Quote of the day—John Hardin

So, Hillary now is the Reset Button?

John Hardin
August 26, 2016
Comment to Quote of the day—Liz Crokin
[I think this might be better rewritten as, “Hillary is the Reset Button.”

Back in the late 90’s, in the dark days of the Clinton presidency, I knew gun people who said we should vote for the most totalitarian administration imaginable, Hillary, for the next president. The thought was that the “water” would heat up so rapidly that “the frogs” would take action rather than die from the slow increase in temperature. There are people today saying similar things.

I don’t know whether that would have been the correct choice then or it is the correct choice now, but it might very well be the choice will be made for us. And if the election goes worst case for us it will be ugly. Not only are the anti-gun people openly talking of an “assault weapon ban”, and “the Australian example”, but also “a ban on semi-automatic firearms, which are often described as ‘assault weapons.’” Never mind semi-auto handguns were a significant component of the Heller decision and protected. As it stand the Heller decision is being essentially ignored. With another Clinton presidency it will be nullified in everything but our memories.

I’m preparing for the worst and hoping for an indictment of Hillary.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

If someone is physically and mentally able to defend themselves, at least to some degree, but is unwilling to expend any time or effort in doing so doesn’t that mean they must not believe their life is worth defending?

Furthermore, suppose someone is willing to defend themselves. But if they are only willing to defend themselves with one hand tied behind their back, are they really serious about self defense? Do they really believe their life is worth defending if they insist on handicapping themselves when they defend themselves?

Why should someone be willing to risk themselves to protect someone else who doesn’t believe their own life is worth defending?

Why should someone defend another person who isn’t willing and able to use tools, and the best type of tools, to defend themselves?

Why should friends, neighbors, and the police provide physical security for people who are anti-gun?

No exceptions

Via Fred’s comment we have this:

Because the feds rely heavily on state and local law enforcement assistance to enforce federal measures, passing a state law banning such assistance will make federal gun control “nearly impossible to enforce.”

Our strategy takes a step-by-step approach, with each step building on the last, until all federal gun control is nullified in practice within the state.


Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

People in the United States of America want it understood that designating arms, ammunition and related accessories, which are currently legal to make, keep or bear in any state, which may later be declared illegal to make, keep or bear, or encumbered in any way by any means and for any reason, constitutes Second Amendment infringement.

Such actions are null and void, amount to prima facie violation of the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and are grounds for removal from office for failure to faithfully execute the duties of the office.

Any action or attempt by any person to enforce such infringement on property possessed in our state will be a class four felony for a first offense, and a class three felony for second and subsequent offenses.

County Sheriffs and law-enforcement agencies in this state will be authorized to enforce this Declaration and to deputize as many residents as may be necessary to enforce this Declaration.

This Declaration, circulated widely by people who support it, is provided as a courtesy and notice of protected civil rights to candidates, politicians and people working in any capacity in government. It will be introduced as state legislation to authorize peaceful enforcement of those civil rights. Model legislation is in the draft stage and will be circulated soon.

Consider yourselves notified of impending disaster, if the headlong rush to infringe the public’s right to arms — and all the other blatantly unconstitutional abuses — continues on its current path. Don’t shoot me, I’m only the messenger.

Alan Korwin
August 21, 2016
American Protection of Arms Declaration
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Warren Tolman

We were concerned about copycats and that if we tried to be too specific, that these people are very adept at figuring ways to get around (the law).

We wanted the law to be dynamic and evolving but aimed with the purpose to ban assault weapons.

Warren Tolman
Former Massachusetts Democratic state Senator.
Cosponsor of the 1998 law.
August 20, 2016
1994 Massachusetts law at center of assault weapons clash
[I think the title should be “1998…”, not “1994…” but that’s not important.

The important part is that non specific and “dynamic and evolving” are weasel words for “unconstitutionally vague”.

Update: Weer’d gives us the contradictions in the Massachusetts AG “clarification” letter.

And, as pointed out by Archer, don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Gary J. Byrne

Terrorists can recognize the difference between actual security and it’s mere appearance. You think they can’t see past a gun free zone sign? It might as well say, “Terrorists welcome! Ready access to undefended scores of innocent children.” Please get over the gun-control distraction. Ask yourself, “What stops four men from going to a school with knives or bombs?” I know that by the time a threat reaches me on an airplane there is no time for hesitation, talk, quarter. I want to win more than I can tolerate losing.

