Quote of the day—John Lott

Gun control advocates are used to getting their way without having to address the stronger arguments made against their proposals. That doesn’t create a productive dialogue, and it doesn’t help us figure out what laws will actually save the most lives.

John Lott
June 1, 2018
Little evidence to support the efficacy of more gun control
[It is quite clear to me that a large number of gun control advocates aren’t interested in saving lives. They are interested in “poking a stick in gun owner’s eyes” and/or enabling criminals. These criminals vary from individuals to a tyrannical government). Hence, to address your arguments in terms of “saving lives” is totally missing the point.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jenna Grayson

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.

Jenna Grayson
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]

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

Greater safety, according to the VRG, lies in insuring that criminals can count on finding easy victims. The law should help satisfy criminals need for easy victims by preventing the law-abiding from defending themselves with guns, so that criminals know that they can victimize us with as little violence as possible.

Jeff Snyder
Nation of Cowards page 104
[“VRG” is Violence Research Group at the University of Maryland. Snyder is referring to a study they published in March 1995. It was funded by the CDC and titled, “Easing Concealed Firearms Laws: Effect Homicide in Three States.”

And, as Snyder points out, they start lying in the title. The study examines the homicide rates in five cities, in three different states.

As, is usual, anti-gun people find reasons to make violent criminals lives easier.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Over the weekend Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety was quick to push its gun control agenda, and the Alliance for Gun Responsibility was asking for donations to ‘take a stand…against the gun lobby.’ When was the last time either of these groups demanded swift justice and certainty of punishment for the actual perpetrators?

Time after time, with endless fund raising appeals and inflammatory rhetoric, we’ve seen these anti-rights lobbying groups immediately try to shift blame to the NRA, or the Second Amendment, or the firearms industry, or some mythical loophole in the law. But they never seem to point their fingers at the culprit, and we think it’s time for the American public to ask why?

By diverting public attention away from killers and toward law-abiding citizens who had nothing to do with the crime these lobbying groups have created a very strong impression that they’re not really interested in punishing criminals, but only in penalizing honest firearms owners for crimes they didn’t commit.

Time and again we’ve heard these groups demand a national dialogue on guns. But how do you have a rational discussion with people or groups that repeatedly demonstrate that they cannot tell the difference between the bad guys and the good guys?

They are so preoccupied with demonizing gun owners and eroding the Second Amendment that they have either lost sight of the goal of taking dangerous or deranged criminals off the street, or that was never their intention in the first place. If all they can do is blame innocent citizens while diverting attention from murderous monsters, then it is time to ask these people just whose side they are on.

Alan Gottlieb
May 21, 2018
[It would seem the last question proposed was rhetorical.

We have known, as does Gottlieb, for a long time they are on the side of criminals. They are natural allies in the destruction of our way of life.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cheryl K. Chumley

Citizens of America have Second Amendment rights because they live and breathe — not because government officials have chosen to bestow them with such, as some sort of privilege.

We know this because our country was founded on the principle that our rights come from God, and that our government is only instituted among the people to secure those rights and protect them from infringement. Moreover, when our government begins to overstep its rightful bounds, and when the public servants who are hired by way of vote begin to trample those God-given rights and usher in an form of governance that is destructive of that idea, then it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that governing system and institute a new one.

That’s in our DNA; that’s our country’s guiding principle.

Cheryl K. Chumley
May 29, 2018
God-given, not government granted, guides 2nd Amendment
[It would appear we are constantly getting closer to the day when abolishing the existing governing system is a necessity. The proper way to do that would be through the state governments but it doesn’t seem the states are all that interested.—Joe]

Quote of the day—vash01

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]

Quote of the day—Joe Douglas

Raising the age for purchasing guns, eliminating assault weapons and tightening screening for people wanting to purchase guns might be good things. But none of those measures would have prevented this incident. Unfortunately — sadly — we have developed a culture of violence, intolerance and a lack of restraint in personal behavior. Conflicts — on the highway, the internet or in the classroom — too often are addressed by violence or the threat of violence.

We need to find our way to a different approach to both our personal and to the world’s problems. We need a foreign policy in which military threat no longer is considered a reasonable option. In which we seek to understand the viewpoint of others and try to find ways to help rather than to simply expect acquiescence to our demands.

