Quote of the day—Dan Patrick

Let’s be very clear to the American people that Joe Biden is dangerous. He’s not just an idiotic person who says impossible, absurd things, and he’s not just naïve, but he’s dangerous. Americans will have to understand, whether you believe in owning a gun or not owning a gun, that the Democrats are dangerous.

Dan Patrick
Texas’ Lt. Gov.
January 2020
Presidential Candidates’ Gun Control: Average Americans Can’t be Trusted
[Politicians, in general, are dangerous. But that doesn’t mean that some aren’t more dangerous than others. And, to best of my knowledge, the most effective way to reduce the risk is to limit their power to specific enumerate areas.

Unfortunately we haven’t been doing that very well. It’s time to end that. It’s time to start prosecuting the most egregious violators. Biden and Bloomberg would be good candidates but they would be tough nuts to crack. It would be better to start with some small town mayor or city council person who doesn’t have the resources of a Bloomberg.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chris Hill

Virginia is the state that is testing this unlawful, unconstitutional, Second Amendment gun grab. If this is where it begins, then this is where it will end.

Chris Hill
Founder of Three Percent Security Force
January 2010
Prospect of gun control in Virginia draws threats, promise of armed protest
[We live in interesting times.—Joe]

Quote of the day—lana_palooza @lana_palooza29

1.5 less MAGAbilly’s in the world. At least they died supporting their beloved 2nd Amendment.

lana_palooza @lana_palooza29
Tweeted on January 3, 2020
[This was her reaction to a father and his nine year old daughter who were hunting and were killed by another hunter.

lana_palooza’s Twitter account appears to have been deleted or at least deactivated at this time. You can still find the screen shot of the tweet at the link above.

This is what they think of you.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alexander Hamilton

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist No. 28
[Via Walter E. Williams.

One could easily conclude Hamilton words were intended for this decade.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Stephen A. Elswick

Enforcing the constitution, it’s just not in words. Our commitment to this is engraved on the police memorial that you walked by when you came in here which has the names of the police officers and sheriff’s deputies who gave up their blood, their life in blood, to enforce the constitution of the United States and we don’t intend to not do that anymore. But furthermore, I tell you this board and every public safety officer that works for Chesterfield County takes an oath that they will uphold and follow the constitution of the United States. We’re doing what you want us to do, and we will continue to do that.

Stephen A. Elswick
Vice Chair, MATOACA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
December 20, 2019
Supervisors’ letter to lawmakers: Uphold the Constitution
[It was probably in the late 1990s when I asked Alan Gottlieb of SAF how can people deal with the unconstitutional gun laws when the Federal Courts didn’t seem to be supportive. His answer was that it really was the job of the states to respond and rein in the Federal government. I’m reminded of this by the sanctuary county/city stuff going on now. There is a similar activity at the state level but hasn’t received as much notice.

It’s all good stuff but as others have observed, it’s not going to be all that effective until politicians are being prosecuted.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Leesa K. Donner

Irish author James Augustine Aloysius Joyce once wrote, “In the particular is contained the universal.” Mining the gold of “the particular” can be especially helpful when seeking to understand a seemingly incomprehensible event. In the Dayton, OH, incident, an examination of 24-year-old Connor Betts reveals a psychological profile startlingly similar to that of other shooters:

  • He is a single male.
  • He was a troubled teen.
  • He once drew up a “hit list” of students he wanted to kill or maim.
  • He experienced serial rejection from the opposite sex.

A leading forensic psychiatrist and expert in mass murders, Dr. James Knoll, says that “most perpetrators are young males who act alone after carefully planning the event,” according to Psychology Today. These people, Knoll asserts, are “injustice” collectors – that is, they spend a good deal of time living in a world of rejection and past “humiliations,” real or imagined. In other words, these men are world-class grudge-holders fueled by “social persecution or envy.”

