Quote of the day—Joan Skiba

Why is the Second Amendment the single go-to amendment for the assault weapon-toting people concerned that gun regulations take away their constitutional rights? Why not take a moment to read a bit from the Ninth Amendment advocating for my constitutional right provided by our government for “…obtaining happiness and safety”? I am finding it difficult to feel any sense of safety knowing someone could be packing heat at my grocery store, movie theater or local bars. Any answer for me?

Joan Skiba
May 11, 2020
All amendments matter, not just the 2nd Amendment

[Sure, I have an answer for you Joan. You apparently are getting your delusions confused with reality. In the reality shared with nearly everyone else the full text of the Ninth Amendment is:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now, Madison did propose an amendment which contains those words:

That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

But it was not part of the Bill of Rights in our reality. And, it had nothing to do with the government providing it.

Joan, please check with your mental health providers and see if your meds need to be adjusted.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mike

I swear to God, if you’ve never felt the government’s jackboots on your neck, it’s because you’ve never stood up for yourself.

Never give an inch, Joe. Never.

May 20, 2020
[Via email. Mike also informed me:

Looks like things are heating up in Canada with a gun prohibition that covers every ar-15 model they could think of. This will also include 12 gauge shotguns. Why, you ask? Because barrel lengths are important to determine if a firearm is to be considered Non-restricted, Restricted, or Prohibited, according to the law. This new set of regulations prohibits any firearm with a bore diameter of over 20mm, which is 0.787″. As a 12 gauge bore can range from 18.5mm (0.728″) to 20.3mm (0.799″), that can cover a lot of shotguns. Worse, is that if your shotguns have screw-in chokes, those chokes cannot be considered part of the barrel when measuring firearm barrels for importation purposes; and since you must cut the bore to a larger internal diameter to have the threads with which to screw in the threads in the first place, you would be unable to import it; and if you already own such a shotgun, you will then be possession of  a prohibited weapon. Imagine if your 28″ barrelled over/under has now been deemed a machinegun, by government decree.

Writing a law which defines something not a machine into something that now is a machine gun sounds familiar from somewhere

Why aren’t these politicians being tarred and feathered?—Joe]

Email from a firearms instructor in Canada

I intended to post this several weeks ago but I forgot about until I got another email today:

I’d like to say that I feel your work in regards to firearms rights and the Boomer shoot in particular is right on the money. As an instructor for the firearms courses, I love introducing people to firearms, and watching them overcoming the unknown, and for some, scary thing that firearms have been demonized to be. But I cannot stress enough how hard you must fight to keep your rights, because you have a dragon by the tail. Any slip of your grip on the beast is another inch towards destruction.

If I could borrow some of your time, I’d like to tell you of another experience of mine that will underline how things will go for America if truly well-meaning, but historically and factually ignorant people, are suckered into voting against their own interests.

In 2017, there was a hold and secure at my son’s school… https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/leslieville-hold-and-secure-1.4312966

It was not supposed to be discussed, but the rumour making the rounds, supposedly from an officer who spoke before being told to shut up, was that someone wrote a letter to the school saying that they were going to come and shoot the place up. The school took it seriously, which is at least something to their credit, but that’s about all the credit I’m willing to extend to them.

Of course, everyone had to scramble to find alternate care for the kiddies and so on, and 2 weeks later there was a meeting called for the parents to come in and get an update on the case and an explanation of what was done by the school and police, and when.

The meeting was presented by the principal, a couple of staff who have some kind of paper-shuffling jobs with the word “safety” in the title, the detective assigned to the case and 3 officers, one of whom teaches the teachers and staff what to do in an emergency, as resources for the parents to direct their questions to.

Joe, I swear to God, in a nearly 2 hour meeting with at least 150 ‘adults’ concerned for their kid’s safety, not a single adult question was asked. Most of the questions by the ‘adults’ centred along the lines of being not being tweeted IMMEDIATELY after any action of the police was completed. Seriously! They wanted to be tweeted after each classroom/broom closet/office was searched for gun-toting nut-bars. This was the important thing to them, not their teacher’s ability to keep their kids safe.