Joe Douglas
May 27, 2018
Letter to the editor: Culture of violence
[I am perplexed. Could this person really be this naïve? Or is it a case of crap for brains?

What if the viewpoint of others is, as it is in some cases, “Convert to our religion or die.”? Or “Give me all your money and maybe I won’t kill you.”? Or, “We are implementing the final solution to the Jewish problem.”?

Or how about in our everyday life? “Obey law or we will use as much violence as is needed to put you in jail and/or force you to pay a fine.”

Violence, or the threat of it, is an essential part of a modern civil society. Public shaming and ostracizing people may come close to working in a small tribe. But as the “community” gets larger it loses it’s effectiveness. Once there are population centers of 1000s or tens of thousands and some with millions of people violence is the thread by which the social fabric is created.

It is required that the individual be willing and able to enforce civility when the criminals, private, or government sponsored, make clear their intentions to violate the social fabric of civil society. This is why we have a government guarantee, for whatever that is worth, that our right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bud Salyer

There is no simple solution, primarily because we cannot agree on a cause and we cannot agree on a cure. One side blames it on guns, while the other blames it on mental health and other issues. If the availability of firearms is not the cause of gun violence, then crippling prohibitions of ownership of firearms is meaningless. If there is no practical means to identify and predict the actions of a potential homicidal maniac, enhanced background checks are unlikely to reduce the violence. The problem is immensely complex, and there are no simple answers.

Bud Salyer
May 25, 2018
Guest Column: The Gun Debate—Part I: Gun Control Laws
[While this doesn’t completely describe either side it’s a fair start.

He goes on to say something that has been rolling around in my head for a while:

Why should we believe that passing a law against possessing a firearm would result in a significant number of guns being taken off the street?

Actually, such a law might cause a large number of people to give up their guns. Those who are inclined to be law-abiding citizens might grit their teeth and take their guns down to the police station. However, no criminally-inclined individual is going to give up the tool by which he commits his crimes. Then, the only people possessing guns would be the criminals, who know that their intended victims are unlikely to be armed for self-defense.

The way I have been thinking about it is slight different but along the same path. My phrasing would be something like this:

Every incremental increase in the difficult of obtaining and/or use of firearms for self defense is also an incremental increase in the value of firearms and other weapons to the criminal who preys upon the innocent. The complete removal of firearms from those who would use them for the defense of innocent life makes the criminal with a gun immensely powerful. Those who would ban guns are seeking to disempower good people. They therefore will empower, and even create, a multitude of violent criminals.

All in all it is a good article explaining the complexity of the issue without taking a strong position on either side.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Liberal feminists pick and choose which types of violence against women are worthy of this studiously nonpartisan approach. For example, female genital mutilation, forced marriage and honor violence seem not to be considered egregious enough to be taken up by the broader women’s movement. Instead, these barbaric violations of human rights don’t make it onto progressives’ radar. Rather, they’re excused or ignored by feminists because the perpetrators inflicting the violence tend to have brown skin.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
May 24, 2018
The anti-woman violence feminists are afraid to confront
[I don’t think it is fear.

Progressive feminists also are very anti-gun. A woman who owns and knows how to shoot a gun has become empowered to such a level that in a physical confrontation she is virtually equal to thugs twice her size.

Here we have two very clear examples of where progressive feminists have deliberately made choices to increase the number and severity of the female victims. There can only be one conclusion. For whatever sick reason or messed up emotional decision making process they want more victims.

I think it is some sort of mental illness in which victimhood equates, in their sick minds, to status and/or power.

Give them the gateway drug to freedom, healthy minds, and true equality. Teach them to shoot.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Bachar

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.”

John Bachar
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.

[end sarcasm]

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]

Quote of the day—Jay Hafemeister

The 4th Amendment wasn’t meant to protect criminals.

If you have some extraordinary reason why you need to keep your papers and things from government view, you’re going to need a concealed documents permit.

Jay Hafemeister
May 23, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Maj Toure‏ @MAJTOURE
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

When it comes to gun policy, the political left is harming America, delaying rational programs, and flatly denying the public’s rights. Denying civil rights always has bad consequences, as we saw here.

Alan Korwin
May 21, 2018
Liberals Must Step Back for School Safety
[School shootings are one of the most effective tools in the political left’s toolkit for denying people their right to keep and bear arms. They will not let us put a stop to them no matter how many children’s lives it costs.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lyle

This fight has never been, and never will be, about WHETHER people should own guns because criminals and government will always have them no matter what. Rather, the only question regarding guns is whether the honest and the law-abiding should also have them.