Leesa K. Donner
August 6, 2019
The Mind of a Mass Shooter or Why Gun Control Won’t Work
[Interesting read.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

The argument that  gun is useless because in a particular circumstance you might not be able to use it in time, or it might not save you, is no less nonsensical than the argument that there is no point owning or using a seat belt, since if you collide head on with a tractor trailer, it will not save you, and in some cases it might be better if you were thrown clear.

Similarly, the fact that “it might be used against you” is true of any tool, since the use of a tool depends on the purpose of the person wielding it. A recent syndicated column by Mike Royko pointed out, for example, that a number of murders in Chicago had been committed by drowning the victims in toilets. Ms. Jones could with equal force assert, “Bring a toilet into the home, and he might use it against you.”

Jeff Snyder
2001
Nation of Cowards, Guns and Feminism page 42.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tom Knighton

Ebbin and his fellow Democrats simply want to feel safe, and that means endangering the safety of everyone they happen to disagree with that will come for the protest in February. After all, it’s funny how only the side he disagrees with will be impacted, despite the complete lack of violence.

Then again, sticking it to your enemies is an age-old political tactic.

Tom Knighton
December 27, 2019
VA Democrats Want To Ban Carrying Gun In State Capitol Grounds
[Such activities must not go unanswered. Otherwise they will continue to encroach upon our rights.

The gun rights side of the political aisle need to have a good way of “sticking it to their enemies” and play a game of tit for tat. I’m inclined to suggest prosecution and imprisonment but we aren’t there yet.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Erik Simonsen

The same people who feel it’s necessary to give driver’s licenses to defiant law-breakers are the same ones trying to pass this nonsense. When did we become a state that put lawbreakers first, while attacking the rights of hard-working, law-abiding citizens?

Erik Simonsen
New Jersey Assemblymen-elect.
December 20, 2019
Proposed N.J. gun law would mandate $50k insurance policies for all gun owners
[Answering the rhetorical question, evidence would indicate it was shortly after getting a socialist/communist majority in the state.

If you read the article you also find this interesting bit:

Governor Murphy signed an executive order in September making it practically impossible for a legal gun owner to obtain a firearms insurance policy. Attacking gun insurance as a gun ownership “enabling” concept has become a popular trend in blue states as of late.

So, the governor, through executive action has essentially banned people from obtaining firearm liability insurance (the NRA Carry Guard insurance). And:

A-6003 sponsored by Patricia Egan Jones (D-5) mandates that each New Jersey gun owner obtain a minimum of $50,000 in liability insurance at the time of purchase.

New Jersey is the one state that I refuse to visit until their oppressive gun laws are repealed or I can get a varmint hunting license for the politicians who created and/or perpetuate this tyranny.

These people need to prosecuted. I look forward to their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Victor Joecks

Gun grabbers frequently talk about banning “assault weapons,” but that term doesn’t have an agreed-upon meaning. For instance, the since-expired 1994 Assault Weapons Ban defined the term as a semi-automatic rifle with two of the following features: a pistol grip, collapsible stock, bayonet mount, flash suppressor or grenade launcher.

If you know anything about firearms, the assertion that these secondary characteristics make a firearm more deadly is laughable. Grenades are already illegal.

What the term has come to mean is “scary-looking rifles that mass shooters use.” But, as Sisolak now admits, “It’s not the look of a weapon that makes an assault rifle.” This puts gun grabbers in a double bind. They’re either banning secondary characteristics that won’t stop mass shootings — even if gun bans worked, which they don’t — or they’re banning every semi-automatic rifle in the America, which is politically unpalatable.

It’s much easier to say you want to ban assault rifles — and then trust the media won’t dig deep enough to find out if you know what you’re talking about.

Victor Joecks
December 21, 2019
VICTOR JOECKS: Sisolak promised to ban assault rifles, but he doesn’t know what that term means
[Sisolak is the Governor of Nevada.

