Quote of the day—Giffords @GiffordsCourage

The NRA has no place in the White House.

Watch 2020 Democrats—@JoeBiden, @CoryBooker, @PeteButtigieg, @KamalaHarris, @AmyKlobuchar, @BetoORourke, @BernieSanders, & @EWarren—take on gun lobby corruption in our second #GunSafetyPresident video.

Giffords @GiffordsCourage
Tweeted on September 16, 2019
[Via a tweet from Chris Knox.

I find it telling there is no evidence of corruption presented and they tell a deliberate lie. The NRA does not represent the gun industry. It represents its five million+ members.

Remember this for their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—William L. Gensert

Eventually, the president will overreach, signing an order for gun confiscation, euphemistically called, “mandatory buybacks.”  Antifa and their ilk will flood the streets in support of seizing these “weapons of war.”  Media will declare, “It’s the will of the people.”

And for the right, that will be the last straw (plastic or paper).

The left doesn’t understand that every gun owner is a single-issue-voter; millions will refuse to give up their guns.  And, many gun owners in this country will not go “meekly into the night,” there will be “rage” against what they will see as a usurpation of their constitutional rights. 

William L. Gensert
September 13, 2019
No Matter Who Wins in 2020, There Will Be Blood
[Via Matthew Bracken @Matt_Bracken.

He describes plausible scenarios. Prepare accordingly.—Joe]

Quote of the day—A. R. G. @AdamRobGoCop

“I’m a pussy with a small dick so I carry a gun because I’m a coward and it makes me look like less of a coward” is that closer?

A. R. G. @AdamRobGoCop
Tweeted on September 14, 2019
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from The Original SPQR in 3D @SPQRzilla.

This was in response to the question:

What’s the state motto of New Hampshire, you idiot?

I’m listening to the book Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracys:

The author, Kurt Schlichter, addresses this attitude, and even brings up “penis size” in the gun debate. His claim is that “The Elites” despise “The Normals” and many even want us dead. He makes some good points. A. R. G. @AdamRobGoCop provides us with another data point supporting Schlichter thesis.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Squiggly Line Guy

When you’ve made the case that one Amendment does not apply to an entire group of people, you’ve made the case for the rest of the Amendments not applying. Ultimately you’ve devolved back into FDR Internment Camp rationale. Or border detainment rationale. You’re doing the same thing, just from a different front.

The only leaps and bounds necessary are for Leftists to take, in convincing themselves they are not Xenophobic or racist.

But I almost forgot… it’s not real Xenophobia or racism when it’s from the Left.

Squiggly Line Guy
September 12, 2019
How The Left Spreads Racism Through Gun Control
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alexander Hope

Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anyone has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.

Alexander Hope

By Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman
[Via Paul Koning (numerous occasions) and Carl Stevenson:

  • Comment to Quote of the day—Douglas Anthony Cooper
  • Comment by Carl Stevenson to Gun cartoon of the day
  • Comment to Quote of the day—Disarm @Disarm
  • Comment to Quote of the day—Glenn Reynolds
  • Comment to We live in interesting times

Good advice.—Joe]

Beto and his friends

Via Comfortably Smug @ComfortablySmug we have evidence that Beto has philosophical friends in political history:


It probably would make it a little too busy, but one or more from Vladimir Lenin could demonstrate Beto’s kinship with him as well:

An oppressed class which did not aspire to possess arms and learn how to handle them deserve only to be treated as slaves.


One man with a gun can control 100 without one. … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.


Soviet organisation has made possible the creation of armed forces of workers and peasants which are much more closely connected with the working and exploited people than before. If this had not been done it would have been impossible to achieve one of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism—the arming of the workers and the disarming of the bourgeoisie.

Quote of the day—Tom Kendall

Incensed that eight years of bungling, mismanagement, decline, insults, mischaracterizations, slander, lies, theft and voter intimidation had somehow failed to win hearts and minds, the Left decided at last it was time to embrace the inner communist they always had wanted to be, and went full potato. In one decade we went from a Left that insisted vehemently that Republicans were only calling them socialists as negative spin, to one with so many declared socialists it looks like the Berkley faculty lounge. Gone are the days of hiding the tax’n’spend policies behind centrist platitudes. The Left has a very cohesive platform, just not a coherent one—billions in taxes, trillions in spending, government healthcare, government transportation, government income, government spying, racially based reparations, open borders and a brand new Llama named Jimmy for every little girl. I made the last one up. It’s too sane and fiscally feasible. Also it assumes there’s such a gender as “girl”, bigot.

