Dear Politicians,
We are not buying all these guns just to give them up.
bakerjrae
T-shirt design
[We live in interesting times.—Joe]
Category Archives: Gun Rights
Quote of the day—Joy Behar
They should not tell everything they’re going to do. If you’re going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected — then take the guns away. Don’t tell them ahead of time.
Joy Behar
November 4, 2019
Joy Behar: Don’t tell Americans before you take their guns
[Behar was discussing failed 2020 presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke.
Good advice. A little too late. But good advice.
But then, it appears that these days if a candidate has a ‘D’ after them name gun confiscation is their game plan so one should just automatically assume the worst regardless of how public they make their gun confiscation plans.—Joe]
Quote of the day—NitramLand @NitramLand
We are taking your guns. Period. The tide is turning rapidly. The NRA is toast. As soon as trump is gone, guns are gone.
NitramLand @NitramLand
Tweeted on October 27, 2019
[Who’s “we”?
And as if the NRA and President Trump were protecting gun owners from him and others like him. It’s more like he and his unindicted ideological coconspirators are being being protected from us by the presence of the NRA and a president who gives lip service to the 2nd Amendment.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Beto O’Rourke
My service to the country will not be as a candidate or as the nominee. Acknowledging this now is in the best interests of those in the campaign; it is in the best interests of this party as we seek to unify around a nominee; and it is in the best interests of the country.
Beto O’Rourke
November 1, 2019
Gun control advocate Beto O’Rourke drops out of US presidential race
[Certainly it’s in the best interests of the country if he never sees political power again. I would prefer that he be given a fair trial, convicted, then sentenced to hard labor. But this is good enough for now.
Although, I will kind of miss the opportunity to collect more “No one wants to take your guns” quotes.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Joseph G.S. Greenlee
The necessity for this Court to clarify the role of history in defining the right is illuminated by so many outcomes depending on whether the reviewing court considers history. Disregarding history and merely interest-balancing Second Amendment rights has allowed the Second Amendment to be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment. Many courts have boldly admitted doing so, offering justifications that this Court has previously rejected. Until this Court reinforces its precedents, lower courts will continue to treat the right to bear arms as a second class right.
Joseph G.S. Greenlee
Counsel of Record
Firearms Policy Coalition
October 30, 2019
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, FIREARMS POLICY FOUNDATION, CALIFORNIA GUN RIGHTS FOUNDATION, MADISON SOCIETY FOUNDATION, AND SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
[This is an Amicus brief before SCOTUS in Brian Kirk Malpasso, et al., Petitioners v. William M. Pallozzi, Superintendent, Maryland Department of State Police
Things are moving in the courts. It’s a good sign that gun owners are choosing the cases to back.
I believe this is our best chance for making progress on the gun owner rights front. I and, through matching funds to 501(c)(3) corporations, my employer donate thousands of dollars every year to FPC and SAF.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Eric Brakey
Extreme liberals like Nancy Pelosi and my opponent, Jared Golden, want to take away your guns.
But I want to give you one!
Eric Brakey
October 23, 2019
Eric Brakey for Congress
[Via email from Paul K. who provided this link.
The gun he is talking about is an AR-15 worth about $1200.
Without reading the fine print one might assume he wishes to use tax money to give away guns. One can constitutionally justify this much more easily than taking them away but that isn’t what he is doing. If you sign up to donate $5.00 or more a month to his campaign he’ll enter you in a drawing for the gun.
Fair enough.
I hope he wins and continues to tweak the noses of the gun grabbers.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Cassandra Crifasi
The drum that they beat that if you allow any [gun control] policy to pass then they’re just going to take your guns away. Then when we have candidates that say yes, well I am going to take your guns away, that doesn’t send the right message in my opinion.
Cassandra Crifasi
Deputy director of the Johns Hopkins Center For Gun Policy and Research
October 23, 2019
From Toxic To Staple: Gun Control Is Now Front And Center On The Campaign Trail
[And nowhere in the article does she, or anyone else, say the goal isn’t to take guns away. So, it appears she is saying the “right message” she wants the candidates to send is something other than their true intentions.