Towards the end of the meeting, I managed to get the microphone and I said that I understand that the detective couldn’t reveal what was actually in the letter, but since the rumour was a potential school shooting, I said that I wanted a meeting with the officer responsible for teaching what the teachers/staff should do in such a situation, so that I could judge if it was an actual solution, or just security theatre, like at the airport.

The officer said that uh, yeah, sure, he would be glad to set up a meeting to explain what is taught, so we had a better understanding of things. At that point, as the mic was passed to others for their ‘questions’, the officer caught my eye and signalled to me that we should talk in the hall after the meeting.

At the end, I went up and introduced myself to the officer, and he asked me to chat with him in the hallway with the other two officers, so I knew what was coming. So the conversation went like this:

Officer: Sir, I’ve asked you out into the hall here to…

Me, holding up hand: You want to avoid having me scare the sheep, is that it?

Officer (relieved): Yeah.

Me: Look, all I want to know is if you have some kind of training that the teachers can use to save our kids if there actually is a shooting. Do you tell them to barricade the door, throw stuff, how to make a fist and punch, weapons training, anything?

Officer: Well, what you’re talking about is called ‘Force on Force’, and is part of my powerpoint presentation for York school board (the school board outside of the Toronto District School Board, which controls my son’s school), but I can’t teach that portion in the T.D.S.B.


Me: Uh, ok, and how do we get THAT ball rolling?!

Officer (looking me straight in the eye): Well sir, there would need to be a Sandy Hook level event for that conversation to start.

Me, processing my disbelief: So, you’re telling me that not only must children die, but they must die in high enough numbers to force a discussion on whether the school board can think about training teachers to save our kids’ lives?!

Officer: Yup.

That, Joe, is where hatred, fear, and ignorance of firearms leads people. People so captured by anti-gun ideology that they would rather let our kids die than act as adults and face the hard truth that violence must sometimes be used to save the innocent from the criminal.

When will this hippy-dippy, hug-a-thug nightmare end? Perhaps this virus situation will shake things up, because I’ve had an incredible upswing in people interested in courses, suddenly. Which I am not allowed to teach. :p

If you’ve read this far, my sincere thanks for your time. I just needed to get this off my chest, and send a warning to our brothers and sisters south of the border, not to give an inch, because there’s always another control freak ready to screw you over (for your own good, of course!)…

A little light on the ammo

In Columbia South Carolina:

Federal authorities found more than 23,000 rounds of ammunition, 90 guns and tactical gear inside the home of a Midlands Technical College student who researched mass shootings, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

That figures out to only about 255 rounds per gun. That’s a little light on the ammo side.

When I read the various headlines I wondered why the Feds were hassling him. It turns out he was defrauding a bunch of different people and/or businesses:

According to an affidavit, the ATF’s investigation began in October 2018 after getting a tip about Kimpton’s PayPal transactions.

According to the document, Kimpton used false names to buy the items from sellers and retailers from PayPal accounts—and then contested the sale, saying he never got the items. The affidavit said that left Kimpton with the items and the sellers without payment.

Agents believed this scheme started in June 2018. They executed a search warrant for Kimpton’s home on April 20, 2020.

Okay. He deserved the wire fraud and mail fraud charges. The machine gun charge for the bump stocks? Not so much. But, it’s not totally bogus.

Quote of the day—Walter K. Olson

I am a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, with which I have been associated since 1985, and am the author of three books on the American civil justice system. My most recent book, The Rule of Lawyers (St. Martin’s, 2003), published in January, includes a chapter exploring the origins and objectives of the movement seeking to make makers and distributors of guns pay for criminals’ misuse of their wares. I conclude that the gun suits are at best an assault on sound tenets of individual responsibility, and at worst a serious abuse of legal process. Even more ominously, the suits demonstrate how a pressure group can employ litigation to attempt an end run around democracy, in search of victories in court that it has been unable to obtain at the ballot box. Finally, I argue that strong Congressional action to restrict litigation of this type is not only consistent with a due regard for federalism and state autonomy, but is in fact required by it.

