Quote of the day—Michael Bloomberg

In Colorado, we got a law passed. The NRA went after two or three state Senators in a part of Colorado where I don’t think there’s roads.

Michael Bloomberg
July 8, 2014
Michael Bloomberg Isn’t Afraid of the NRA
[The comment by Luvs2Brew addresses the facts better than anyone else I have seen so far:

First off the NRA did not initiate or even engage in these recalls until the very end. Many of us complained they were actually way late to the game. This was a grass roots recall by Coloradans who did not like the idea of our elected officials selling our rights out to out of state interests like Bloomberg.

Second, these recaps were not in rural areas where there were no roads. One was in Colorado Springs, home to the US Olympic Training Center, Cheyenne Mountain, the US Air Force Academy, Peterson Air Force Base and Fort Carson. The other was in Pueblo which is just south of us on I-25. And yes we have roads, and airports and indoor plumbing. So Bloomberg is either completely out of touch, or just a flat out liar.

I’m going with “completely out of touch” and mind boggling arrogance by someone who is unable to stop himself from lying.—Joe]

The science isn’t settled

While it’s true many environmentalists take a dim view of lead bullets and are sloppy with the facts regarding them this report is certainly subject to debate even though there is some truth to it:

Highlighting increasingly dangerous conditions within the city, a new study published Monday by Northwestern University’s Department of Environmental Studies revealed that approximately 75 percent of the air in Chicago is now composed of bullets.

The authors of the study suggest “that Chicago’s 2.7 million residents stay indoors whenever possible in order to minimize their exposure”. But I am of the opinion they should prosecute their politicians, legalize recreational drugs, prosecute and jail gang members, let the disarmed victims shoot back, and the air would clear up naturally over the course of a year or two.

Quote of the day—John Prager

With conservatives’ obsession with guns there is no more surefire way to make oneself a god amongst the Teabilly crowd than to lure them in with a smile and an AR-15. On Thursday, Clint Didier, a Tea Party Republican, announced that he will be giving away two Ruger 2300 LC9 pistols and a DB-15 S rifle in an effort to gain support in his bid for retiring Washington Rep. Doc Hastings. Hastings is just the latest to prey upon conservatives’ paranoid ‘Yer not gonna git mah guns’ attitude. Who else has joined in this new tradition of winning over stupid people with weaponry?

John Prager
June 21, 2014
Death Dealers: Pathetic GOP Candidates Are Giving Away Assault Rifles to Buy Votes
[If the title of the article were actually true then wouldn’t they have to give a select fire rifle to everyone who agreed to vote for them? Or would it be one for each community and they would share it?

The entire article is filled with logical and factual errors. Did you catch the error above where he says “bid for retiring Washington Rep. Doc Hastings”? I didn’t know you could bid on people. Is Hasting going to be Didier’s slave if he has the winning bid?

Yet he thinks we are the stupid ones. Mr. Prager, Have you ever heard of projection?—Joe]

They think they are special

Dr. Grier is a former professor of mine. I took Philosophy 101 from him as a freshman. I never imagined he would be my political adversary attempting to make my daughter defenseless when she was at school:

At the University of Idaho, Dr. Nicholas Grier has distributed a legal opinion by attorney Benjamin Onosko to faculty that explains how the university may just choose to not enforce the dangerous law, or challenge it in court.

The University of Idaho holds a special place in Idaho law as compared to every other university in the state,” wrote Onosko. The university, he explains, was founded through the state constitution while other public colleges and universities were established through the state legislature. “By choosing to include the University of Idaho in its constitution, Idaho gave the university inherent powers that most other universities do not enjoy,” he wrote. He added that, “while I have not had time to conduct a full investigation of relevant case law from surrounding jurisdictions, I believe that the University of Idaho has a strong argument that this new law is unconstitutional as applied to it, and that it cannot be enforced against the University of Idaho.”

Grier is a proponent of Gandhi and non-violence. I get that. But perhaps he was selective when he studied Gandhi’s work. These quotes in particular would seem to be something he overlooked or ignored:

I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.  Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have used his physical force which could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.


Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.

The people at the University of Idaho think they are special? Do they think they are so special they can override Article 1, Sections 1 and 11 of the Idaho State Constitution?

SECTION 1. INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.