Lying, it’s what they do. It’s an essential part of their culture.—Joe]
Another one bites the dust
Last week it was the city of Edmonds which got its hands slapped for playing with gun control even though the state of Washington told them it was none of their business decades ago:
In the latest round of legal actions over Edmonds’ safe gun storage law, Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Anita Farris ruled on Friday that while the City of Edmonds cannot tell people how to store their guns, it can levy fines against gun owners whose firearms are possessed or used by unauthorized persons.
Via Firearms Policy Coalition, today it’s the city of Seattle:
Superior Court Judge Anita Farris struck down Seattle’s gun storage ordinance Monday, ruling it violates the state’s 36-year-old preemption law.
The Second Amendment Foundation was involved in both cases and I think they coordinated with the NRA as well.
Update: Wrong. There was only one case. The second one appears to be an error by the author in thinking that the Edmonds law was the same as the Seattle one. It was my mistake that I didn’t notice the date in the second article. It is also from last week.
Quote of the day—NRA-ILA
Gun confiscation is the goal. Gun confiscation has always been the goal. Thanks to a recent outburst by 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Robert (Beto) Francis O’Rourke, potentially millions more Americans are now aware of this fact.
NRA-ILA
September 20, 2019
Beto’s Confiscation Plan Shows Why Gun Owners Must Reject Appeasement
[This quote, from over a month ago, is nothing new. It’s mostly my lead in to this:
The NRA’s PAC raked in $1.3 million in total contributions throughout September, an increase of nearly $400,000 from its previous month, with an overwhelming majority of its cash haul coming from small donors. Of the $1.3 million, $981,277 was sent from individuals contributing less than $200. September was the fourth month in 2019 that the PAC has collected at least $1 million; it currently has $10 million on hand.
…
FEC documents show the NRA PAC brought in $50,902.20 from itemized donors before Beto’s comments on September 12—about $4,627 per day. After them, the group brought in $276,208.20—about $15,344 per day. That represents a threefold increase in daily giving to the gun-rights group.
…
The Giffords PAC, which works to elect gun-control proponents, reported just $11,000 in contributions in September, a major drop from the $195,000 it reported in August. Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund, an independent-expenditures only PAC, does not have to submit its next report until the end of the year. However, its mid-year report showed that the committee was given just $5,000, which was transferred from the group’s action fund. The Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc. PAC has taken in just $18,000 this year from six donors and currently has less than $90,000 cash on hand.
…
The more than $10 million in the bank the NRA PAC ended September with is more than three times that of Beto O’Rourke, and even outpaces Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden.
There are multiple ways to spin this:
- The NRA loves gun control politicians. If it weren’t for them the NRA would go broke or at least downsize and lay off a bunch of people. But this same logic could lead one to conclude these anti-gun politicians love the NRA and are helping them with their fundraising. Politicians need a bogeyman to scare voters into supporting them.
- Americans support gun ownership far more than they support gun confiscation.
- Anti-gun groups represent a few rich people. Pro-gun ownership groups represent the little guy. This makes sense because the rich have connections to political power and can, if they wished, run roughshod over the masses using the government. Guns in the hands of the ordinary individuals empowers them and acts as a last ditch defense against the injustices of a corrupted and/or tyrannical political system. As Mao said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
It may be insightful to read the entire Mao quote. Marxism, Socialism, Communism all require a powerful government to enforce the redistribution of food, housing, health care, jobs, etc. to the politically loyal. A government can increase their power in absolute terms by increased spending on the military and/or police. More subtly, they can increase their relative power by reducing the private ownership of guns. The second route is less costly and less likely to alarm the general population. In fact, the second route can be, and is, spun as improving the safety and security of the average person even as it makes them more and vulnerable to the abuse of government power.
It should come as no surprise the Marxists, socialists and communist running for the most powerful political positions in the world want to take your guns. And if you value your freedom, wealth, and health don’t allow these villains access to the power they crave.—Joe]
Skynet smiles
Via Chris Loesch:
Don’t worry. It’s only CGI. The real thing is still classified as Top Secret and won’t be released for field work until Beto is elected President.
Quote of the day—Sharif Hamza
I strongly believe that American gun owners are never going to give up their guns. It’s just not possible.