Walter K. Olson
April 2, 2003

[Reading the transcript was interesting. At that time, prior to the Heller Decision in 2008, SCOTUS had not definitively stated the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. This was an issue in the hearings:

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. In the finding, Mr. Keane, on the finding number one, citizens have a right protected by the second amendment to the United States Constitution to keep and bear arms, I notice it says ”citizens” and not ”a citizen.” there is no individual right in the Constitution to bear arms, is there?

Those were dark days.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Peter J. Boyer

Henigan believes that it is imperative to steer the argument about guns away from the problematic area of criminal use, with its inconvenient focus on criminals, and toward the matter of guns in the home—incidents of suicide, accidental shootings, and domestic violence. This is an important shift, because it allows the gun debate to be recast as a health issue. Henigan told the Castano lawyers about the many studies that have considered guns in an epidemiological context; in other words, guns should be thought of as pathogens, and gun ownership, perhaps, as a disease.

Peter J. Boyer
May 17, 1999
The New Yorker
[I was rearranging some things in my bookcase and found the May 1999 issue of The New Yorker. The quote above is from one of the articles. Viewing the article online requires payment. The picture below is the entire second page of the article.


See also:

I find the wording of Henigan’s response to congressman Feeney interesting. Henigan is a lawyer and I’m sure he chose those words carefully. He doesn’t say he believes the characterizing is invalid. He only says he doesn’t endorse it. There is a reason I call him “Half-Truth Henigan”.

The mid and late 1990 were very dark days for the rights of gun owners.—Joe]

Quote of the day— Persuasion (@SonOfAlgos)

The only way the country is going to get back on its feet is to haul all Trumpers into Quarantine Camps, so they can’t run around infecting everyone else.

And just leave them there..permanently.


Persuasion (@SonOfAlgos)
Tweeted on May 5, 2020
[This is what they think of you.

This is why we have the Second Amendment.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Hamilton Spectator

The assault weapon ban is fine, as far as it goes. But since a real handgun ban is unlikely, to what extent can Canadians feel safer?

Hamilton Spectator
May 5, 2020
Assault-style weapon ban is like Swiss cheese–The majority gun crimes involve handguns. This legislation doesn’t address that at all.
[I find the phrase “feel safer” very telling.

The author could have said, “… to what extent will Canadians actually be safer?” Or “… a real handgun ban is required to improve safety.” That they said, “feel safer” strongly implies they know gun bans won’t make the average person safer. They apparently have some motive other than public safety when they advocate for gun bans.

Since this is Canada it’s more difficult to get traction with a principled statement of rights. But that doesn’t mean the victimized gun owners don’t have verbal tools to fight back with.

People need to demand gun control advocates openly state their motive for restrictions on self-defense tools. If they claim public safety, then demand they supply the data that restrictions achieve that goal.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Globe and Mail

If a ban on military-style semi-automatics is an effective way to reduce the number of weapons in circulation and available for mass shootings, then surely a similar ban on handguns – which also have no legitimate civilian purpose, and which kill and wound more Canadians every year than any other firearm – would have a similar effect.

Friday’s announcement accomplished two things. It banned a style of weapon that has no place outside of the military, but it also reminded people who care about gun control that the Liberals have been inconsistent and at times illogical in their approach to the issue.

The Globe and Mail
May 1, 2020
Trudeau’s hurried assault-rifle ban is a weak half-measure
[Says the voice of reason.

Well actually… ignorance, stupidity, and/or evil.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Greg Scharf

The United Kingdom has ridiculously restrictive gun laws, and right now is having a tsunami of knife crime. And what we’re not hearing is that bad guys have a steady stream of illegal weapons coming from Eastern Europe via the Chunnel.