SECTION 11. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

And if they think they can override that there is still the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights which is supposed to keep people like this in check.

People like this who openly acknowledge they are “Seeking Ways to Circumvent Laws” should be prosecuted for conspiracy to infringe the rights of others.

Quote of the day—Ana Marie Cox

Activists such as those at Everytown need to redraw focus away from the infrequent horror of mass shootings and get voters to recognize the daily tragedies of gun violence. A taller order, but just as necessary: make clear that the gun violence is not about violent people with guns – it’s about guns, period.

There is no such thing as a neutral position on guns, because there is no such thing as a neutral gun. Guns have one purpose: to kill things. They are no more neutral than a poison. They can be used for good or ill, but the reason they exist is to hurt someone. In the “bad guy with a gun” versus a “good guy with a gun” scenario, the problem isn’t who’s bad and who’s good, it’s that there is a gun involved, period.

Ana Marie Cox
July 8, 2014
This Is The Real Reason Gun Control Is Failing
[By this logic the police shouldn’t have guns either then because it doesn’t matter if they are a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun. I have to conclude Cox has some sort of mental disorder to have their thinking this messed up.

In any case don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns away. As well as not letting clearly crazy people possess guns we shouldn’t let crazy people take our guns.—Joe]

A dystopian advocate

Amazing: Let’s nationalize Amazon and Google: Publicly funded technology built Big Tech

It’s mind boggling to read this crap. One of the arguments is that they are spying on people, which he doesn’t like. So putting them under government control is a good idea? Hasn’t this idiot heard of the NSA in the last few months?

It should come as no surprise he wants to destroy the “pioneer fantasy” of gun ownership.

Either he thinks of The Gulag Archipelago as a utopia instead of a dystopia or he is so naïve and/or stupid that he doesn’t realize what he advocates would create those conditions.

Quote of the day—Rex Haberman

There is no 2nd Amendment issue with making the gun owners register with the government and license their guns. There is no 2nd Amendment issue to completely disarm the country except for fully licensed and controlled guns. To be more specific, the only guns that should be allowed outside of highly controlled gun clubs are ones used for legal hunting and farmers protecting their livelihood. Yes, you can own a gun, but it must be licensed. No one can own an assault gun. No one can own a pistol.

Rex Haberman
July 2, 2014
Gun Control: Saving America From Itself
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Haberman clearly hasn’t read the Heller decision. Pistols are in common use and clearly protected. Firearms for home defense are explicitly protected. This doesn’t even touch the issue of the “chilling effect” associated with registration and licensing.

One has wonder what color the sky is in Haberman’s universe.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Greasy Tony

The NRA are a bunch of thugs that take idiot’s money and laugh all the way to the bank.

Greasy Tony
July 3, 2014
Comment to What do Gun Control people think of NRA saying media should stop calling barbara shooter a shooter?
[“Greasy Tony” needs to do some research on the NRA and their members. It’s extremely clear his prejudice does not match my rather large sample of both NRA representatives (many women smaller than me) and NRA members. But I doubt anything so suspect as facts would change his mind. His mind almost for certain works at “a different level”.

But it’s good to know what people think of you. It helps prepare you for when they make contact with you or advocate for political action. These are not people with anything more than a tenuous connection to reality and they are bent on your destruction.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rose City Rose

What I propose is the following:

  1. An act which creates a new class of organization, defined by violent ideology and/or a history of three or more ideologically-driven acts of violence, the members of which will be presumed to be a danger to the public safety and therefore prohibited from owning a firearm of any sort.
  2. An act which requires all persons promoting unambiguously violent ideologies, whether as members of an organization described above or as individuals, to surrender all firearms.
  3. A rapid, active, and decisive nationwide sweep, employing the military if necessary, to totally disarm all persons known to be hostile to the peaceful process of democracy.
  4. A national hotline to anonymously report firearm possession by persons who advocate ideologically-motivated violence.

Rose City Rose
July 2, 2014
A Completely Different Proposal for Gun Control
[Progressives would qualify. Perhaps even the Democrat Party by name. But I don’t think they are who she had in mind. It’s funny how that works, huh?

Beyond the Second Amendment issues there is the due process (5th and 14th Amendments as well as common law) issue, 1st Amendment (freedom of association if not freedom of expression) and 4th Amendment issues to address. And once she gets past those there is the little problem of finding the millions of guns, taking, and preventing their rearming even if they could disarm them once.

