Quote of the day—Senator Kamala Harris

I think somebody should have required all those members of Congress to go in a room — in a locked room, no press, nobody else — and look at the autopsy photographs of those babies. And then you vote your conscience.

Senator Kamala Harris
(D., Calif.)
January 29, 2019
Harris: Lawmakers Should View ‘Autopsy Photographs’ of Dead Kids before Gun-Control Votes
[And what if those who want to expand gun restrictions and gun free zones were forced to do the same? But they were told this is what happens when you do not allow people to defend themselves and innocent life? These are the consequences of gun control.

They think we are heartless. We think they are evil.

Same screen. Different movies.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dan Gross

In Florida, being armed in public is such a casual formality that law enforcement does not issue the license to carry loaded, concealed guns; that is done by the Department of Agriculture – the same agency charged with issuing permits to pick tomatoes or transport livestock.

Their website is FreshFromFlorida.com. You can use it to get a permit to carry a loaded hidden gun without ever leaving your house.

Dan Gross
President, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
March 27, 2012
Can you get a gun in Florida without ever leaving your home?
False
[Of course it was false. They have had a culture of lies and deceptions for so long I’m not sure they even know how to tell the truth.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul Leonardo @RealPleonardo

NO ONE and I mean NO ONE needs access to semi-automatic weapons, with the exception of trained law enforcement. They are weapons of death meant only to kill and maim. They should be banned and outlawed.

Paul Leonardo @RealPleonardo
Tweeted on Tue, Jan 29, 2019
[What is the legal difference between “banned” and “outlawed”? Anything?

I could go on with picking this apart but it doesn’t matter. For a long time I’ve been saying, “Never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.” That was important for a while. There were anti-freedom people actively trying to sell that story. They claimed they just wanted “reasonable gun safety laws”. Almost no one is telling that lie anymore. In the last few years the progressives have stopped trying to hide their delusions about guns and gun owners. Washington state put oppressive restrictions on all semi-automatic rifles. Other states and politicians are proposing greater restrictions and even bans on semi-autos. We are seeing a widespread mass delusion about guns and gun ownership.

As I have said many times before, quoting Robert Heinlein in a different context, “Delusions are often functional.”

Although I don’t have the data to prove this, nor the time and resources to gather the data, it is my hypothesis that a certain segment of the human population needs to hate other people. Racism, religious persecution, and homophobia and related aversions to sexual preferences are other manifestations of this. The 1960’s were a turning point for racism in this country with bans on interracial marriage disappearing in 1967. The later decades saw the fading of aversions of to people of different sexual preferences and finally the nationwide legalization of same sex marriage in 2015.

It is my further hypothesis that as those other hatreds diminished gun owners become the new target. This is demonstrated by the ramping up of gun restrictions in the 1960s. The democrats could no longer continue the open oppression of blacks with the Jim Crow laws and other open discrimination so they began targeting others such as gun owners and white men. This continued as the hatred of “sexual perverts” diminished (and the corresponding hatred of the fewer and fewer people opposed to gay rights). With the legalization, and general acceptance, of same sex marriage in 2015 the political left needed another target to hate. We now see a frenzy of hate from the political left. It undisguised, beyond reason, and unsupported by any rationalization. You see the face of this in the event at the Lincoln Center regarding the Covington students last week:

“We now know the kids of Covington Catholic were the real victims of the altercation in front of the Lincoln Memorial,” the statement added. “This is bigotry and its own brand of hatred. It is an ongoing display of anti-Trump, anti-life, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian bias. These are blatant bullying tactics designed to make conservatives and people of faith think twice before standing up for their beliefs or even having the audacity to wear a ‘MAGA’ hat in public, let alone smile while doing it.”

In order to accumulate power they need a hated enemy. Gun owners fit the bill and are a significant component of their targets of hate. We are doubly hated because gun ownership is a means to resist their exercise of oppressive power.

