Quote of the day—Boston Antifa

Gun violence is a disease. The cure is the elimination of firearms from not just the citizens but the fascist police and the military as well.

We are seeking an elimination of all guns and all means of creating new ones. With the collapse of the Trump regime, this may be our one best chance to enact true peace and change on the world. Join us, comrades, and let’s eliminate guns from our lives and world.

ELIMINATE GUNS
ELIMINATE VIOLENCE

Boston Antifa
April 10, 2017
[Parody? Insanity? I’m just not sure.

Whatever.

The bottom line is that you should never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sarah Clements

We as gun reform activists need to continuously say we support the Second Amendment.

Sarah Clements
July 24, 2016
Millennials Are Less Likely to Support Gun Control Than You’d Think
[She also claims:

Gun control isn’t about taking firearms from people, it’s about making sure the wrong people don’t have access to dangerous weapons through proposals such as increasing background checks, implementing waiting periods after purchasing guns, and a ban on semi-automatic guns…

Ahh… Yes. I understand perfectly. It’s not about taking firearms from people. It’s about a ban on semi-automatic guns. And don’t forget to continuously say, “we support the Second Amendment.”

This is what I understand. Sarah Clements is the face of deception. And, as Doug H. said, “deception is the hallmark of evil”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Celebrity

The Second Amendment does not preclude federal law relating to firearms, as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

Celebrity
August 19, 2016
Comment in the DebatePolitics thread My Gun Control Plan [W:1271]
[A few things Celebrity should spend some time reflecting upon:

  1. Does the same logic apply to books and the number of people you are free to associate with? No? Then it doesn’t apply to guns either.
  2. They have crap for brains.
  3. Gun owners are going say Molṑn labé.

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

Quote of the day—Maile McCann

Finally, and most importantly, incorporating considerations of gun suicide into policy-making decisions is necessary because it would lead to different policy outcomes. One of the main focuses of the gun-control debate revolves around limiting the types of firearms that can be purchased, which could work to decrease the casualties of individual mass shootings, but would do little to prevent gun suicide, which requires only one bullet. Instead, focusing on mental health screenings, making it take longer to buy guns, making it harder to buy guns, and eliminating guns altogether would prove much more effective.

Maile McCann
March 8, 2017
Suicide: Gun Control Advocates’ More Pressing Problem
[McCann thinks it’s perfectly reasonable to “eliminate guns altogether” (Maile, are you taking point on that task?) because some people wants to exercise their own “right to chose”. Even if 100% of those decisions were easily and conclusively known to be wrong decisions (I know of suicides where one can make a decent case that it wasn’t an unreasonable decision) the decisions other people make for themselves cannot give some government entity the power to infringe upon the rights of the population as a whole.

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

Quote of the day—Barry Macalkner

I have many concerns on the use of firearms in the city. It is really starting to become out of hand. These children need to be raised with a life without guns. We really need a full citywide ban on all firearms.

Barry Macalkner
Vacaville
February 27, 2017
Gun control should be a must for all cities
[And where does he draw the line? At the city limits? Check out the FBI crime statistics on Washington D.C. and Chicago compared to their neighboring cities when they had complete bans on guns.

The limits will never end at the city, county, state, or country level. They will always want it all.

Don’t ever let them get away with banning such things past the limits of their own private property. And don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Peyton Spanbauer

In my complete and honest opinion, there is no need for guns so long as other guns or weapons aren’t present. Who needs or wants to bring a gun to school for any reason other than violence? Who needs to bring a gun everywhere they go? The purpose of having a gun is for protection, and in a world without guns, there would be no reason at its presence.

Peyton Spanbauer
February 13, 2017
Spanbauer: The case for stricter gun-control
[I wonder what color the sky is in her universe. Because in her universe before there were guns there was no violent crime.

Total crap for brains.

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

They’re Coming to Grab Your Guns, And That’s A Beautiful Thing

They’re coming to grab your guns. They’re your friends, family, loved ones. Even strangers will do it, if you let them. Some reporters have been known to do it, too, if you invite them.

With your permission, these people will take your gun, gently, from your hands into theirs. Shoot, they will. Learn, they must.

They will touch your gun all over. And another one. And another one. And other one. So many makes, so many models!

Questions will be asked, probed. They’ll load your gun, but certainly won’t loathe your gun. They’ll ooh, ahh, ogle, and be in awe of your gun(s).

It goes unsaid, but for those who don’t know: you will teach them to keep it pointed in a safe direction.

They might even “borrow” your ammunition. And leave behind the brass.

Though your ammo will be spent, you’ll oftentimes expect no reimbursement.

When the moment, or day, or shooting weekend is over, they’ll express gratitude, then return your tool, graciously.

You’ll clean the instrument, without minding at all.

Not only is an armed society a polite society, it’s a gunsharing, caring society.

If you’re a righteous gun owner, you’re essentially part of the gunsharing community. Gunsharing is a voluntary, legal activity in which one person owns and shares their gun(s) with one or more people, whilst providing gun safety teaching, free of charge. This is done out of compassion, because gun owners care about sharing their knowledge, skills, and tools.

After gunsharing, fellow gun users will want to grab your gun. Because it’s so much fun. Safe, too.

Gunsharing is it’s own little sharing economy of sorts.

This post goes out to all the men and women, who, over the years, have allowed me to familiarize myself with their magnificent tools. Thank you. And you. And you. And you.

Readers, what kind of guns have you legally borrowed from other righteous gun owners? I’m bracing myself for a looooong list. Let’s hear it. Tell the gun grabbers just how far – and how safely – one gun goes.

#GunSharingCaring

Oh, look… the hashtag’s registered at Twubs. How nice.