Anyone who opposes an unadulterated second amendment is therefore a criminal, a would-be criminal, has emotionally bonded with criminals, or has fallen for the lies of criminals to such an extent that this basic, irrefutable, self-evident line of reasoning is abandoned. There is simply no other possible conclusion.

May 7, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Hieu Nguyen
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—EisenhowerConservative

Only hardcore right wing extremist belong to the NRA, over 98% of gun owners want nothing to do with the NRA and it’s unhinged extremist political agenda.

May 18, 2018
Comment to Parkland father calls out Trump, McConnell, Ryan after Santa Fe shooting
[Interesting claims. Nearly all the gun owners I know who don’t have NRA memberships say the reason is because they NRA gives up our rights too easily. The others I know say it’s because they don’t want to be on a list the government might someday get access to and use to confiscate their guns.

Going on to the next portion of the sentence, the NRA claims they have something like 6 million members. If that represents only 2% of gun owners then EisenhowerConservative is of the belief there are 300 million gun owners in this country out of a population of about 325 million, of which about 35 million are under the age of 18. So, EisenhowerConservative  believes the entire adult population and a significant portion of teenagers are gun owners.

Hence, we must conclude EisenhowerConservative is a liar and/or has crap for brains. It is my hypothesis that one or both attributes are prerequisites for being a gun control advocate. EisenhowerConservative is just one more data point confirming that hypothesis.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Floyd Wilson

Firearms are rarely used for self defense. They are mostly used for domestic violence and to make racist suburbanites feel tough.

Floyd Wilson
May 17, 2018
Comment to Gun Rights Group May Sue Columbus Over Gun Control Laws
[Trolling? Crap for brains? Delusional? Telling the big lie?

I’m going with, “Telling the big lie” with “Trolling” in second place. The facts are easy enough to look up even if you can’t arrive at the correct conclusion from thinking about easily observable data (such as the police carrying guns for self-defense).—Joe]

The world according to the left

Via a tweet from Far Left Watch‏ @FarLeftWatch


I find it very telling the left resorts to lies of such a grand scale in hopes of achieving their agenda. The truth is not only insufficient. It is counterproductive to their goals.

From US Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler’s psychological profile:

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

Hitler would be proud of the lessons our political left have learned from him.

Quote of the day—Timothy Hsiao

Your right to life isn’t dependent on whether respecting your life would yield the best set of consequences. It is absolute and unrelenting, even if it would be more beneficial to others if your right were violated. It would be wrong for me to override your right to life in order harvest your organs to save five people, even if in doing so I produce a more beneficial outcome.

Your life has basic dignity that cannot be defeated in the name of social utility. It isn’t dependent on the outcome of a cost-benefit analysis. The same goes for other rights that are derived from the right to life. For example, it would be wrong to rape someone even if doing so would save ten lives. Rights function as moral “trump cards” that override appeals to utility.

Timothy Hsiao
February 27, 2018
Why Americans Have A Right To Own Guns Even If That Makes Us Less Safe
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Don Kilmer

There are no significant Second Amendment obstacles to local and state gun control at this point.

Don Kilmer
May 15, 2018
California Cities Are Free to Regulate Gun Stores Out of Existence
[The twisted bit of reasoning that led to this particular situation is:

No historical authority suggests that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to sell a firearm.

If you read the appeals court ruling a little deeper you will see they don’t see any reason why the manufacture of all firearms couldn’t be regulated out of existence. Sure, you have a right to keep and bear “arms” of some sort, but no right exists for someone to build them or parts to repair them. The same would appear to be true for ammunition.

Assuming you want to retain some semblance of the right to keep and bear arms in the all the states there are three paths ahead of us.

  • Change the culture.
  • Get gun friendly justices into the Federal Courts with particular attention to the SCOTUS.
  • Take up arms and use them effectively and efficiently.

Option 1 is probably a lost cause in places like California, New Jersey, New York, and other tyrannical states.

Option 3 is far too uncomfortable to give serious consideration until all other options are exhausted.

We have to get behind option 2 and make it a reality while preparing for option 3.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Insipid‏ @insipid42

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.

Insipid‏ @insipid42
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]