As a friend in high school, Ken Franklin, once told me, “If you can’t define a word then you literally don’t know what you are talking about.” And here we have a politician becoming the governor of Nevada based, in part, on a promise of something he literally had no idea what he was talking about.

This is not to say he is stupid or even ignorant. It’s self evident that he didn’t need to know what he was talking about. He won the election, right? In this context “assault weapon” is political tool used to gain power. And not in the sense Mao Tse-tung used it.

I’m reminded of the quote attributed to Adolf Hitler:

If the Jews didn’t exist, we would have to invent them.

And our country’s political left, and Governor Sisolak in particular, has Josh Sugarmann to thank for recognizing the utility of the “assault weapon” boogie man. Sisolak successfully used it in his bid for the governorship. And, if this article is to be believed, he did that without even knowing that they didn’t exist.

Think about that. A concept of something which cannot be defined, and hence is largely imaginary, was instrumental in getting someone elected state governor. The concept is a real tool so powerful that even if you don’t know what it is you can use it to win elections.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Samuel Culper

Politicians know that the groundswell of peaceful pro-gun activism is backed up by something harder. That’s why in the near term they’re most likely to try and erode support for “assault weapons” and legislate them out of existence, as opposed to confiscate everyone’s AR-15s… for now.

Samuel Culper
December 23, 2019
Eyes on Virginia 2020 – Here’s what to expect
[Via email from Tony.

Scott Adams almost categorically dismisses slippery slope arguments in the general case, not just in the case of gun control. I mostly disagree with him. Here, and in the post this quote was taken from, Culper alludes to my disagreement with Adams.

Adams, in his most recent book, Loserthink: How untrained brains Are Ruining America, elaborates more on this. He says, if I recall correctly, that it’s a slippery slope only until something changes.and then it isn’t. In the case of gun control case he claims travel down the slope will continue only until gun owners stop it. Things that are not terribly unpopular will be enacted, perhaps background checks for retail sales, but that doesn’t affect the probability of gun confiscation. They are two different, unrelated things. Gun owners, and even many non-gunowners, will put up much stronger resistance to gun confiscation and the slide down the slope is stopped.

I don’t see it that way.

As Culper points out, the political response is to make it costly to be a gun owner. Not just in dollars and thing like requiring insurance and difficult licensing procedures but in risk and day to day hassle. I went to the range with a friend in Canada a while back. Each gun had to be unloaded, a trigger lock installed, then locked in a case, and put in the trunk of the car in order to transport it from his home to the range and back. If he were to have lost a trigger lock while at the range he could not have legally transported the gun back home without the risk of going to prison. The “gun-free zone” within 1000 feet of a school is another example of a cost imposed on gun ownership through increased risk of committing a victimless crime.

As these costs increase it decreases the number of people who are willing to pay the “price”. Each of these relatively small price increases is not sufficient to take a bunch of time off work or to donate a lot of money to help defeat it like you would if it were something like confiscation of America’s most popular rifle. Yet, because the increasing cost of gun ownership it means fewer gun owners which means there is less resistance to the next slide down the slope. Whereas in Adams view you get increased resistance as you slide down the slope.

We both see the slope as non-linear but he sees the slope as upturning and stopping further progress and I see it as downturning and increasing progress.

I claim we can see support for my view on two different slopes.

Look at the slippery slope the anti-gun people are on. For decades they fought the passage of concealed carry licensing laws as they slowly swept the nation. Now Constitutional Carry is slowly spreading. I remember people saying licensing our rights was actually a step in the wrong direction for us. It should be “Vermont Carry”, as what we now call Constitutional Carry was called 20 years ago, or nothing because once the right to carry was licensed we couldn’t get back to a principled claim of right to carry without a license. The anti-gun people have been sliding down this slope for something like 30 years now with no end in sight.

