right to keep and bear arms means. I don’t believe this is an accident. I believe she included those words only to defuse some of the criticism.

The stupidity, and/or ignorance, and/or arrogance, and/or deliberate deception is astounding in this “balanced report”. The report gives credit to over a dozen contributors but not a single one is identified as supporting gun owners or the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. They are all anti-gun. Yet she says, “I trust that people on both sides of the gun reform debate will find in the Kelly Report legislative and policy proposals that their communities can get behind.” Strictly speaking she is probably correct. I can find proposals in her report that I don’t oppose. I don’t see anything wrong with the following non-legislative proposals:

Promote the Understanding of and Attention to the Mental Health Needs of Students. Too often mental health issues are either misunderstood or ignored, often resulting in tragic consequences. School teachers should receive mental health training to help them better identify potential warning signs so they’re able to intervene earlier. Similarly, community groups, medical and mental health professionals should be better supported in public education and mental health destigmatization efforts that encourage people to seek mental health treatment.

Change the Social Dynamic in Urban Communities and Increase Proactive Prevention Programs in Schools. Nothing stops a bullet like a job, or a quality education. After school programs, job training programs, mentoring programs with local business leaders and community recreational programs, such as Chicago’s “Windy City Hoops,” keep kids off the streets and working towards productive futures. Additionally, alternatives to violence and conflict resolution can be promoted through mentoring programs with former gang members that inform young people of the perils of gang association and gang violence. Similarly, programs connecting urban youth with police officers will help bridge the gap and provide sensitivity and awareness training that will improve community trust of law enforcement, and assist in decreasing gang violence and police brutality.

Support Smart Policing. Proactive initiatives by police departments to prevent criminal activity, paired with an increased visible police presence in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods, are an effective means of preventing crime and gun violence. Similarly, police departments can work with local schools to target high-risk individuals—both victims and criminals—to prevent them from being placed in dangerous situations. For example, the Chicago Police Department has joined with Chicago Public Schools to promote early intervention by determining which students are most at-risk and encouraging them to enter mentoring programs and other positive activities.

But that is a minuscule part of her “balanced report”. Where is the gun safety training? Or training on the legal and moral aspect of self-defense? It doesn’t exist in her world. She can only see benefit in restricting the rights of people rather than in enabling people to protect themselves.

But what really got my attention is the last paragraph quoted above about “smart guns”.

“Irremovable tracking number”? I think we call those serial numbers and have been required for decades. But “irremovable” is an impossible (or at least extremely impractical) requirement.

RFID tags cannot stop a gun from firing. The sentence, “…inclusion of RFID (radio frequency identification) tags on guns that allow them only to fire if read by a corresponding chip worn by the owner…” is nonsensical. A RFID tag is little more than a fancy bar code. RFID tags cannot inhibit the firing of a gun. RFIDs can be made more secure than bar codes and hence less likely to be copied but at best she has thing backwards. If she had said a chip in the gun read the RFID tag worn by the owner then it would have least made sense. But that does not get around the issue brought up by NSSF (see below). The gun then clearly has to have a power supply which is subject to failure.

I am convinced these people believe in magic. Engineering is limited by the physical laws of the universe. They believe we can just cast some spell and make something happen. I understand the (especially supersonic) flight of airplanes, internal combustion engines, electric motors, GPS, the near instantaneous communication of email, television, and cellphones are all beyond the comprehension of most people. And I can understand guns could easily be dumped into the same mental magic box. Most people seek out experts and many of them actually respect the opinions of the expects. These people don’t. They did seek out the opinions of some gun manufactures and the NSSF. They even quoted them:

Beretta issued the following statement regarding smart guns:

As the leading designer and manufacturer of high-quality firearms in the world, Beretta has recently been asked by several news organizations about the feasibility and advisability of making handguns that include so-called “smart gun” technology or “personalized” internal locks. Beretta has considered this issue for several years and has concluded that existing design concepts of this type are neither advisable nor feasible.
Although the concept of a “smart gun” or “personalized gun” has received public attention recently, we believe that careful consideration has not been given to potentially dangerous risks associated with these concepts. In our opinion, such technology is undeveloped and unproven. In addition, Beretta strongly believes that “smart gun” technology or “personalized” guns… could actually increase the number of fatal accidents involving handguns.


The National Shooting Sports Foundation in the United States, which is the trade association for the gun industry, still claims on its website that personalized guns are ill advised, citing the 1996 Sandia report that focused on police weapons:

“Personalized” or “smart gun” technology, while in development stages, is neither reliable nor available. A U.S. Department of Justice-funded project, researched by Sandia National Laboratories, concluded, “There is not currently a perfect smart gun technology.” Owner recognition technology, such as fingerprint recognition or a radio transmitter, requires a power source to work. Any technology that relies on a power source will fail, possibly at the worst time imaginable.