We are in for a rough ride and it appears our best hope for survival is with the courts giving us enough time to change the culture. But if my hypothesis is correct many people will need a new target of hate. Can we make that the enemies of freedom?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dick Polman

A little more than three years ago, the conservative activist Grover Norquist confidently declared, “When [Democrats] start to say … that people with guns are somehow connected to mass murders, that’s what turns voters off.” Democratic candidates will happily test that proposition in 2020. It’s a safe bet that none will wear duck-hunting clothes.

Dick Polman
January 27, 2019
Democrats Are Newly Emboldened on Gun Control—Exit polls in November showed that 59 percent of voters in House races favored “stricter gun-control measures.”
[This is what they think of you, “People with guns are connected to mass murders.”

This is actually sort of true. Prior to every genocide there has always been gun control. Private citizens with guns are the immunization against mass murder. But this isn’t what the author above means.

Do what you can to make sure democrats who vote for gun control wish they had made a big deal about their purchases of hunting licenses and concealed carry permits and keep a promise to protect your specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Z. Williamson

You know why these people fear the myth of a Trump Death Camp™? Because they know they belong in one. They also know that’s their ultimate goal to do to others.

Michael Z. Williamson
January 24, 2019
We’re Ever Closer To The Gloves Coming Off
[I’m pretty sure most liberals (the definition used in his context for the above quote) don’t “know they belong in one”. And unless they were actively involved in the illegal deaths of one or more people they almost for certain don’t belong in one.

So, it’s a little overstated but a plausible explanation that I’m willing to accept for conversational purposes. Sprinkle similar caveats here and there as you read the rest of his post for some potentially useful gems.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mayor Bill Peduto

Arrest me. I welcome him trying to put up a lawsuit that would arrest me if I sign this legislation.

Mayor Bill Peduto
January 22, 2019
Mayor Peduto calls out DA for gun control comments, says ‘arrest me’
[The Pittsburgh mayor was told by the, anti-gun, district attorney that proposed anti-gun laws are illegal because of a state preemption law.

This is the first time I have heard of a politician mentioning the possibility of being arrested for pursuing gun laws which are illegal. It’s way past time for it. They should be in constant fear of it. Let this be a good start on making that a reality.

While I’m not so sure the local DA could have him arrested it would seem plausible a Federal Prosecutor could using violation of 18 USC 242 as the justification for prosecution.

This politician, and countless others, thinks he is above the law. It’s way past time to arrest and successfully prosecute a bunch of them. They need to start having some respect for the law and it’s clear they are not going to unless there is vigorous enforcement.—Joe]

Missing or stolen firearms

In states with “safe storage” laws private citizens would be facing heavy fines and probable jail time for this:

According to the audit conducted by MCSO along with the ATF, 50 guns were found to be missing from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

The 50 missing or stolen weapons include:

  • 29 fully automatic weapons
  • 20 short barrel shotguns
  • 1 short barrel rifle

Note that these are all NFA class firearms. My guess is that why they know they are missing. The ATF had a record of them and asked to verify their existence. I wonder how many non-NFA firearms are missing or have been stolen and there are insufficient records to answer such questions.

Quote of the day—Mariel Alper, Ph.D., and Lauren Glaze

An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it of the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer.

SourceOfFirearms2016Table5

Mariel Alper, Ph.D., and Lauren Glaze
BJS Statisticians
January 2019
Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016
NCJ 251776
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
[Using the percentages from Table 5, they add up to more than 100% (about 102%). I could find where this was explicitly stated but it seems this is because some prisoners (about 2.5%) obtained guns from multiple sources. Also note that it is possible, likely even, that those who obtained them from a gun store, gun show, or pawn shop were not prohibited persons when they purchased them.

So… the question is, “If anti-freedom people believe they can create a law to prevent gun possession by convicted felons what law would accomplish that?”

