I know what I want, thank you. Buy back & incinerate every civilian firearm. Every single one.
Tony Asaro @TGaucho
Tweeted on February 25, 2018
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
And then this genius came up with a plan to fund it:
Charge registration on legal guns. Use $$ to run buyback program.
Robyn K? @RobynK12
These people have crap for brains.—Joe]
Deerfield residents have until June 13, when the ordinance goes into effect, to turn in their assault weapons and banned accessories to the village. Anyone found to have violated the ordinance will receive a daily fine between $250-$999 for each offense.
June 1, 2018
How LHS Students Feel About the Deerfield Assault Weapon Ban
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
They don’t need to prepare . Just ban guns for civilians. Prevention is always better than control. No guns means no mass shootings. Why is it so hard to understand?
May 22, 2018
Comment to Texas school had a shooting plan, armed officers and practice. And still 10 people died.
[vash01 skipped some important steps. For example, before banning guns it would be a requirement to eliminate the Second Amendment. And between banning guns for civilians and there being no guns. There are many others as well.
It appears “understanding” isn’t their greatest strength. In fact, it’s clear vash01 has crap for brains.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no wants to take your guns.—Joe]
There are hundreds of studies by dozens of professional organizations—such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association—that seek a foolproof methodology for identifying people likely to commit violence, but no definitive method has been found. Therefore, the quest for a gun control law that would accomplish the reduction in firearm killings to near zero is delusional.
Clearly, the only way to reduce the number of firearm killings to zero is to abolish gun ownership.
My proposal for a humane, revised second amendment would read: “No person may own, keep or use a firearm. Only members of well-regulated law enforcement organizations and the military may bear, but not own, firearms.”
May 23, 2018
Rewriting the Second Amendment
[Yup, I can see that. The minute gun ownership is banned firearm killings would go to zero. It simply wouldn’t be possible for anyone to use their guns anymore.
And this Einstein claims to be a mathematician. It’s possible is smart in some very narrow field but he clearly doesn’t understand the Bill of Rights, U.S. history, criminology, or psychology.
This guy has crap for brains.
If he had even a glimmer of understanding in those fields he would realize the rate of killings where guns were used would very quickly reach levels not seen since the Civil War.—Joe]
Anyone who wants an AR15 is too crazy to own a gun. And yes, I do want to take your guns. But I know that’s unrealistic. However outlawing future sales of Assault rifles is extremely reasonable- even for Scalia. The ones being unreasonable and tyrannical are the gun nuts.
Tweeted on May 12, 2018
[I would be more likely to agree with the first sentence if the words “who wants” were replaced with “who doesn’t want”.
What a stereotype. If you read just a little bit of the Twitter threat linked about you will find Insipid is hitting on all three of the SJWs laws:
1. They always lie
2. They always double down when confronted with their lies
3. They always project
And don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you, “No one wants to take your guns”.—Joe]
I’d had it backwards this whole time. I’ve told town hall participants and reporters in the media that we can protect the Second Amendment and also protect people’s lives. What these kids have taught us is their right to learn, their right to go home, their right to live is supreme over any other right. We should put that first.
Rep. Eric Swalwell
Questions and answers with the lawmaker who wants your assault weapons
[In other words, the Second Amendment is null and void because he says so. And unless we get a good SCOTUS ruling in the next five to 10 years his vision could be the way it plays out.
His end game is something we need to think about. No door-to-door confiscations. If you get caught with a gun you go to jail. Sure, you can hide it and get away with it for a long time. But you someone will sell you out, a relationship will turn sour, or you’ll get in an accident as you drive to the deep woods to shoot it. We loose that game because the culture will slowly die.
So what do we do? Show up at the first guy’s trial with 100’s of people open carrying AR-15? Burn down the court house?
I’m not sure that is the best way to win friends and influence people in the way we want them influenced.
My best approach is “sanctuary states”. States which refuse to cooperate with the feds on these sort of issues. But that can escalate with blocking of Federal grants and other money. And that is just the start.—Joe]
Anti-gunners don’t like you. They don’t just want to take away your guns. They want to take away your rights. They want to humiliate you. They want to force you to obey. They want to bring you to heel. Why do you think they care that so-called “Red Flag Orders” or “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” or “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” violate more than your Second Amendment rights?
But anti-gunners don’t want to prevent violence by unstable, dangerous people. They just want to take guns.
Sean D Sorrentino
Facebook post, May 9, 2018
Sean makes a good case.—Joe]
Just argue that your AR is an undocumented gay wedding cake. They won’t be able to touch it.
