Quote of the day—James A. Garfield

If there be one thing upon this earth that mankind love and admire better than another, it is a brave man,—it is the man who dares to look the devil in the face and tell him he is a devil.

James A. Garfield
Found in The book of courage;: A little book of brave thoughts by Edwin Osgood Grover, page 55.
Copyright 1924.
[I was pulling a different book of quotes off a shelf in my library when this little book fell onto the floor. I didn’t recognize it. I don’t remember seeing it before, but I must have. Inside it had my grandmother’s name on it. She died in the early 1980’s.

This quote struck me as applicable to present day politics regarding gun ownership. For decades we have tried to “play nice” and just get them to leave us alone. Read The Gun Rights War (strongly recommended for anyone who considers themselves a gun rights advocate). There are numerous examples such as this, and this. we can conclude Knox is right when he says,

There is a silly notion, fervently adhered to by many gun owners, that if our side of the gun issue would just sit down and talk with the other side, we could work out a “reasonable” compromise that would satisfy “society’s need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” while imposing little inconvenience upon law-abiding gun owners.

…and the lion shall lie down with the lamb.

These people will say whatever it takes, no matter how deceptive, and suppress factual data to achieve their goals. These are evil people and it is time we stand up to politicians who advocate for infringements upon our rights. We must tell them they have no business being a public servant. They belong in prison.

When we are soft and wishy-washy people lose interest and forget that you even said anything. Be firm. Be strong. Have courage and dare to win. Remember that one of President Trump’s most memorable lines from the debates with Hillary Clinton was, “Because you’d be in jail”. And he won. We can win too. —Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul Koning

The standard statement by police commissioners and other politicians in high crime cities is “there are too many guns on the street”… I have never heard any of these idiots say “there are too many criminals on the street”.

This is why those are high crime cities.

Paul Koning
January 21, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Adam Smith
[As I have said before:

Problem statements drive the solution. Incorrect and unarticulated problem statements limit the range of solutions.

Defining the problem is sometimes the most difficult. And if you let your enemies define the problem you cannot win. The best you can hope for is that you don’t lose.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Adam Smith

There are far, far too many guns in this country.

Adam Smith
U.S. Representative (WA-9)
January 29, 2013
Rep. Smith visits Bellevue High, discusses gun control and I-502
[And if there are “too many guns” what does that suggest needs to be done? Get rid of many of them, of course!

This is my representative in congress.

I have some work to do.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dan M. Peterson

The national law enforcement organization PoliceOne conducted its Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey between March 4 and March 13, 2013, receiving 15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes. Respondents were asked, “Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds would reduce violent crime?” PoliceOne Survey, Question 6. The results were overwhelming: 95.7% (14,013) of the respondents said “no,” only 2.7% (391) said “yes,” and 1.6% (238) were unsure. This extraordinary consensus by law enforcement professionals that even a nationwide ban on magazines will not reduce violent crime is in stark contrast to the State’s position that banning magazines already possessed by law-abiding citizens is somehow a solution to violent crime.

Dan M. Peterson
January 12, 2018
No. 17-56081
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA DUNCAN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LAW ENFORCEMENT GROUPS AND STATE AND LOCAL FIREARMS RIGHTS GROUPS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
Page 18
An alternate copy of the brief is here.
[The referenced survey is here. An alternate copy of the survey is here.

We have the facts on our side. We have the police on our side. We have the U.S. Constitution on our side. And most importantly we have the moral philosophy on our side.

It’s time we politically crushed those who dare to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms and prosecute the perpetrators.—Joe]

Law enforcement say they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws!

I stumbled across a survey of police officers taken in 2013 on gun policy (back up copy here). Interesting. Very interesting. There were “15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes.”

Here are some highlights:

5. What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic firearms, termed by some as “assault weapons,” would have on reducing violent crime?

                                                                                                                                     Response     Response                                                                                                                                       Percent            Count
 

Significant

 

 

   clip_image002[4]                                                                                                    1.6%

 

227
 

Moderate

 

 

   clip_image004[4]                                                                                               6.0%

 

885
 

None

 

 

   clip_image006[4]                              71.0%

 

10,397
 

Negative

 

 

   clip_image008[4]                                                                               20.5%

 

3,004
 

Unsure

 

 

   clip_image010[4]                                                                                                     0.9%

129

                                                                                                                    answered question        14,642

 

6. Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?

                                                                                                                                    Response Response

                                          Percent    Count

Yes

 

   clip_image002[6]                                                                                                2.7%

 

391

No

 

   clip_image004[6]   95.7%

 

14,013
 

Unsure

 

   clip_image006[6]                                                                                                1.6%

238
                                                                                                                        answered question   14,642


7. Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?