Quote of the day—Maura Healey

My actions have never been about taking away guns from people. I respect the Second Amendment, but we have a law on the books, and it’s an important law. It says that civilians can’t walk around with or be in possession of military-style assault weapons…

Maura Healey
Massachusetts Attorney General
January 25, 2017
Gun rights group challenging state’s assault weapon ban
[No matter how many times it happens it always surprises me when someone contradicts themselves in sequential sentences. To me that is clear and convincing proof of insanity. But in the political world it appears that is the sign of a good politician. It allows the reader/listener to take away whichever fragment they want and ignore the rest.

It think it means they are evil and/or have crap for brains and hence are unfit for anything other than closely supervised menial labor.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Hollis Phelps

We shouldn’t “take them away” from people who currently own them, necessarily. That would likely cause just as many problems. I’m sure there are more than a few disgruntled gun owners out there who would take a ban as an assault on liberty, and act accordingly. We should, rather, phase them out over time, similar to the way in which the CPSC dealt with drop-sides. Allow those who currently own guns to keep them, but ban the future manufacture, sale and resale of guns and ammunition for personal use.

Hollis Phelps
December 4, 2015
The Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

“More than a few”? I suggest they put some numbers in their spreadsheet and reevaluate the consequences.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alison Wimmer

They are like 2nd graders on the playground. “You cannot play with my ball. You can’t have it.” I hope the secret service does take their guns. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Big guns, oh my! They must be overcompensating for a lack somewhere else, like bravery, self esteem or some part of their anatomy.

Alison Wimmer
March 10, 2016
Facebook comment on Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America page.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

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

Woo hooo! We start the new year with a double cliché score!—Joe]

Courage

The New York Times Editorial Board claims Europe Takes a Braver Stance on Gun Control. They tell us:

The proposals, which are headed toward a final vote by members next year, would extend bans on semiautomatic assault weapons to more models, institute medical checks for gun buyers, tighten sales on the internet and track the resale of guns to foil black-market dealers.

The final compromise did not ban all of the most dangerous semiautomatic weapons, like the AK-47, as some nations wanted, nor limit ammunition magazines to 10 cartridges for all of them.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

As well as other errors such as saying there were 300K homicides (most were suicides and many were justifiable homicides) committed with guns in the last ten years in this country they are wrong about Europe being “brave”.  They further claim  that in the United States, “Congressional leaders, unfortunately, show no sign of mustering the courage of the Europeans.”

This is clearly in error. Courage would be the NYT Editorial Board taking point on the door to door enforcements of the bans they advocate for.

I’d even give them partial credit for being “brave” and “courageous” if they were to tell the truth when they write about guns. But since I haven’t seen anything approaching that from them in the last 20 years it is unlikely they will develop the integrity or courage anytime soon.

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

FBI background check registrations are insufficient to these people. They begged and pleaded and campaigned for background checks, and now want more, but they’re obviously not enough. The smelter is the real issue.

This is the topic Tucson raises — violation of law by elected officials in pursuit of the same irrational perverse goal their fellow leftists pursue at everyone’s dangerous expense. It is an impossible attempt to quench their paranoid fears by suppressing the rights of innocent people everywhere. The notion of guns in the public’s hands is simply unacceptable to them. It’s not political, it’s medical, they’re hoplophobic, and a dire threat to freedom. Their unbalanced actions qualify them for removal from setting public policy and destroying valuable public property in the process, in violation of law.

Alan Korwin
December 18, 2016
Tucson Melting Guns. Again
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Phoebe Maltz Bovy

On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what’s feasible keeps what needs to happen—no more guns—from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically, if it’s to be reckoned with. 

Phoebe Maltz Bovy
December 10, 2015
It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.
[I have to wonder how much timidity she would have in taking point on those door-to-door raids.

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

Quote of the day—Kenneth Walker

If I could I would take all the guns in America, put them on big barges and go dump them in the ocean, nobody would have a gun. Not police, not security, not anybody. We should eliminate all of them. We could save 33,000 people a year if we didn’t have guns in this country.

They are a scourge of this country and no one should have one as far as I’m concerned. There’s no defense to guns. There’s just absolutely no reason to have them.

Kenneth Walker
Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon) Circuit Court Judge
September 28, 2016
All guns in U.S. should be dumped in ocean, judge says
[Why someone with such an astounding lack of understanding of such issues is a judge instead of reaching the peak of his career shoveling pig manure is a mystery to me.

But the real thing to remember is that you should never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—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]

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.

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).

Markley’s Law Monday bonus

From the comments to AG faces sexist, antigay slurs after imposing gun ban:

pegnva 07/30/16 05:59 PM

How does AG MH expect gun nuts to feel “manly” if they can’t own assault weapons?

HamsterMom 07/30/16 06:44 PM

And display them and compare their size, especially when a woman stands in their way.

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

Via a comment from Weer’d Beard.

Quote of the day—Daniel Tepfer

In January 2015, the families of 10 victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook shootings filed suit against the Remington Outdoor Co., which manufactured the Bushmaster rifle used by Adam Lanza to kill his mother and students and teachers at the school. They filed a suit against Camfour Holding LLC, the gun’s distributor and Riverview Sales, the store where Lanza’s mother bought the gun.

They claimed the gunmaker and sellers knew civilians are unfit to operate the assault rifle and yet continue selling it to civilians, disregarding the threat the gun poses.

Daniel Tepfer
July 29, 2016
Gun control spotlight shines in Bridgeport court
[This is what they think of you. You are “unfit to operate ‘the assault rifle’”. If this claim is successfully litigated in court then expect manufacturers of modern sporting rifles to stop selling to private citizens.

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