In 2016 federal agencies are training their law enforcement personal to respond to active shooter scenarios. Concealed carry permits for civilians are going up. That’s great!

But we need a more honest discussion. By the time a terrorist or a criminal boards a plane with ill intentions we’re past the time for obfuscating their plans or negotiating them down. Either FAMS personal is on the plane when it takes off or its passengers and crew are marked for death and they better know it. The Federal Air Marshal, the passengers, the flight crew, and pilots are truly the last line of defense. Public spaces and schools need the same approach.

Let’s cut the feel good politics and recognize by the time someone with dangerous plans reaches your doorstep it’s too late to ponder root causes of anti-social behavior. It’s time to act. All of the thinking should have been done beforehand. And the level of commitment to stop grotesque violence in its tracks, stone cold dead, has to exceed theirs if protecting the principal is going to succeed.

Have no misconceptions. Any outcome at that point will be bloody, ugly, and lowdown. It’s like nothing you have seen in any Hollywood movie. It’s going to be bad breath and fingernail close. But it’s a fight that is coming our way whether we get ready for it or not.

Let’s get ready.

Gary J. Byrne
Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate
[I listened to this as an audible book so I probably have some punctuation messed up and maybe some spelling and other minor stuff. But it’s pretty close.

The book, as you can see, isn’t just about his time as a Secret Service Officer for the Clintons. It briefly covers his time in the Air Force, time with the Bush’s before the Clintons, testifying during the investigation by Kenneth Star, and time with the Federal Air Marshals.

There are some quotes I’m going to pull out about the Clintons too. But I thought this was higher priority. I really like it.

It’s a good book. I highly recommend it.—Joe]

What media bias?

Via Paul Koning we have The Unknown Olympic Champion Kim Rhode has won medals in six games. Cue the non-coverage:

How do you manage to win a medal at six straight Olympics and remain more or less unknown? The answer: win by shooting a gun. American skeet-shooter Kim Rhode last week became the first athlete, male or female, to win a medal at six summer games and the first on five continents, but don’t look for her on a box of Wheaties.

Mrs. Rhode, who won a bronze medal in Rio, has received little media attention despite her historic feat. The 37-year-old also lacks a single major corporate sponsor, though her ammunition and training costs are offset with sponsorship and donations from such firearms companies as Beretta and Otis Technology.

Her agent told Bloomberg he had pitched the sharp-shooter to more than 20 companies, with no luck. Our guess is they don’t want to risk a backlash from the progressive antigun culture. It probably doesn’t help that Mrs. Rhode is an outspoken critic of gun-control laws and a Donald Trump supporter.

What media bias?


It’s a good thing people weren’t allowed to have guns. That would have only increased the violence.

It shouldn’t be as big a problem here

I haven’t heard about this in the U.S. media:

schools are a “top priority” target for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), which delivered a direct threat last December.  The terrorist group’s francophone propaganda magazine, Dar al Islam, urged Muslim parents to remove their children from French schools and to kill teachers, who were called “enemies of Allah” for teaching the French principle of secularism.

Don’t think that the French are any more hated that Americans. It’s a good thing that here in the U.S. that we have a lot of staff in our schools armed and trained to deal with active shooters. Right?

Abuse of data

Via a comment by Paul Koning we have this commentary in the Wall Street Journal:

Doctor to Patient: Do You Have a Gun?

I cannot understand how my asking this question will help.

From a public-health standpoint, adding this question to the medical history must seem logical to policy gurus far removed from the trenches of primary care. According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, 60% of the 30,000 Americans who take their own lives every year do so with a firearm. Ninety die every day from shootings—60 are suicide, 30 are murders.

Yet as horrified as I am by these losses, I cannot understand how my asking this question will help. If a patient’s answer is “Yes,” then what I am to say?

Of course, the platitudes: Guns can be a danger around the home, especially one with children. Make sure you use gunlocks or a special safe. Everyone knows this; it’s akin to telling patients that smoking is hazardous to one’s health. And now that my patient has admitted that he owns a firearm, this fact is duly recorded into the—secure, of course!—electronic medical record.

If my patient suffers from mental illness or substance abuse but is not, in my estimation, a danger to himself or others, then what? Report the patient to someone, some agency? Who might that be? Will my patient be harmed more than helped? What will it do to my ongoing relationship with my patient?

The obvious take-away from the article is that the suggestion that doctors ask patients if they own guns was not well thought out.