Greg Scharf
May 1, 2020
Gun control is unable to contain the problem of evil
[It’s obviously not about crime. It’s about control and creating dependency.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Josh Horwitz

As the world faces the COVID-19 public health emergency, America is still grappling with another public health crisis: gun violence.

Gun violence and the COVID-19 pandemic are inextricably linked. As Americans are asked to stay home, many might be in closer proximity to guns for longer periods of time. This is a concern because even under normal circumstances, guns do not make us safer. Guns do not make us more secure. Guns do not improve the health of the general public.

Josh Horwitz
May 1, 2020
Via email. See also here.
[And proximity to cars and ladders make us more likely to be injured while using one. But this ignores the utility of these objects. Horwitz not only ignores their utility, he denies their ability of firearms to be used to increase personal and public safety.

Horwitz is liar and a threat to the rights and safety of everyone and should be treated as such.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Group of Democrats

While the surge in firearm sales from federally licensed dealers has received nationwide attention, at least 16 companies that sell ghost gun kits have reported order backlogs and shipping delays due to overwhelming demand. The uptick in sales of ghost gun kits and parts have received substantially less notice, even though the increase in sales of ghost guns poses a direct threat to public safety and law enforcement… Because the proliferation of ghost guns is a serious problem, we write to request…information and documentation to probe how the ATF is monitoring, overseeing, and regulating the sale of ghost gun kits and unfinished frames and receivers, amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Group of Democrats
April 2020
Congressional Democrats seek answers from ATF on efforts to track “ghost guns”

The last time I checked the ATF didn’t have the authority to do any such thing. Furthermore people engaging in legal behavior should not be monitored, overseen, and regulated. They should, and currently are, for the most part, left alone. As they should be. That a “Group of Democrats” expects a government agency to engage in such behaviors tells you all you need to know about that group. They should be forever barred from public office, government jobs, and any government pension.

I also recommend law enforcement investigate to see if an 18 USC 242 case could be pursued. People like this need to be made into examples to discourage others from going down the same path.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sex Positive Dennis Prager @PragerSex

We’ve never had gun control, evidenced by the fact we’re overflowing with guns and the NRA has blocked every effort.

Sex Positive Dennis Prager @PragerSex
Tweeted on April 26, 2020
[So, which is it this time?

  1. Willfully ignorant.
  2. Knows that if they tell a big enough lie enough times someone will believe them.
  3. The mental hospital allows them Twitter access.

When confronted with a small sample of the laws restricting access to guns he claimed, “None of those laws made guns illegal.” Hence, it wasn’t true gun control.

I’m voting for, 4. Troll.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Herschel Smith

So Giffords opposes semi-automatic gun ownership because it is “more effective than automatic firing of the same weapons because they allow for more accuracy without substantially sacrificing rate of fire.”  On the other hand, bump stocks are a “serious threat to public safety” precisely because, according to Giffords, it mimics fully automatic fire.

Herschel Smith
April 22, 2020
Giffords Law Center Presents Anti-Gun Arguments That Contradict Not Only The Constitution, But Their Own Positions
[What most people don’t realize is rational thought is alien. Rational thought is a very thin veneer over a mass of beliefs and feelings.

In our culture some portion of us were told, expected, to think and reason. In general it may even be that you expected to go with that flow. But it’s tough. Reality is really, really difficult to understand. The vast majority of people have reasons for their beliefs and actions. Notice I wrote “reasons”, not rational, logically consistent, factually supported constructs.

Those reasons are far more than enough to convince yourself and can frequently even convince the majority of people around you. You can believe you have everything all completely figured out. But yet the majority of the time you don’t.

I suspect, but don’t know for certain, that in this case the people at Giffords Law Center believed they had a very tight, logically sound belief system. But what they actually have are “reasons”.

Those “reasons” are, in essence:

  • Bump stocks are bad because they can fire many bullets in a short period of time like fully automatic guns.
  • Semi-automatic guns are bad because they are more accurate than fully automatic guns.