Tom Kendall
September 11, 2019
The Side-Takers by Tom Kendall
[H/T to Kevin.

He’s got a point you know. The left has gone over the edge and is demanding to take the rest of the country with them.

We live in interesting times.—Joe]

We live in interesting times

From The Divine Right of the Democratic Party:

Some progressives do not think we have two legitimate competing political camps. They think the U.S. is suffering from an infection: the Republican party.

It is not only the Republican party as a political grouping they dream of eliminating: It is Republicans as such and those who hold roughly Republican ideas about everything from climate change to gun rights, groups that Democrats in agencies ranging from state prosecutors’ offices to the IRS already — right now, not at some point in some imaginary dystopian future — are targeting through both legal and extralegal means.

The Democrats who are doing this believe themselves to be acting morally, even patriotically, and sometimes heroically. Why? Because they believe that opposition is fundamentally illegitimate.

Eliminating the ability of those who currently align with the Republican party to meaningfully participate in national politics is not only wishful thinking in the pages of the New York Times. It is the progressive program, from Washington to Palo Alto and beyond.

From the description on Amazon about the book RIP GOP: How the New America Is Dooming the Republicans:

In RIP GOP, Stanley Greenberg argues that the 2016 election hurried the party’s imminent demise. Using amazing insights from his focus groups with real people and surprising revelations from his own polls, Greenberg shows why the GOP is losing its defining battle. He explores why the 2018 election, when the New America fought back, was no fluke. And he predicts that in 2020 the party of Lincoln will be left to the survivors, opening America up to a new era of renewal and progress.

Interesting stuff.

Another viewpoint is that the political left has gone completely unhinged and the U.S. population is increasing aware of this. Examples include;

I’ve talked to people who believe the 2020 election will be a rout for the Republicans. There is evidence to support the hypothesis that Democrat leaders believe this too. I’m not convinced the democrats will be routed but I’m certain the political left is suffering from incredibly severe delusions.

Some states, dominated by democrats, changed their electoral college votes to go to the winner of the nationwide popular vote in an attempt to prevent a repeat of the last presidential outcome. In a non adaptive environment this might help their cause. U.S. voters are adaptive. For years millions of people in heavily populated democratic states have not voted because it was pointless. A 55-45 vote in the state for the democrat candidate is no better than a 70-30 vote…until the election in 2020. Those millions of people who thought their vote was irrelevant now have a reason to vote.

What if, because of the adaptive behavior of both the politicians and the voters, the new rules result in a popular vote giving California’s votes to the republican candidate? What if, without that change, the republican candidate would have lost? And what if the extra republican voters result in more U.S. congressional and as well as state seats going to republicans?

Democrats expect political extermination of the Republican party next November. They expect unobstructed one party rule in 2021. Nearly three years after the merely unexpectedly loss of the election for U.S. president we still see them spiral ever deeper into a psychoses.

What’s going to be the response if there is anything less than a clear win for democrats? And what if it’s a nearly unobstructed one party rule for republicans?

We live in interesting times.

Quote of the day—Timothy H. Lee

Whether restrictionists are guilty of deliberate dishonesty, simple ignorance or some amalgam thereof is open to speculation.

But what’s beyond debate is the fact that gun controllers’ agenda is untethered from simple, demonstrable fact.

Timothy H. Lee
September 5, 2019
Gun Controllers: The Most Uninformed Among Leftist Subgroups
[Via an email from Paul K.

The political left is experiencing a mass delusion on a scale which is beyond anything I have knowledge of. Some people, at the higher levels, are certainly guilty of deliberate dishonesty. A very large percentage are guilty of willful ignorance. Some are guilty of simple ignorance. And, finally, some are useful idiots.

The final sorting of these different types of people I leave for the judges and juries.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Red Nation Rising @RedNationRising

The democrats will stop at nothing to push their agendas. I’d love to know how many acts of violence have been orchestrated by them to push gun control. I suspect the results would match our suspicions.