As Paul points out in his comment the data is required to go into an electronic records system which is susceptible to hacking (ask the DNC if you doubt me).

Another plausible point, as Paul pointed out in his email to me, is it is a “push for doctors asking about guns to be an attempt to spread hoplophobic disinformation”.

And as Paul hinted in his email one can extrapolate even further to see how these electronic records could be use to build databases of gun owners. Sure, the records are supposed to be private from government snooping except under certain conditions:

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) states that protected health information may be disclosed if it “is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of a person or the public and . . . is to a person or persons reasonably able to prevent or lessen the threat including the target of the threat.”

But we have laws in existence, right now, which require medical personal report people with, or had, mental health issues to the government so they can be prevented from purchasing guns. How much of a stretch is it to imagine a one or two line amendment to HIPAA which requires the reporting of self reporting gun owners?

And what does the government care about following original intent of the law? Census data has been abused by the governments throughout history:

The Civil War
Along with the benefits of census information for war planning, the census can be used for methods of destruction as a war tactic. General Sherman used census data to locate targets during the famed Civil War March though Georgia.
World War II and Japanese Internment
A specific example of the privacy risks of the US census can also be found in the 1940s. During World War II, Japanese-American citizens were rounded up and sent to internment camps. The Census Bureau might not have necessarily given out individual Japanese-American names or numbers, but the Bureau did work with US War Department to offer aggregated data about certain localities. Although there is still a lack of consensus concerning specific conclusions, the Census Bureau has issued a formal apology and now reports that the Bureau did not protect Japanese-Americans.
[It has been admitted the census bureau did give detailed info to the Secret Service.—Joe]
It has been recorded that even before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt ordered the Census Bureau to collect information on “American-born and foreign-born Japanese” from the Census data lists. Information was gathered from the 1930 and 1940 censuses on all Japanese-Americans and then given to the FBI and top military officials. These sources point directly to the census information as one of the reasons that led to the internment of almost 110,000 Japanese-Americans on the West Coast, two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens.
United Kingdom
A recent example of abuse from abroad can be found in the United Kingdom. It recently has reached the public view that compulsory transfers were considered in Northern Ireland in 1972. A UK government top-secret memo has surfaced describing a plan to relocate Irish Catholics. The plan was written with census data. Although never implemented, the use of census data for non-statistical purposes has caused great concern in Europe.
Germany has a contrasting history in census reporting. The most extreme example of census abuse is Hitler’s use of the census to track minorities for extermination during the NAZI regime.

Germany not only used the census data (and gun registration data) of their own country but that of countries which they conquered for evil purposes. My general rule is that if the data exists then it will be abused by a government. Carefully consider the type and persistence of data you disclose to anyone.

Hypocrite Hillary Leaves You Defenseless

Hillary has said the enemies she is most proud of are:

Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians.

See also here.

Hillary has said:

we were able to ban assault weapons… We’ve got to go after this. And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.

Hillary has said:

I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at.

Australia banned all semi-auto rifles, semi-auto shotguns, pump shotguns, magazines which hold more than 10 rounds, a caliber limit of not more than .38 inches (since expanded under certain criteria), semi-auto pistols with barrels shorter than 120 mm (4.72 inches), and barrels shorter than 100 mm (3.94 inches) for revolvers.

Nearly all the guns I own would be banned.

Hillary must be prevented from taking office by every legal means available to us.

Quote of the day—Julie Moreau, Ph.D.

Advocacy on this issue has the potential to make the LGBTQ movement even more relevant to national politics and to win over allies outside the community. Achieving gun control legislation would constitute, for Preston, a “contribution to benefit our society as a whole and give us the recognition and respect we deserve.

Julie Moreau, Ph.D.
Commentary: Is Gun Control Next Step for LGBTQ Movement?

That’s a mind bogglingly stupid conclusion. And from so many different angles. Here are just a few:

  • They are going to alienate one of the most politically powerful, single, set of people in the entire country. Gun owners.
  • They are advocating against their own best interests.
  • Attacking a specific enumerated right is not on the list of things of things to do for people who want respect. Maybe they should attack religion, the First Amendment, as well and try to get twice the respect.