On the other side we can see the march of restrictions on “assault weapons” up and down the west and east costal states. Each year they come up with another type of restriction or cost to add to the burden of owning and using them. Had the anti-gun people gone for an outright ban and demand for confiscation, again about 30 years ago, few politicians would have given the ideas support. This year people hoping to become president seem to be competing on who can confiscate them in the shortest period of time. We have slid down a slippery slope. Those early restrictions enabled further restrictions as soon as the legislature reconvened the next year.

On the other hand Adam could say the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary movement proves his point.

Am I missing something? Adams is a smart guy and I may too close to this issue to see the issue clearly. Is there some special case situation that Adams would concede in my examples while being substantially correct in the more general case?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb & Dave Workman

Nothing so vividly illustrates the delusional state of the gun prohibitionist’s mindset than the stubborn defense of the so called “gun-free school zone.”

Alan Gottlieb & Dave Workman
2019
Good Guys With Guns, page 105

[You would think they would give it up after being shown that 95+% of all mass shootings occur in “gun-free” areas. Or just pointing out that if “gun-free” areas worked making banks “gun-free zones” would eliminate bank robberies. Or making schools “drug-free zones” would cause recreational drug to cease.

But it is irrational to expect people to be rational. And those rational enough to know the truth but evil enough to further their agenda with the deaths of innocent children use this lack of rationality in the masses to their advantage.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Adam Kraut

Rule by executive fiat was rejected by the Thirteen American Colonies, including Pennsylvania, when they declared independence from England, and we reject such lawlessness today. The Attorney General’s revisionist legal opinion adds an entire class of inanimate objects to the definition of ‘firearm’ under Pennsylvania law that the General Assembly never considered, nor intended. As such, we are requesting the Commonwealth Court to enjoin Commissioner Evanchick and his Pennsylvania State Police from implementing and enforcing any policy or practice that would follow the Attorney General’s misguided definitional structure.

Adam Kraut
Director of Legal Policy
The Firearm Policy Coalition
December 20, 2019
BREAKING: Emergency Injunction Sought Against Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Evanchick Following ‘Lawless’ Gun Ban Mandate, “Legal Opinion” by Attorney General Josh Shapiro
[See also: GUN-RIGHTS GROUP SUES PENNSYLVANIA OVER NEW ‘GHOST GUNS’ RULE

I donate money every month (matched by my employer) to the FPC.

It’s amazing what these politicians want to get away with. It’s almost as if they believe they are rulers instead of public servants.

The courts need to slap them down hard and soon!—Joe]

YES

Via email from Matthew Faulks.

The NRA Foundation has a national Yes Education Summit (YES) program. The state of Idaho recognizes this:

Idaho sophomores and juniors are invited to apply to participate in the Idaho State Youth Education Summit (Y.E.S.), part of a larger national program through the NRA Foundation – a non-profit, non-political charitable affiliate of the National Rifle Association.  This innovative civics program brings participating students to the Idaho Capitol from March 12 to 15 to gain first-hand knowledge about our branches of government and to meet state elected officials. Students also engage in public speaking, problem-solving, participate in firearms training at a local gun range administered by certified firearms instructors and visit government agencies and historical venues. Meals, lodging, and materials are provided to participating students at no cost.

The selection of students for the program is competitive. One student participants will be chosen at the end of the Idaho program to attend the national Y.E.S. program in Washington D.C. on July 13-19, 2020. Up to $50,000 total in scholarships will be awarded among successful participants at this national Y.E.S. program.

For more information about applying contact Matthew Faulks via email or visit https://yes.nra.org/state-summits/.

You can learn more and share via the Idaho YES flyer Faulks sent me. The deadline for application is coming up fast (January 8th, 2020). So, get those High School sophomores and juniors to download the application and get it submitted soon.

Quote of the day—Jonathan

We genuinely have no idea how many firearms there are in America, and that is fine.  We do know how many have been produced a year for the past ~35 years, the only correlation between the change in firearms in America and the change in firearm-related fatalities is negative-to-non-existent, for both raw numbers and per-American rates.  Thus, “more guns = more deaths” cannot be true.