What would “Universal background checks” accomplish? At most, this would affect 25% (obtained from an individual) of the transfers. But how many of those transfers occurred before the person became a prohibited person? And if they are a prohibited person obtaining them from a friend or family is already against the law! Making it doubly illegal is nothing more than nonsensical.

And even if those transfers were completely stopped how many of those same criminals would then obtain their gun from different source such as the underground market or theft?

If the intent of “universal background checks” is to reduce access to guns by prohibited person it is clear it cannot make much, if any, difference. This is backed up by recent research as to the actual effects of background checks on violent crime. Hence, there are three possibilities:

  1. That is not the intent and these advocates are evil.
  2. The advocates are ignorant.
  3. The advocates are stupid.

Apply logical “and” and “or”s for the combinations of the possibilities however you deem appropriate.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sign43 @Sign431

It’s stupid. You do not need a gun period. Self defense isn’t something that floats away if your gun is at home. I have fists, I have a pocket knife. A gun is not a necessity. I stand with New York’s laws. We need to get guns out of our cities, not in.

Sign43 @Sign431
Tweeted on January 22, 2019
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you, “No one wants to take your guns”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Yarmuth‏ @RepJohnYarmuth

I am calling for a total and complete shutdown of teenagers wearing MAGA hats until we can figure out what is going on. They seem to be poisoning young minds.

John Yarmuth‏ @RepJohnYarmuth
Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Budget Committee
Tweeted on January 20, 2019
[Democrats consider the First, as well as the Second Amendment, toxic.

Vote them out of office before they get a chance to deny us our right to vote as well.—Joe]

Gun case accepted by SCOTUS

This is, almost for certain, great news:

U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday stepped into the divisive issue of gun rights by agreeing to take up a challenge backed by the National Rifle Association to New York City’s strict limits on handgun owners toward transporting their firearms outside of the home.

The nine justices will review a 2018 lower court ruling upholding the city’s restrictions after three gun owners and the NRA’s New York state affiliate sued claiming the regulations violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”

The case will be heard and decided in the court’s next term, which starts in October and ends in June 2020.

The New York case concerned people who have licenses to have guns at home, known as “premises” licenses, who are already allowed to take unloaded guns to shooting ranges within New York City. The plaintiffs said the city’s rules forbidding them from taking their guns to ranges or other homes outside city limits amounted to a “draconian” transport ban.

Small steps which have a high likelihood of success are required to make sure we don’t stumble along the way. This looks to me like a good step in the right direction.

Translation of The Gods of the Copybook Headings

Via a comment from bob r is this translation into modern day English of Rudyard Kipling’s poem I quoted from yesterday:

The simple substitution of a couple phrases made a huge difference in my understanding of this poem. Listen and marvel at so much substance packed into so few words and rhyme.

Quote of the day—NRA @NRA

Today, the men and women of the @NRA honor the profound life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. King applied for a concealed carry permit in a “may issue” state and was denied. We will never stop fighting for every law-abiding citizen’s right to self-defense. #MLKDay

NRA @NRA
Tweeted on January 21, 2019
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rudyard Kipling

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.

Rudyard Kipling
1919
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
[This truth was well known 100 years ago yet people still believe the lie it refutes.

Closely related.—Joe]

Quote of the day—U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez

There is absolutely no reason at all for anyone to buy an assault weapon. These high power firearms have one sole purpose — to commit mass murder.

U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez
January 19, 2019
Gun control push is back in Washington, and N.J. lawmakers are all in
[Interesting. Since there are tens of millions of these guns in circulation in the U.S. and only about 400 murders committed each year with rifles of all types we have a limited number of possible conclusions:

  1. Those tens of millions of “assault weapons” are almost all being misused for peaceful purposes.
  2. Menendez is lying.
  3. Menendez is living in an alternate universe.