Defiant Colonial Rebel
March 9, 2018
Comment to Illinois Bill Requiring 18-20-Year-Olds to Hand Over Certain Semi-Automatic Firearms Moves to Senate
[Via (indirectly) an email from Paul Koning.
They have a point.
It has also been suggested we would be more successful if we argued the NRA is our church and guns are a required part of our religion.—Joe]
I will not be specific because I intend to get away with it.
First, if you are coming after my individual civil rights, it’s personal.
Second, when it has become personal, nothing will be below me and everything will be on the table. You, your employer, your house, your business, your spouse, kids, parents. Because as it stands today, for you, everything of MINE is already on the table. My business, home, car, employer, family. Social media accounts, Amazon buying records, memberships, donations.
You will regret living under the same rules you imposed on me.
April 21, 2018
Comment to Say when
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is dedicated to reducing gun injuries and deaths in America by stemming all of the causes of gun violence.
April 19, 2018
Victory in Brady Center Lawsuit Against Gun Website for Gun Sale Used in Mass Shooting At Wisconsin Spa
[They mean it. Literally. They want to stop all causes “gun violence”. How can you do that without eliminating all guns?
It’s not like they can eliminate all violent attacks on innocent people who would use “gun violence” to defend themselves. Self defense is their biggest weakness. Push the self defense angle and watch their arguments crumble. This principle, self-defense is an inalienable right, is something they must get people to ignore in order to win in the court of public opinion and here is an example of them using weasel words in their attempt to deny people their rights.—Joe]
Here’s the thing America: we ARE coming for your guns.
You have nobody to blame but yourselves. You could have been reasonable. Instead, you’ve proven over and over that you’re NOT sane, you’re irresponsible, and you CAN’T be trusted with guns.
This is your fault.
Tweeted on March 24, 2018
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
I find it telling that he speaks as if America were something he is not part of. America is an enemy to be conquered.
Also providing great insight is this tweet from Jonathan who tells us:
Ignore that this veteran is /grossly/ violating his oath. Instead, consider the verbiage.
Doesn’t he sound like the /classic/ abuser? “Look what you made me do.” “Why did you make me do this?”
All the while, /he/ won’t be the one at the front of the stack. Typical bully.
All personality disorders share two things. One is that nothing is ever their fault. It is always the fault of the victim of their abuse What you see above is more crazy talk that is so typical of anti-gun people.
My counselor and books I have read on how to deal with these type of crazy people have told me the way to deal with them is as follows:
- Tell them their behavior is unacceptable.
- Tell them there will be consequences if they violate the behavior rules.
- If they violate the rules make certain they suffer the consequences.
As my counselor told me, “Live will not be peaceful, but it will be much better than if you just take the abuse.” It’s time to stop the abuse.—Joe]
The tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman in Parkland, Florida was preventable; state, federal, and local authorities failed to enforce the laws that could have stopped shooter Nikolas Cruz from committing this heinous act, even from buying the rifle. No one chose to do anything. The anti-gun Left are a viral disease. They’re a recurring form of shingles. You may not see them all the time, but you’ll know when they come and say ‘hey.’ The battle continues—and in the fight to save our Bill of Rights, it’s not extreme to say ‘hell no’ to every one of their demands.
April 2, 2018
Anti-Gun Media: We Never Said We Wanted To Repeal The Second Amendment…Uh, Yes You Did
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Via Matt Vespa:
There are at least two lessons to be learned from this picture.
- Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
- If they are this hostile toward us when we are armed with guns and lots of ammo just imagine what they will be like if we didn’t have the means to defend ourselves.
Demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.
A constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.
John Paul Stevens
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice
March 27, 2018
John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
[H/T to Paul Koning.
Although it doesn’t seem to be they are saying it these days, don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
Apparently Stevens has forgotten about U S v Cruikshank:
The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.
Oh, and I think he is also unaware there is the small matter of 300 to 600 million firearms currently in circulation, extremely low compliance with existing requirements to register or turn in firearms, over 60% of the police say they will not enforce more restrictive gun laws, and the tens of billions of rounds of ammunition that will have to be “collected” before the guns are confiscated.—Joe]
Senator Dianne Feinstein is still lying in her efforts to achieve her goal of completely disarming the population:
The falsehood that is most frustrating, however, is that Democrats have no ideas to counter this violence. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
The first is getting military-style assault weapons such as the AR-15 off the streets.
These weapons fire much faster than typical hunting rifles. They fire rounds that are also deadlier than those fired from a hunting rifle. A Parkland radiologist noted that an AR-15 round may leave an exit wound “the size of an orange.” These weapons are designed to kill people, not animals.