I know I have a biased sample, but nearly all the LGBTQ people I know are gun owners. I find it difficult to imagine they are going to get much unity in their community on a gun control effort.—Joe]

2nd Amendment no obstacle to gun control

Millennial poll: 2nd Amendment no obstacle to gun control:

A new poll by the University of Chicago finds that Millennials have a strong preference for gun control, even supporting a proposed ban on semi-automatic weapons.

The survey—which was conducted by GenForward, part of the University of Chicago’s Black Youth Project, in conjunction with the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, a nonpartisan social science research organization—polled 1,940 young Americans ages 18 to 30 and revealed that that 57 percent of Millennials approve of banning people from purchasing semi-automatic weapons.

This is the part that is really scary to me:

…over half of those surveyed said they believe that Second Amendment rights can be compromised in order to support greater gun control.

Perhaps the the Nineteenth Amendment should be compromised to support greater voter control. Compromising the Second Amendment is no less repugnant.

As pointed out in the comments:

It’s estimated that nearly 70% of the guns in circulation (and even a higher percentage of those sold) are semi-automatic. 57 percent of Millennials support banning 70% of the currently owned guns and the vast majority of those currently legally sold?

But most importantly, don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Quote of the day—Adam Lankford

The present study has offered three empirical predictions. (1) The number of fame-seeking rampage shooters will continue to grow. (2) Fame-seeking rampage shooters will attempt to kill more victims than past offenders killed. (3) Fame-seeking rampage shooters will “innovate” new ways to get attention.Whether these predictions will be borne out by future data remains to be seen. However, one social change that could potentially disrupt the growth of this threat would be a major reversal in the way the media covers these attackers. Recently, there has been some support for movements such as “No Notoriety” and “Don’t Name Them,” which encourage media organizations to avoid giving rampage shooters the attention and fame they often seek.

Adam Lankford
Aggression and Violent Behavior Volume 27, March–April 2016, Pages 122–129
Fame-seeking rampage shooters: Initial findings and empirical predictions
[Via email from John Richardson, No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money.

This is all consistent with other research that I have seen. The only quibble I have with this conclusion is that it limits the fame seeking to shooters. I also expect fire, knives, swords, vehicles, poison, chemical weapons, explosives, blunt objects, and many other tools will also be used by fame seekers.—Joe].

Stephanie’s dare to @bamboozled3

I received this from Stephanie in reference to today’s QOTD:


If they do happen to show up here, as usual, please keep things relatively civil. No unsubstantiated or irrelevant name called. For example, telling them they are illogical, ignorant, etc. is acceptable if there is data to back that up and relevant to the previous comments they have made. Questioning their sexual orientation, parentage, brain size, etc. without relevance or supporting evidence may have unpleasant repercussion.

Quote of the day—The left honourable ‏@bamboozled3

@statasiore I dont need a weapon to face the world nor do I need a surrogate @NRA penis-anyway u indulge urself so 31k get shot ea yr in US

The left honourable ‏@bamboozled3
Tweeted on January 12, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Update: Interesting… @bamboozled3 replied to the blog post title which showed up on Twitter:

11:16 AM PDT:
@JoeHuffman 31k US citizens killed ea yr-00s of schoolkids-on altar of #2A if that’s “liberty & justice for all” you can stick it, smartguy

3:19 PM PDT:
Perhaps we should ask @JoeHuffman if the 200 school shootings since Sandy Hook is just the price of his “liberty & justice”? #uscowardsrus

3:25 PM PDT:
http://twitter.com/JoeHuffman/status/762634496789270533 … This coward says #2A gun ownership provides “liberty & justice for all”Oh cept victims in over 200 school shootings
3:42 PM PDT I replied:
@bamboozled3 Your ignorance is like a black hole. I can’t imagine anyone or anything enlightening you so there is no point in trying.
3:45 PM PDT they replied and then blocked me:
@JoeHuffman Your cowardice is just a circle- there’s no end to it-time for you to get off my timeline, precious!
Had they wanted to debate the topic they could have left a comment here where we aren’t limited to 140 characters. But they weren’t interested in that.

Shocked, SHOCKED! I tell you….

I’m sure you will be just as shocked as I was to learn that the GAO reports the BATF has accidentally ignored the law and it’s policies and created a gun-owner database via the NICS.

Totally a surprise, amirite?

So what are the odds of a prosecution and destruction of those illegally-kept records, you think? I’m putting it at less than 1%. It Trump wants a few million more votes, promise to prosecute and destroy. (Preferably prosecute the records and destroy the ATF, but I’d settle for t’other way ’round).