Red Nation Rising @RedNationRising
Tweeted on September 8, 2019
[Back in the late 1990s this was a common suspicion. I never heard anyone say they thought the shooter themselves planned it as a means to pass gun control bills. They mostly suspected it was some sort of mind control or “programming” of mentally unstable people. I thought it extremely unlikely.

The probabilities increased dramatically with the Las Vegas shooting. A rich, old, white guy was a different demographic than we had ever seen before. There was picture of the murderer at a Hillary rally wearing a vagina hat but there was little else to gives us clues as to his political persuasion or possible motivation. The expense, planning, and horrendous number of victims indicated something well beyond what other murderers had demonstrated.

Then there was another mass murder, I forget which one, with a manifesto explicitly advocating more gun control. There are no more probabilities. There is only certainty that it has happened. The questions are now, “How many times has it happened?” and “How many more times will it happen before we can put an end to, or dramatically reduce, their incredibly evil activities?”—Joe]

Quote of the day—San Francisco Board of Supervisors

RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco intends to declare the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization.

San Francisco Board of Supervisors
September 3, 2019

[See also here and here.

Did it every occur to these people that if gun owners are going to be treated like terrorists some of them might decide it’s time to act like terrorists? Probably. That could even be the prime objective.

That the Board of Supervisors, unanimously, voted to declare the nations oldest civil right organization a “domestic terrorist organization” tells us a lot more about the Board of Supervisors than it does the NRA and its members.—Joe]

Quote of the day—J.D. Tuccille

While weaponizing laws against political opponents may buy votes among the faithful in the short term, it delegitimizes laws and their enforcers in the eyes of their targets. That further reduces any possibility of compliance with laws that already have a history of being honored only in the breach. When the dust settles, the government ends up looking weak and the law pointless. And the country will be more divided than ever.

Maybe O’Rourke and his colleagues will eventually be able to turn their gun confiscation wishes into law, but history is very clear that most people will defy the prohibition.

J.D. Tuccille
September 4, 2019
Beto’s Impossible Gun Ban Dreams
[Not only will such a prohibition be defied, there is a greater risk. It’s possible the people will implement a prohibition on prohibiting politicians. If they do, one should expect the people will have a higher success rate than that achieved by the politicians in banning guns.

Let’s keep them from being elected, get some good court rulings, and avoid the whole mess.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan M. Dershowitz

No university student has the right to be safe from uncomfortable ideas, only from physical threats, and any student who claims to be in physical fear of politically incorrect ideas does not belong at a university. The most extreme example of this distortion of the role of higher education took place at my own university when a distinguished dean of a Harvard residential college was fired from his deanship because some “woke” students claimed to feel unsafe in his presence because he was representing, as a defense lawyer, a man accused of rape.

Alan  M. Dershowitz
August 31, 2019
The Dangerous Stalinism of the “Woke” Hard-Left
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Carl Bussjaeger

This is the 21st century; the firearms cat is out of the bag. If you want to use gun control to stop shootings, you need to reduce the nation to a sparsely populated Stone Age society.

Carl Bussjaeger
September 2 2019
Nasty, Brutish, and Short
[For the stated assumption this is true. But it’s not about stopping shootings. It’s about making the resistance of tyranny difficult. Certain types of gun control, such as successful gun registration, can accomplish that.

The obvious conclusion is that those insisting on gun control which has no possibility of stopping the mass shootings must have an incredibly evil agenda as their real goal.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Evidently the five senators signing onto this brief are terrified that the nation’s high court is about to examine the extreme nature of local gun control laws and their constitutionality under the Second Amendment.

Instead of the Supreme Court dismissing the case we believe the court should reject the amicus brief. It is an insult to the court’s integrity, and to the Constitution, itself.

Contrary to what the Whitehouse Five contends in their brief, the nation needs the Supreme Court to take Second Amendment cases and determine whether laws such as the one in New York are infringements, and then provide guidance to the lower courts about where the constitutional line may be drawn.

Alan Gottlieb
August 30, 2019
[Dismissing the brief… Hmmm… I kind of like that. But I wonder, without further justification, if that would be unconstitutional in some way?—Joe]

Quote of the day—David French

The battle for freedom has been fought and won. Your speech may be free, but that doesn’t mean it is easy. Truly confronting illiberal political correctness requires personal courage. Without it, the battle for the First Amendment will have been fought in vain.