Molṑn labé Rose. Why don’t you take point?—Joe]

Quote of the day—2Bill

Ban all semiautomatic weapons and create a national registry of all gun owners. No need to change the second amendment, even though that would be great. We could reduce the number of guns on the street and at the very least force any would be shooter to reload more often.

Let’s start by banning all guns except revolvers, bolt action rifles and breach action shotguns. Then let’s register every gun and require liability insurance for every owner.

This proposal would pass any second amendment challenge and would even satisfy the scrutiny of the Heller decision.

June 27, 2014
Comment to 9 signs America’s gun obsession is getting worse
[They either have not read the Heller decision or have a terrible problem with reading comprehension. The proposals would not pass the “common use” test. And even if it were to pass the confiscation efforts would be “problematic”.

Then there is the problem of registration. It’s unknown whether that would pass Constitutional challenges. You can’t be made to register in order to exercise your First Amendment rights and it seems unlikely you can be made to register in order to exercise your Second Amendment rights. The “chilling effect” would be very “pronounced”. Especially after the government just confiscated all the semi-autos.

And the difficulties in registration would be horrific. Getting “registered” for ObamaCare was and is a big mess. Getting people to register themselves and their guns when they don’t want to be registered and want the system to fail would be far more “interesting.” Canada couldn’t make it work and there would be a lot more resistance in this country.

It’s very clear 2Bill has crap for brains.—Joe]

American Psychiatric Association and firearms

The American Psychiatric Association has an interesting Position Statement on Firearm Access, Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services. It contains this:

Because privacy in mental health treatment is
essential to encourage persons in need of
treatment to seek care, laws mandating psychiatrists
and other mental health professionals to
report to law enforcement officials everyone who
appears to be a danger to themselves or others are
likely to be counterproductive and should not be

Basically they throw the ball back into the gun control court with this:

Many deaths and injuries from gun violence can be
prevented through national and state legislative and
regulatory action. These actions should include:
a. Limiting access to guns by persons who are
identified as dangerous, whether or not they have
been diagnosed with a mental disorder;
b. Requiring more extensive background checks and
waiting periods on all gun sales or transactions;
c. Requiring safe storage of all firearms in the home,
office or other places of daily assembly; and
d. Limiting access to semi-automatic firearms, high
capacity magazines and high velocity ammunition
to reduce risk of critical injuries and death from

I wonder what they mean by “Limiting access”. Probably a complete ban or NFA type paperwork and taxes. “High velocity ammunition?” I think that is the first time I have heard that suggestion. I wonder what their threshold is such that they would consider a bullet “high velocity”.

I would like to suggest the APA confine itself to psychiatric issues and leave the gun restriction suggestions to criminologists.

Exception to preemption?

The Seafair Foundation is putting on a 4th of July celebration at Gasworks Park this Friday.

It takes place at a public park yet they say:

Prohibited Items
-Personal Barbecues
-Fireworks, explosives or incendiary materials or devices
-Pets, other than service animals
-Weapons and Firearms
-Glass bottles
-Illegal drugs

Firearm regulation is preempted by the state legislature. The city of Seattle cannot ban firearms in the park (they tried and were slapped down by the courts) but can a 501(c)(3) organization do it? And do they have anything greater than the threat of trespass prosecution if you were to violate their prohibition of the exercise of a specific enumerated right on public property?

Quote of the day—Amanda Porche

The obvious answer would be to do away with readily available fire arms despite who it pisses off.

Amanda Porche
June 10, 2014
Comment to Bullet-Resistant Blanket Could Protect Kids Against School Shootings
[Amanda, are you going to be taking point on the team tasked with going door-to-door “doing away with readily available firearms”? Or do you just demand others do the messy, short life expectancy, jobs?

Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]


Progressives are so violent:

— natalie(@heartsinireland) July 1, 2014

I hope Kendall Jones gets mauled by a lion. The evil, disgusting coward pic.twitter.com/kQy2uLm0yK

— Jack (@JackLewBaines) July 1, 2014

I hope #KendallJones gets eaten alive #Facebook http://t.co/IqrQ4GRUyZ

— Wendy Fiore (@wendyfiore) July 1, 2014

It appears to be in their nature.