It’s circular “logic”. Until someone points it out one could be be completely comfortable with such a belief system for the rest of their life. And most people, when their faulty logic is pointed out to them, will try to save their beliefs rather than correct their thinking. It’s far less psychologically stressful to cling to their beliefs rather than admit they are wrong. Everyone does it sometimes and to varying degrees.

For some people there exists a cure. They need to feel safe in admitting they were wrong. The cost of such admission must be made low or a even a positive experience. High self esteem helps. A politician seeking votes can change their beliefs easily and even multiple times in one day. They value the votes and the power far more then their beliefs. The beliefs are no more a part of them them than a shirt or a pair of shoes. They change their clothes in response to their circumstances, why not their beliefs? And if they really believe it then it’s not lying.

For those will a low self-esteem and with a few people who support them in their irrational belief system it’s far more difficult to give up a firmly held belief. They may even hold onto their beliefs even when faced with their own death rather than give them up.

Anti-gun people tend to fall more into the second category than the first. Look at them and watch and listen to them. Most are timid, low self-esteem people. When they are confronted with evidence and arguments which contradict their beliefs they will shut off the dialog or dismiss you will a childish insult rather admit their belief is worthless.

There are exceptions of course. The power hunger politicians must be persuaded via power but the timid low self-esteem types can sometimes be empowered by taking them to the range. Teaching them to be good at something that gives them independence from fear and you have a good chance of changing their irrational beliefs.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Shannon Watts

The leaders participating in our ‘Demanding Women’ series are doing everything in their power to fight the coronavirus pandemic and its intersections with systemic racism and inequities. From voter access issues to rising rates of city gun violence and domestic violence, these women are leading the conversation to demand a better, safer world for every American.

Shannon Watts
April 24, 2020
Everytown For Gun Safety With Moms Demand Action Launch New “Demanding Women” Virtual Conversation Series Featuring Stacey Abrams, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris to Discuss Gun Violence in the Time of a Pandemic
[It’s amazing how many lies, deceptions, and assumptions of facts not in evidence can be packed into just two sentences. That’s truly impressive!—Joe]

Quote of the day—MTHead

Changing the gun control debate is trivially easy.

Arrest and convict a few politicians and it would disappear in a matter of minutes. And finding a rights violating politician would be about as hard as finding a rock in Utah.

April 22, 2020
Comment to Quote of the day—Trevor Burrus
[If we could only come up with a plan on how to get to the point where prosecutors start prosecuting and then execute that plan. That is not trivially easy.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rob Pincus

Not wearing a mask solely because the GOV says you should makes people look like petulant children and reinforces the idea (that many people have) that we NEED restrictions in place. Anyone preaching to not wear masks today that was advocating/defending masks at 2A Rallies a few months ago is revealing themselves as a contrarian, not an activist or objective advocate.

Rob Pincus
Facebook post on April 22, 2020
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dave Workman

On the heels of a mass shooting rampage in Canada, a nation with some of the strictest gun laws in the hemisphere—laws the gun prohibition lobby would like this country to emulate, were it not for the pesky Second Amendment—Biden’s gun control agenda is unlikely to win any converts in the firearms community, and it will give U.S. gun owners plenty to think about as November draws closer.

Dave Workman
April 21, 2020
Biden Website Reveals Alarming Gun Control Agenda
[Workman leaves it a little bit ambiguous on a minor point. There is a difference between “plenty” of evidence to think about and the amount of time given to thought about Biden as President of the U.S.

Biden’s mental faculties have been degrading at an alarming rate. I wouldn’t be surprised to see live appearances halted before November to avoid the instances of him talking to lamp posts, nibbling on tree branches, and inviting children to rub the hair on his legs.

His gun control agenda is extremely problematic but knowing, should he become the President elect, he is likely to be unable to repeat the oath of office* by the end of January is going be of greater concern.—Joe]

* As if the oath has been of any importance to any of the presidents in the last 200 years.