                                                                                                                                    Response    Response

                                                                                                                                      Percent         Count

 

Yes

 

 

   clip_image002[8]                                                                                     11.5%

 

 

1,684

 

 

No

 

 

   clip_image004[8]                  79.7%

 

 

11,663

 

 

Unsure

 

 

   clip_image006[8]                                                                                          8.8%

 

 

1,295

 

                                                                                                            answered question              14,642

 

11. Do you support the concept of a national database tracking all legal gun sales?

 

 

                                                                                                                              Response
                                                                                                                               Percent

Response
  Count

 

Yes

 

 

   clip_image002[10]                                                                   23.0%

 

 

3,334

 

 

No

 

 

   clip_image004[10]                     70.0%

 

 

10,155

 

 

Unsure

 

 

   clip_image006[10]                                                                                     7.1%

 

 

1,026

 

                                                                                                                    answered question

  14,515

 

19. Do you support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable?

 

 

 

                                                                                                                         Response
Percent

Response
Count

 

Yes, without question and without further
restrictions

 

 

   clip_image002[4]91.3%

 

 

12,968

 

 

No,
only law enforcement officers should carry
firearms

 

 

   clip_image004[4]                                                                    4.1%

 

 

586

 

 

Unsure/Neutral

 

 

   clip_image006[4]                                                                   4.5%

 

 

646

 

                                                                                                                    answered question

14,200


22. Considering the particulars of recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora, what level of impact do you think a legally-armed citizen could have made? Choose the statement that you feel is most accurate:

                                                                                                            Response  Response

                                                                                                                Percent      Count

Innocent casualties would likely have been avoided altogether

 

   clip_image002[6]                                                                               6.2%

 

865

Casualties would likely have been reduced

 

   clip_image004[6]     80.0%

 

11,215

There would have been no difference in outcome

 

   clip_image006[6]                                                                                 4.1%

 

568

An active gunfight might have resulted in greater loss of innocent  lives

 

   clip_image008[4]                                                                                5.5%

 

767

Unsure or prefer not to answer

 

   clip_image010[4]                                                                                 4.3%

 

607

                                                                                                         answered question              14,022

This was what I found most interesting:

14. What is your opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions?

                                                                                                          Response      Response

                                                                                                             Percent            Count

 

Very Favorable

 

 

   clip_image002                                           48.8%

 

7,004
 

Favorable

 

 

   clip_image004                                                                      22.2%

 

3,181
 

Unfavorable

 

 

   clip_image006                                                                                     9.6%

 

 

1,382

 

 

Very unfavorable

 

 

   clip_image008                                                                                        7.2%

 

 

1,029

 

 

Unsure/Neutral

 

 

   clip_image010                                                                                  12.2%

 

1,753

                                                                                                          answered question              14,349

 

15. If you were Sheriff or Chief, how would you respond to more restrictive gun laws?

                                                                                                           Response      Response

                                                                                                             Percent            Count

 

Not enforce and join in the public, vocal opposition effort

 

 

   clip_image012                                         44.9%

 

 

6,440

 

 

Not enforce and quietly lead agency in opposite direction

 

 

   clip_image014                                                                    17.2%

 

2,468
 

Enforce and publicly support the proposed legislation

 

 

   clip_image016                                                                              7.9%

 

1,132
 

Enforce and quietly lead agency in support of legislation

 

 

   clip_image018                                                                           10.0%

 

 

1,440

 

 

Unsure

 

 

   clip_image020                                                                  20.0%

 

 

2,869

 

                                                                                                          answered question              14,349

Over 70% have a favorable opinion to law enforcement not enforcing more restrictive gun law!

Over 60% would not enforce more restrictive gun laws if they were Sherriff or Chief! Less that 20% say they would definitely enforce more restrictive gun laws!

Tell this to the politicians who claim to represent you.

Keep this in mind when you consider your response to more restrictive gun laws.

Quote of the day—Todd Herman

Senate Bill 6146 and its House companion, HB 2666, would allow local governments — cities and counties — to determine their own gun regulation laws. With this passed, Seattle will sprint toward a massive and expensive over-reach for gun control in Washington state by attempting to ban all guns.

This will accomplish several things. The Seattle City Council will enjoy virtue signaling again; they will please their base of genital-hat wearing, business-hating, permanent adolescents. They will spend massive amounts of taxpayer money and they will create record spikes in gun purchases and massive donations to pro self-defense groups. Lastly, City Attorney Pete Holmes, who loves heroin use in Seattle, may get a free trip to Washington D.C. to lose in front of the Supreme Court.

Todd Herman
January 15, 2018
Washington gun control: Dems and Inslee play games
[You might think “ban all guns” is an exaggeration. But remember, Seattle already bans the carrying of slingshots and Airsoft guns. Do you think they will find real guns any more palatable?

Even if they don’t ban the possession of everything except the home possession of the exact model of gun Heller took home in Washington D.C. you can safely bet the result will be an extreme chilling effect on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right. See also this blog post comparing gun ownership in the U.S. to the plight of Jews in 1931 Germany.—Joe]

Anti-gun bills in Washington State

I received an email from Firearms Policy Coalition this morning:

The
State Senate Law and Justice Committee is
going
to hear FIVE anti-gun bills THIS MORNING!

The
myriad of anti-2A legislation that this would bring is devastating.