Quote of the day—People of New Hampshire

And as it is the opinion of this Convention, that certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this state, and more effectually guard against an undue administration of the federal government, — The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations and provisions be introduced in the said Constitution: –
. . . . .

XI. Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.

XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

Convention of the Delegates of the People of the State of New Hampshire
June 21, 1788
New Hampshire’s Ratification
[H/T David Hardy.

Emphasis added.

The original intent of the people of New Hampshire in regards to what we now know as the Second Amendment is very clear. And it is also clear that what we have now is very far removed from that original intent.—Joe]

Two legal thoughts

Well, thoughts on legal issues, anyway.

First, the Hobby Lobby decision came in from the SCOTUS. They won, the left-o-sphere melted down because the corporation could choose to not be involved in your sex life. To be more specific, they cannot be compelled to pay for contraception for the company employees. Somehow, the left equates “not required to pay for something they find repugnant” with “denying them basic medical care.” But their logic is that, because you have a right to healthcare, the company can’t deny them any specific birth control methods. Yeah, I know, it’s warped, but that’s sort of the left-wing thinking. Well, couldn’t we apply that to gun rights? I mean, if we have a right to own a firearm, must not a corporation recognize your right to carry them, so all those “gun free zones” are a clear violation, right? It’s amazing how selective some people are. This is just the abbreviated form of the argument, but I’m sure y’all are smart enough to figure out the details.

Secondly, It seems that some SWAT teams in Massachusetts are claiming to be exempt from normal FOIA and open records law requirements, because they have incorporated as 501(c)(3) corporations. Clever. But it seems that *IF* that were the case, they would *ALSO* not be immune from lawsuits via sovereign immunity. They should have the advantages of one or the other, but not both. If this thing doesn’t get shot (ahem) down right promptly, then I think we will see a HUGE wave of incorporation in government “industries.” If it’s upheld, then we can safely assume that another leg of the stool the constitution is standing on just got sawed off to a very short stump. Be fun to see them get sued for doing something stupid, make their argument in court, and be told that they gave away immunity for thirty pieces of paperwork (to mix my metaphors), so suck it up and face the jury.

Quote of the day—Susie Madrak

Do we have the ATF and BLM agents roll up in armored tanks? Do we use drone strikes? I can see the administration’s reluctance to have that confrontation — after all, it’s not as if gun control advocates were flooding the White House switchboard, screaming to ‘take them out!’ And then we do have the militia types all over the country, just waiting for an excuse to start their own local uprising. These assholes want a civil war so bad, they can taste it.

Some days, I wonder: Should we let them, and just get it over with? You know, settle the burning question about whose is bigger.

Susie Madrak
June 23, 2014
So At What Point Do We Actually Stand Up To The Gun Nuts?
[It's another Markley’s Law Monday! Via Phil.

Molṑn labé Susie.—Joe]

What’s the problem with these people?

I thought this video was funny and made a great point:

What’s the problem with these people? Locking up your gun and ammo is not good enough for them. They don’t want you to have a gun in the house let alone take your kids to the range or teach them gun safety:

This requires ignoring the vast differences between gun culture and dildo culture, because aside from their similarities as surrogate penises, there’s little common ground there. Dildo owners don’t bring their kids along for dildo-using trips, or dildo practice, and you’re not going to rent a dildo at a dildo range and have it jump in your kid’s hand and kill him. Most kids don’t know you have a dildo, and won’t spend every available minute alone looking for it.

These people apparently have a really tough time accepting the right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right and to accept diversity in our culture.

Quote of the day—Pangur-Uaine

The more guns the more killing. The gun culture is mass insanity. “Responsible gun-ownership” is an oxymoron. Any implement specifically designed to kill people is intrinsically evil. Total disarmament could save the species. Shoot the Second Amendment. The Fifth Commandment is right. Killing is wrong. Ban all weapons while we still have a shot at it.

June 22, 2014
Comment to Gun controversy lost on new shooting stars
[Via Jeff.

Simple solutions from simple minds.

Don’t ever let anyone get away telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Althea Brown

We should do our best to identify possible shooters and if possible, consciously work on not creating new shooters. The only way to do that is to either ban guns or learn as much about shooters as possible.

Althea Brown
June 10, 2014
Comment to Bullet-Resistant Blanket Could Protect Kids Against School Shootings
[Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]