Sharif Hamza
March 26, 2018
Gun Country: A new generation of American kids embraces firearms.
[Via email from Lynn Z.
See also the video here.
As Lynn said, “Interesting Video… from The New Yorker!”
Take a new shooter to the range. We have to change the culture.—Joe]
Fake but accurate
In reference to this.
Amusing even though I doubt Beta boy has this much awareness of, well, anything:
Via a post by Carissa Cantwell in the Idaho Open Carry Facebook group.
Quote of the day—Lawrence H. Climo, MD
My tipping point was the clinic’s emergency protocols for what to do in the event someone did enter our clinic with a handgun. The protocols were clear. Immediately notify the psychiatrist on duty. That psychiatrist would approach the gunman and, in a “quiet, non-threatening voice,” ask for his gun. I recalled my medical school classmate who had done that very thing some years earlier at a different mental health clinic. He was shot dead on the spot.
Lawrence H. Climo, MD
October 23, 2019
What Do Mass Murderers Have in Common?
[The “tipping point” he is referring to is when he decided to get and carry a gun.
Yeah, one would think this would be more than enough to tip people over the edge into the realization that the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But that’s not the way it plays out in a lot of cases. Some people tip in a different direction.
Aside from the tipping point and direction the doctor has an interesting hypothesis. Perhaps instead of mental illness being the common issue with mass shooters it is frustration:
But, what if there is this other commonality, this frustration goad or tipping point? What if the tipping point for those with urges and obsessions about delivering justice, restoring honor, pride, and the natural order, defending America, destroying evil, and serving patriotism, justice and God, or just the desire to end pain, isolation, insignificance, and loneliness and feel at peace—or at least feel safe and in control—is an overpowering and unbearable frustration? What are the implications?
It’s sounds plausible in a lot of cases. If true, then a partial remedy would involve something different than drugs and/or confinement such as might be the case with true mental illness. It would also point at a different indicator of potential danger.
Ignore his suggestion. He lives in Massachusetts and probably doesn’t realize that firearm licenses aren’t a requirement in free America.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Andy Wilczak (@heyDrWil)
They locked down 5’s school today because they found ammunition on the ground. She’s in kindergarten. Ban guns. Ban all guns. I don’t care. Ban guns.
Andy Wilczak (@heyDrWil)
Tweeted October 23, 2019
[He has since deleted the tweet.
Interesting school response to ammunition. Makes for an easy “denial of service attack”. Some kid wants to be a jerk and they throw a handful of .22 cartridges over the fence into the school yard and the kids have to go into lock down rather than get a recess.
It’s an even more interesting response of Mr. Wilczak. A presence of a few loose rounds of ammunition with no injuries and extremely unlikely potential for injury is enough for him to justify the elimination of 10% of the Bill of Rights. What kind of mental issues, besides Hoplophobia, does he have? One could justify the elimination of the entire Bill of Rights with whatever criteria Wilczak is hallucinating.
Note that in addition noting the crap for brains exhibited by Wilczak you should also never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder
Kellermans statistics do not prove that guns cause crime. But neither do Kleck’s statistics prove that guns provide protection. Kellerman’s statistics, even if faultless, provide no justification for a decision to own or use a gun. But neither do Kleck’s statistics provide a justification for owning or carrying a gun.
Admittedly, this sounds strange. Gun owners would like to believe the assertions about Kellerman’s statistics, because we believe they are seriously flawed, but disbelieve the assertions about Kleck’s statistics. Yet asserting that Kleck’s statistics justify owning or carrying a gun commits the same error that asserting that Kellerman’s statistics justify not owning or banning guns. Both treat the gun as an agent, with independent power to effect results. In both cases, the gun has become a force, like a chemical, a drug or microbe, with independent power to cause results apart from our decisions, our character and purpose.
People, we are the agents. Guns are inanimate tools that serve our purposes.
Jeff Snyder
2001
Nation of Cowards, You’re Doing This Because of the Numbers? page 97.
[He goes on to say, paraphrasing some, that the numbers prove guns are useful for criminal acts and the numbers prove guns are useful for self-defense. They don’t “cause” violence or “result” in self-defense.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Beto O’Rourke @BetoORourke
Credit cards have enabled many of America’s mass shootings in the last decade—and with Washington unwilling to act, they need to cut off the sales of weapons of war today.