There are other lies and deceptions in the article but this serves as a good example.
If you follow her “deadlier” link you find it doesn’t compare the ammo typically used in AR-15s to ammunition used in hunting deer, elk, moose, etc. She is giving the impression that she has supporting evidence for her lie but no such evidence exists and is absurd that such evidence can exist. If it were true then most hunters would never purchase the more expensive ammo used to bring down a 1000 pound moose. And if hunting ammo can kill a 1000 pound moose then you have to realize it can easily take down a 150 pound human.
And this analysis doesn’t even take into account the unspoken premise that killing people is something to be prevent. Murdering people is illegal and rightly so. Killing a violent criminal in the act of causing permanent injury or death to an innocent person is not only justified it is frequently praiseworthy. So, if someone insists on accepting Feinstein’s false claim, tell them, “Then that is justification for private citizens to own these types of firearms. We need the best tools available to defend ourselves from criminal attacks. Why would anyone demand we have inferior tools to defend our lives and the lives of our children?”
AR-15s should be illegal, but that is just a start. Any gun made to kill only humans at a rapid rate should be illegal. What is needed to kill a deer should be the max. Single shot, 6 round magazines. Begin confiscating everything else in a buy back program and make us like Australia.
March 7, 2018
Comment to ‘March for Our Lives’ gun control rally to draw thousands across US: Everything you need to know
[Their handle should be “Authoritarian” instead of “Liberalitarian”.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Via email from Drew Rinella we have What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns:
On Wednesday night, Rubio said at a town-hall event hosted by CNN that it is impossible to create effective gun regulations because there are too many “loopholes,” and that a “plastic grip” can make the difference between a gun that is legal and one that is illegal. But if we can see the different impacts of high- and low-velocity rounds clinically, then the government can also draw such distinctions.
As a radiologist, I have now seen high-velocity AR-15 gunshot wounds firsthand, an experience that most radiologists in our country will never have. I pray that these are the last such wounds I have to see, and that AR-15-style weapons and high-capacity magazines are banned for use by civilians in the United States, once and for all.
I’m almost pleased the anti-gunners have come up with a new idea. After being involved in this issue for almost 25 years I have never heard this one before and it has become almost boring to slap down the proposals put forth. But, there is a reason this idea has never been openly proposed before.
This idea should work “well”. Almost all centerfire rifles produce velocities which cause the types of wounds she is concerned about. Banning all such rifles would produce an “interesting” response. The millions of hunters who have long thought “They will never come after me because <reasons>” will suddenly be activated, become vocal advocates, and vote with a ferocity we have not seen since the civil war. And if defeated in the political field, well, the ferocity might just continue to rival the previous civil war in other areas where the hunters have a significant advantage over their antagonists.
THERE IS NO REASON TO OWN A GUN. The only thing a gun is good for is killing people. I am so happy to finally be rid of my Rifle and AR-15 and i think Trump is heroic for attempting to clamp down in guns.
March 1, 2018
I just proudly turned in my guns
[I guess this settles it then. Since I have fired, approximately, 150,000 rounds without killing anyone it proves my guns were malfunctioning the entire time.
And furthermore Anonymous apparently believes there is never any instances when it is praiseworthy or even appropriate to kill someone.
Anonymous has crap for brains.
Don’t ever let anyone tell you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
It’s absolutely amazing the crazy things some people claim to believe:
Democratic Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith said on the House floor that he was voting against the legislation, explaining that while he considers some of the legislation’s gun-control provisions reasonable, “they’re not enough.” He said the measure fails to address the root causes of mass shootings, including the ready availability of semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.
How can anyone believe, “the root causes of mass shootings” include “the ready availability of semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.”? Are the availability of syringes and surgical tubing the root causes of heroin overdoses? Are the ready availability of trucks and diesel the root causes of terrorists driving through crowds?
This is crazy talk or deliberate deception?
I think this is deliberate deception and manipulation of the language in an attempt to infringe upon a specific enumerated right. This criminal should be prosecuted.
I don’t care how old you are. No one needs a semi-automatic rifle just as no one needs a handgun.
February 28, 2018
Comment to Why our blue state is more red when it comes to guns
[It appears to me that the 17 students murdered in Florida needed someone with a gun to defend them.
It is not a Bill of Needs. It is a Bill of Rights. Furthermore, as SCOTUS explained:
This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…
The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right and will be defended just a vigorously, if not more so, as if the government were infringing the First Amendment.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]