David French
August 20, 2019
Courage Is the Cure for Political Correctness
[Via email from Chet who adds, “I would add for rights in general.”

He has some good points. But a case can be made that the battle isn’t over until the culture has been changed and is accepting of diverse speech and thought without a lawsuit to back up your coming out of the closet.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kurt Schlichter

We’ll get lots of the “Orange man bad, orange man not nominate a judge because he bad” babble from the libs and their gimp media. Maddow will cry, Don Lemon will pound an umbrella drink and Tater Stelter will sweat profusely as he reads off the teleprompter about how Trump is literally Hitler. The Fredocons will weigh in with their patented brand of sissy submission to their elite tops. We’ll be informed how taking back the Supreme Court like the geebos of Conservative, Inc., promised for three decades is actually not who we are and how we’re better than that and how oh well I never. Can you imagine Jeb! or Mitt in this situation? They would eagerly, whole-heartedly buy into the compromise unity candidate ploy to stick some moderate muggle on the bench in order to “repair the heart of our country” and “build bridges” of bipartisan love.

Trump builds victories, and he’s going to blow up that bridge.

Kurt Schlichter
August 26, 2019
Get Ready For Apocalypse Ruth
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—herbn

At what point does “they are saying I am by definition worse than Hitler and need to be in a camp” cross over from “a stupid narrative they believe” to a “clear and present danger to me and mine I must actively respond to.” I’m already passively preparing, but at some point I have to choose, and choose wisely, to move to active interference.

That is what worries me. Both the need to make that call and making it wrong.

August 8, 2019
Comment to But Then That Must Mean
[Many years ago John Clifford., the owner of a gun range I frequented, told me, “When you draw your gun is far more important than how fast you draw your gun.” It took a while for me to really understand what he was saying. See this post for elaboration on that point.

herbn’s dilemma captures the essence of what John was telling me.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sarah A. Hoyt

If you find yourself reading the other person’s mind. As in, thinking “I love American” means “white America” realize you’re not psychic. Those thoughts in your head? they’re yours. Examine why you want to believe this, and what purpose it’s serving FOR YOU. Because your mind is the only one you can read.

Sarah A. Hoyt
August 7, 2019
But Then That Must Mean
[H/T to Harvey.

You may think this is just some abstract or exaggerated “thing”. No. It is not. This strongly resonated with me because of personal experiences with people like this.

I have a true story to illustrate. There are many similar true stories but this is the one I tell most frequently:

Several years ago I received a phone call which went like this:

Caller: Can you pick up Sister 1 at the airport?

[Because of the circumstances it was conceivable it could be any one of five different airports. I needed to know a critical piece of information before answering.]

Joe: Which airport?

Caller: I think she is coming in this afternoon.

Joe: Which airport?

Caller: She usually flies on Delta.

[Yay! This actually eliminates one of the airports! Only three more to go. We are making progress.]

Joe: Which airport?

Caller: Can you bring her to the motel we are staying at?

Joe: Which airport?

Caller: She has done a lot of things for you, can’t you do this for her?

[I’m getting frustrated. I would be glad to do this if I can physically make it happen. I just need to determine some critical pieces of information. I almost yelled at my caller.]

Joe: Which airport?!!!

Caller to Sister 2 as she is terminating the call: We should find someone else to pick up Sister 1 because Joe can’t do it.

I’m now infuriated. Not only they wouldn’t answer my question, they are now telling Sister 2 I refused to help them out. I called back, eventually got the information, and agreed to pick up Sister 1 at a local airport.

I met Sister 1 at baggage claim. Wondering if I should get a cart for her bags I asked, “How many bags do you have?”

Sister 2: They’re green.

How does this relate to mind reading? It is because in further talks it came out my words were interpreted as meaning something completely different from what I said. In some cases when this would happen I would ask them to repeat my question back to me. They were completely unable to do it. I could repeat the question and even coach the words out of them, one by one, and five seconds later they would be unable to repeat a simple question such as the one above. Their brains were wired in some weird way that plain and simple words mapped into some completely different concept, perhaps completely unrelated to the speaker’s words and/or actions and the original words would be completely lost.