I’m going with #2 with the added extrapolation that he probably has evil intentions as his motivation to pursue this legislation.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jacob Sullum

Once you realize that “assault weapons” are in the eye of the beholder, it’s hard to take seriously the extravagant promises of legislators who want to ban them. Feinstein claims her bill would “put a stop to mass shootings.” Yet even if it eliminated the millions of “assault weapons” that Americans already own (something it does not even purport to do), mass shooters would still have plenty of equally lethal alternatives.

After three decades of this nonsense, Americans may be starting to wise up. According to Gallup, support for legislation like Feinstein’s fell from a peak of 59 percent in 2000 to 40 percent last year.

Jacob Sullum
January 16, 2019
The Whimsical Illogic of ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans
[At a national scale I think we are making progress. At the state level we are losing. Ultimately it will be decided in Federal courts. I think we need to fight a holding action at the state level and put as much resources as we can into winning in the courts.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

You can’t arm slaves and expect them to remain slaves, and similarly, you can’t disarm free citizens and expect them to remain free.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
January 7, 2019
CIVIL RIGHTS RALLY IN PITTSBURGH IS THE HIGH ROAD
Misguided effort to disarm Jews and the public is wrong
JPFO Statement for the Pittsburgh Rally

[There is nearly incontrovertible evidence that is the point. It is a feature, not a bug.

Respond accordingly.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Zack Ford‏ @ZackFord

Self-defense is not a sufficient argument against gun control.

Zack Ford‏ @ZackFord
Tweeted on January 15, 2019
[The United States Supreme Court and about 100 million United States gun owners disagree with this absurd assertion. But you should know that people like this exist.—Joe]

Six round magazine gets you 364 days in jail

Via email from Drew.

Oregon is demonstrating what they want for the future of gun ownership. These legislators are the want-to-be tyrants sponsoring Senate bill 501:

Senator Rob Wagner
503-986-1719
Sen.RobWagner@oregonlegislature.gov

Representative Andrea Salinas
503-986-1438
Rep.AndreaSalinas@oregonlegislature.gov

They are proposing you spend 364 days in jail and/or pay a $6250 fine if you are caught in possession of a magazine which holds more than five rounds. No grandfathering. Furthermore, you would be prohibited from purchasing more than 20 rounds of ammunition in a month unless you purchased it and used it at the range.

I remember when the 1994 AWB was being proposed. It restricted magazine size to 10 rounds. Gun rights activists pointed out that if it was constitutional to limit the magazine size to 10 rounds there was no real limit and that in the future we would see seven, five, two, and zero magazine size limits. The anti-rights people dismissed the concerns.

The New York SAFE Act restricted magazine size to seven rounds or put a maximum of seven rounds in larger capacity magazines but the courts struck that down and “allowed” people to load ten rounds into ten round magazines.

We now have a state, in the more “liberal” 9th Federal Circuit, proposing a limit of five round magazines and that you destroy, permanently modify, turn over to police, or transfer any higher capacity magazines out of state.

The 20 rounds per month limit is totally unenforceable. Each dealer is supposed to keep track of each of their customers to make sure no more than 20 rounds are sold to them each month. The customer can just go to the store next door and buy another box (or part of a box in the case of many types of ammo). There are numerous other loopholes as well.

The five round magazine limit makes nearly all semi-auto firearms into single shot firearms because there are no five round magazines for most semi-autos. This is the slippery slope we predicted in 1994.

This law cannot possibly be viewed as serving any compelling state interest. It can only be viewed as a deliberate infringement upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

These people need an legal education. I propose prosecutors educated them by enforcing 18 USC 242.

Interesting times

I’ve been told by someone who should know:

there aren’t any people working in the ATF licensing center (except one person from management) until after the shutdown-furlough.

Interesting. What happens to businesses with FFLs? My guess is that if their license expires, even though they attempted to renew in a timely manner, then they have to stop selling firearms. At what point would such a requirement be an infringement upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

NICS is supposedly up. But there are going to be some FFLs with a deadline rapidly approaching.

Interesting times.