Banks and credit card companies must:
1) Refuse to take part in the sale of assault weapons.
2) Stop processing transactions for gun sales online & at gun shows without background checks.
3) Stop doing business with gun & ammo manufacturers who produce or sell assault weapons
Beto O’Rourke @BetoORourke
Tweeted (and here) on September 12, 2019
[There are so many opportunities for snark here:
- AR-15s are not used by any military so credit cards should be fine.
- I guess I’ll have to save up cash for my tank.
- Credit cards have enabled mass shooters to drive to their unarmed victims. Are you going to demand credit cards not be used to purchase gasoline, tires, and oil?
- His ignorance/stupidity/lying is showing when he claims online sales and gun shows don’t require background checks.
- How is this different than making it against the law for a motel to rent a room to a married gay couple?
- I hope you enjoy your trial.
Note this was over a month ago and I haven’t heard anything about it lately. I wonder if he just moved on to confiscation when it didn’t get the traction he wanted.
His continued political career is asymptotically approaching zero unless he moves out of state or runs for city dog catcher. So all that really matters is that we record the evidence for his trial.—Joe]
AR-15 Sporter
Via a tweet from Lucky Duck @FlyingJayDee:
From 1963 iirc.
There is a reply worthy of note from NoGuns
NoAlcohol
@NoGunsNoAlcohol:
This is actually 1964 but semantics.
Note the price in 1964, $190. It was just about then, perhaps 1965, in our part of the country earning $1000/month was considered really good money. So, the AR-15 Sporter would cost a person about a weeks pay. And so, making a few assumptions, it appears the relative price of an AR has come down some.
But the most important thing to note is that 55 years ago the AR-15 was marketed as a hunting rifle. People claiming it was designed as a weapon of war are ignorant, stupid, and/or lying.
Threepers in the news
After Mike Vanderboegh died discussion of Threepers pretty much disappeared off my radar until yesterday when there was an article in the Seattle times:
The talk at the Yelm Prairie Christian Center was of frustration and anger — and of what to do about Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson.
So intense is the distress over new firearms regulations in the state and Ferguson’s support of them that a group of 35 or so came together to discuss what many saw as a constructive next step: Go to court to file citizen complaints against Ferguson or maybe even attempt a citizen’s arrest of him.
Many wore insignia of the Washington Three Percenters — a group whose website says its goal is to “utilize the fail safes put in place by our founders to reign (SIC) in an overreaching government and push back against tyranny.”
I had my say about Threepers a little over 10 years ago and rereading it, and my comments to the post, I don’t see there is anything I would change with the most recent attention from the Times. I would, however, add that I see a citizen’s arrest of Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson as counterproductive.
Quote of the day—Aishu Sritharan
The only way to meet the challenge of gun control is to meet it with the boldest possible proposal that will save the most lives and that will tell the opposition that we are not backing down on this issue.
Aishu Sritharan
October 19, 2019
Democratic Debates, the Media, and Gun Control: Why the Needle Isn’t Moving on a Critical Issue
[This seems to be a very naïve viewpoint. Let me suggest a proposal along those lines and see if it works:
No more infringement of our specific enumerated rights! Abolish all gun control laws. Government subsidies for people who can’t afford a gun!
There. So, what do you think Aishu? Will that help move the needle on this critical issue? Enjoy your trial.—Joe]
* Added at the suggestion of Tirno.
Rebellion is about winning hearts and minds
Sean points out the failure of the Extinction Rebellion to convince people of the righteousness of their cause by disrupting their lives. Mob action is a form of direct democracy. Democracy has its dark side.
It’s easy to demonstrate Extinction Rebellion claims are almost for certain in error. But even being 100% correct in your facts, logic, and principles doesn’t guarantee success. If your position is only shared by one out of every 10,000 people your position isn’t getting adopted.
Get more people on your side. Take a new shooter to the range. Invite them to Boomershoot as a spectator. Encourage people to take a firearms class with a focus on personal protection.
Win the civil war without mob violence or firing a shot in anger.