The original words could even be written down and they would be mapped into something different. In once written case I had them read the words out loud to me. They were able to do so. I asked, “How did you get from those words to your interpretation?” They agreed they were wrong. I hadn’t said what they thought I had said. They looked away from the words and, literally, in less than five seconds they were back to insisting their original interpretation was correct. We repeated the reading of the words and them agreeing I was correct. Again, within a few seconds, they reverted to their original, incorrect, interpretation. I gave up in extreme frustration after about three tries.

It turns out that the entire family did this. They would literally believe they knew you meant something completely different from what you said, no matter how many times and how many ways you said what you really meant. They would insist they “knew” what you really meant. They also believed I was the borderline crazy person because I didn’t know what they really meant when they presented me with highly ambiguous information. In their minds, I was somehow handicapped.

I grew to avoid participating in their family conversations because it was so bizarre. I made it a game to just listen and attempt to disambiguate the meanings of what they said. It was extremely challenging. When confronted with an ambiguity I would form one or more branches of the conversation in my mind and wait for more information to come in. As the additional information came in I could determine which one of the branches was the correct one. Or, at least, trim a branch or two off if it had many branches. And, of course, the branches grew branches. Usually some new bit of data would come in and “Poof!” all the extraneous branches would fall away and I would be caught up on the conversation again.

Keep in mind I doing this for each of two, three, or even four people when sometimes no two of them were on the same branch. It was tough work, but at least my brain was getting practice with logic puzzles. Most of the time the parties to the conversation were essentially in synch with each other. But perhaps a quarter of the time they would actually diverge and never resynchronize on their own. One of them could be talking about their dog making a mess on the kitchen floor and another other believed they were talking about a husband instead of a dog (true story). For a while I thought it was funny and didn’t bother to correct the mistakes. It just didn’t matter that much and I would get in a little bit of trouble for being so nitpicky about details. So, why bother?

Sometimes a day or so later I would hear a mention of the previous conversation with a serious misunderstanding and consequences of what was said. I would inform them that they misunderstood what the other person said. I would explain that I too momentarily went down that same branch but then realized that wasn’t what they really meant. Frequently, I wouldn’t be believed. They KNEW what the other person meant. If the truth was important I insisted they call and verify their understanding of the original conversation. I was always right and the person who “KNEW” couldn’t really understand how I really knew.

Once, in extreme frustration at being repeatedly misunderstood on an important point I demanded and received an answer which explained this bizarre behavior. After being told they KNEW what I really meant despite my repeated attempts to explain I meant something completely different from what they clearly believed I asked one of them, “How do you determine truth from falsity?” The answer was like a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and gasoline vaper onto a lite match, “It depends on how I feel.”

I blew up. How is it even possible to have a conversation with someone like this? We live in almost completely disjoint realities.

It gets worse.

One time there were three of them talking and I was doing my usual branching and pruning when a new bit of information came in that caused all the branches to disappear in great ball of fire in my head. No one else seemed to notice. I had to interrupt.

“Wait, wait, wait! I don’t understand. A little bit ago you said, ‘[data point A]’. Just now you said, ‘[data point B]’. Both can’t be true and nothing you have been saying makes sense.”

The answer was, “Oh Joe, it doesn’t matter. We are just talking.”

I went slack jawed and the other two family members laughed. They then all continued as if nothing of significance had occurred.

In the span of a minute or less the same person said two things which were completely and totally, contradictory. Not only did they brush it off as irrelevant, they and other parties to the conversation thought it was obvious that I was just being silly for trying to make sense of it. I slunk off into a corner and took a nap. There was nothing further of value to be gained from listening to these people make sounds at each other.

Years later, reading about personality disorders, I discovered that it is characteristic of certain disorders for people to believe they can read other people’s minds.

They might not explicitly say it because they know it will not be well received. They may not believe they can determine the explicit thoughts. But they will “know” the gist of what the other person thinks regardless of what the other person says and does. They can create an entire, frequently conspiratory, narrative which “explains” the contradictory evidence such that what they “know” to be true is not shown to be false. Paranoid people are perhaps the best known example although they are far from the only ones.

This is also particularly easy to see with many of the present day claims of racism. A statement with no mention of race will be claimed as clear and convincing evidence of racism. The political left will go absolutely bonkers about the white supremist, etc. when there is no evidence to support these claims. And, frequently, there is contradictory evidence. These people have mental problems and should be treated as such.

I think a good case can be made that, as many others have said in one way or another, “Liberalism is a mental disorder.”—Joe]