They then go on to dismiss these experts without addressing the fundamental issues of concern. That is demonstration of either crap for brains or deliberate deception. Hence this report and Congresswoman Kelly should be treated accordingly.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David Yamane

Hence, the Brady Campaign’s claim that “people who keep guns in homes are almost 3 times more likely to be murdered.” From this, Kellerman and colleagues concluded, “In the light of these observations and our present findings, people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes.”

Of the total number of homicides committed in the study area, only 1.6 percent (30 of 1,860) were gun homicides committed in the victim’s home using a gun kept there. 98.4 percent we either outside the home, were not gun homicides, or did not use the victim’s gun. People in the case sample are 62 times more likely to be killed under these other circumstance than to be killed in their own home with a gun kept there.

David Yamane
July 18, 2014
Scrutinizing Claims About Guns in Homes as a “Risk Factor” for Homicide in the Home
[This is the 1993, long discredited Kellermann study. But this is, to me, a novel approach to discrediting the paper. And it seems to be much more powerful than the other approaches.

It makes it all the more obvious that the anti-gun people have to deliberately lie and deceive in order to get their way. Whatever their motivation it is not for the good of society and it is particularly bad for people that own or want to own firearms. These people are evil.—Joe]

Quote of the day—GunFreeNJ

You gun loons are all the same, nothing but hot air….come elections, you’ll see that both the voters of CT will stand together with the voters of NJ, and come out on top, and finally be finished with people like you, and the NRA.

July 14, 2014
Comment to Conn. Gov. Molloy: Chris Christie missed chance to save lives
[And just how will the voters be “finished” with the “gun loons” and the NRA? Does that mean prisons? Reeducation camps? Death squads?

I would like to suggest that Mr. GunFreeNJ check his calculations again. There are five million NRA members and nearly 100 million gun owners in this country that consume several billion rounds of ammunition each year in practice. His plans to be “finished” with us could come with a very high price tag.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

In the Criminal Code of 1926 there was a most stupid Article 139 – “on the limits of necessary self-defense” —according to which you had the right to unsheath your knife only after the criminal’s knife was hovering over you. And you could stab him only after he had stabbed you. And otherwise you would be the one put on trial. (And there was no article in our legislation saying that the greater criminal was the one who attacked someone weaker than himself.) This fear of exceeding the measure of necessary self-defense lead to total spinelessness as a national characteristic. A hoodlum once began to beat up the Red Army man Aleksandr Zakharov outside a club. Zakharov took out a folding penknife and killed the hoodlum. And for this he got….ten years for plain murder! “And what was I supposed to do?” he asked, astonished. Prosecutor Artsishevsky replied: “You should have fled!” So tell me, who creates hoodlums?

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago, Volume 2: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, 1918-1956.
[This is just one of many similarities of Solzhenitsyn’s USSR to present day in the U.S. that sends chills up my spine.

The USSR created hoodlums just as the UK is creating them now and our political opponents in the U.S. appear to want to create. What is even more chilling is that in the USSR the political leaders openly wrote about how the thieves “were allies in the building of communism”. This was because they were the enemy of those who owned property.

I’ll have another QOTD on this topic another time but for now ponder whether our enemies of freedom came to the same conclusion as the communists of the USSR independently, through influence from them, or are only dimly stumbling into the same situation.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day


This is one of those things that makes me think our opponents have mental health issues. They think in terms of “messages” being sent rather than in facts and logic. While I recognize there is value in “messages” the problem is they find whatever they want to find rather than the obvious direct messages. In the case of having armed people protecting our children the obvious messages are that we are willing and able to deliver predators a copper jacketed hollow-point message of “Don’t hurt our children!” This sends a message to the children of, “We can and will protect you.”

I dealt with someone for decades that would, in extreme cases, repeatedly insist there were hidden messages in email that communicated something completely different from what was actually written. Verbal exchanges were frequently like walking into psych ward. I would ask a question and they would respond with something that was only tenuously connected to what I asked. Repeating the question would get something again only tenuously related to my question and unrelated to their previous answer. Asking them to repeat my question back to verify they heard the question would result in them insisting they heard and understood my question but they would not be able to repeat it or even summarize it. They didn’t need to be able to do that because, “I know how you think.” They literally insisted they knew what I was thinking and my words and actions were not necessary for them to act upon “what you really mean”.

The people that relate to the cartoon above are like that person. They live in a world that only intersects with ours enough that we can catch a glimpse of their alternate reality.

These people want to control us because their world is chaotic and they desperately want stability. Having a higher authority exercising control over others brings the sense of the stability they seek. For us to say, “No! We will not be unconstitutional controlled by you or anyone else.” increases their anxiety and insistence that we need to be controlled.

I don’t know how this can end well.