Jonathan
December 4, 2019
fixed points in data
[I found the blog post quite interesting because Jonathan points out something that I knew from my multiple classes in statistics but had not thought applied to the topic at hand. That is, a time correlation does not care about absolute values of the variables being considered, just the change in the values over time.

For example the correlation between the number of firearms in circulation and the murder rate by gun fire is the same in each of these cases with the following assumptions 1) The murder rate over time is the same in all cases; and 2) The number of guns added or removed from circulation over time is the same.

  • The number of guns in circulation on January 1, 1990 is zero.
  • The number of guns in circulation on January 1, 1990 is 100 million.
  • The number of guns in circulation on January 1, 1990 is 1 billion.

And of course, the result of this exercise does not have any effect on the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It does, however, have utility in demonstrating anti-gun people do not understand math when they claim “more guns = more deaths”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Z. Williamson

Keep calm. Spread the word.  Agitate against such outrages. Buy more guns.  Buy them legally. Buy them privately if you can.  Buy more, more, and yet more. There’s always the risk we’ll reach the point where America tips over. But that’s a chance we’ll have to take.

Because if it’s impossible for the government to seize 300 million weapons (the lowball estimate), it’s way more than four times as impossible for them to seize 1.2 billion.

Michael Z. Williamson
December 15, 2019
The Virginia Debacle, Summarized (And Why You Should Buy More Guns)
[There is more than a little truth to this. But a gun properly buried in the woods and practically impossible to confiscate might as well be in government hands or destroyed. Just one gun, and enough ammunition, in the hands of someone skilled, able, and willing to use it will be of far more use that a thousand guns hidden and unused.

Attend Boomershoot 2020 (sign up here). Learn what your gun can do at a distance, increase your skill, have the confidence to use it if you really need to, and have a whole lot of fun doing it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Gertrude O. Douglas @Gertrude_O_D

I was a victim of 3 violent robberies in my life

The last one 3 yrs ago was an exceptionally violent house robbery by 4 armed men who assaulted everyone, including my 8yr old grand daughter

I remember thinking then, as I do now, thank God I did NOT have a gun in the house

Gertrude O. Douglas @Gertrude_O_D
Tweeted on December 12, 2019
[And would she thank God she did not have a fire extinguisher in the house when an arsonist tried to burn her house down?

And would she thank God she did not have a telephone in the house when the armed men assaulted her and her family?

And would she thank God she did not have a first-aid kit in the house after she and her family were assaulted?

The mindset of some people is incomprehensible to me. There are times when I just want to let Darwin sort them out.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

From

Jamel Jackson‏ @JamelJackson10.

See her tweet and the accompanying thread.

AccomplishedSoMuch

It’s almost mind blowing that they believe this is what we think and how we view the issues.

Also note, the artist didn’t realize the gun needed a rear sight.

They are ignorant in so many dimension. This makes them extremely dangerous. Without facts to anchor them they can easily believe whatever they want to believe.

Quote of the day—Fritz Edmunds

If plastic water bottles are okay, but plastic bags are banned, — you might live in a nation (state) that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots WE DO LIVE IN SUCH A DUMB COUNTRY!!

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman who is confined to a wheelchair or a three-year-old girl can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is “cute” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE IN ALL UPCOMING ELECTIONS. MOST OF THE IDIOTS RUNNING THIS COUNTRY SAY ONE THING AND DO THE OPPOSITE KNOWING THAT THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED THEM IN DO NOT PAY ATTENTION

Fritz Edmunds
February 3, 2013
Channeling Jeff Foxworthy In a Country Founded by Geniuses and Run By Idiots (the link is dead as of December 12, 2019)
[This has been attributed to Jeff Foxworthy but that is probably incorrect.

It would appear this is just as true now as it was almost seven years ago.—Joe]