  1. SB 6146 would allow local mayors and city governments
    run ramshod over your 2A rights.
  2. SB 6049 would ban any magazine that holds over 10
    rounds.
  3. SB 5463 would hold gun owners criminally liable for a
    thief breaking into their home.
  4. SB 5992 is the ridiculous “Trigger Activation Device”
    ban that would effectively outlaw most firearms accessories.
  5. SB 5444 which is the crown jewel of gun control:
    Washington’s “Assault Weapons” Ban.

We need to take action on these bills
NOW!

Stop These Anti-Gun
Bills!

There’s
very little time left for us to make our voices heard and block
them!

Send
a message to your legislators and tell them to OPPOSE SB 6146, SB 6049, SB 5463, SB 5992, and SB 5444 today!

If you click on their links it will take you to a web page that allows you to easily send letters to your Washington State legislative creatures.

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing. If you have been living in a world where outcomes are everything, you may have a very hard time understanding bureaucratic thinking or practices.

Thomas Sowell
November 27, 2003
Random Thoughts
[And so it is with the bureaucracies associated with gun ownership and explosives storage.—Joe]

Why are anti-gun people so violent?

From New Hampshire:

State Rep. Katherine Rogers, D-Concord, pleaded guilty to assault and was sentenced on Friday in Concord District Court in connection with a confrontation last year with well-known gun-rights advocate Susan Olsen.

The misdemeanor charge stems from an exchange between Rogers and Olsen during a recount of ballots for a state Senate seat in November 2016. Rogers was charged in August.
Olsen was allegedly sitting next to Rogers when Olsen asked Rogers to move the ballots closer. Olsen says that was when Rogers grabbed her and hit her on the side of her head.

And we have more details here:

Olsen stated that she said to Rogers, “If you strike me again, I will have you arrested.” She alleged that Rogers, a former county attorney, countered, “in a low, mocking, angry whisper,” something to the effect of “Hit me. I know you want to. Go ahead. Hit me.”

Olsen claimed that Rogers was “smirking” while she was speaking and then, reportedly leaned in further, “sounding almost like she was daring me,” and allegedly stated, “I know what you want to do. You want to shoot me.”

One of the signs of certain personality disorders is that they think they can read the minds of other people (ask me in person about some of my experiences with this). I strongly suspect a large number of anti-gun people have mental issues.

Why are these people so violent? Oh, I remember now. It’s in their nature.

Quote of the day—Tyler Yzaguirre

The only people who benefit from stricter gun control laws are criminals. That’s why states and cities across America should be looking for other, more promising ways to reduce crime.

Tyler Yzaguirre
January 7, 2018
To reduce shootings, look for better ideas beyond gun control
[The criminals are both the obvious robbers and thugs as well as the not quite as obvious politicians who lust after power.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Larry Pratt

We don’t need any opinion from the ATF to tell us what “shall not be infringed” means. It means, among other things, there should be no ATF.  We don’t have a Bureau of Speech and Thought Control because that would be as unconstitutional as the ATF. Every day that agency exists is another day the federal government violates the Constitution.

Larry Pratt
Executive Director Emeritus Gun Owners of American
December 29, 2017
Gun Owners of America: Stop Funding the ATF and They’ll Leave Our Bump Stocks Alone
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Let’s open another front

In the last twenty years most of the progress we have made in the gun rights movement has been in the domain of self-defense. This is our strongest point. We now have concealed carry in nearly all states and even in Washington D.C. with Constitutional Carry (called “Vermont Carry” when I first got involved in the movement) making good progress.

Alan Korwin explains there is another front we can open on the war with the anti-gun forces using our strongest weapon:

The Gun-Free Zone Liability Act of 2018

  • Improving American Safety and Security
  • Eliminating Bias and Prejudice
  • Restoring Constitutional Values
  • Dropping the Pretense: “We don’t want your kind eating here.”

Establishes liability for harm caused by criminal conduct, when such conduct is wholly or partially enabled by limiting an individual’s right or ability to self defense.

We are far better off making the anti-gun people defend their weakest positions rather than let them attack with their strongest weapons. Both sides have limited resources. Make them expend their resources on defense rather than on offense.

Quote of the day—Michael Z. Williamson

A handful of effective assassinations a year would make the Ruling Class aware that the ultimate democratizer is death, and that the constituents they claim to represent expect results, or preferably, inaction, to endless blather followed by pointless regulation and jackbootery.

Michael Z. Williamson
December 26, 2017
Why America Needs More Violence
[I prefer trials, but one of the more persuasive counter arguments is that those of the Ruling Class are not going to subject themselves to a trial when they know everyone is guilty.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Leah Libresco

I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Leah Libresco
October 3, 2017
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
[Leah Libresco is a statistician and former news writer at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. The three months she and her colleagues spent analyzing the deaths of people who died via gunshot wounds arrived at conclusions most gun owners had arrived at decades ago.

So, why do the politicians propose such nonsensical policies? It’s about the control of gun owners.

See also Quote of the day—Ramesh Ponnuru.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James B. Jacobs

The SAFE Act succeeded in making a big political splash. It generated widespread and intense protest by gun owners and mobilized Second Amendment advocates and advocacy groups. In 2014, Governor Andrew Cuomo was reelected by a much diminished majority and Republicans regained control of the State Senate. This demonstrated that even in a very blue state like New York, gun owners are a significant constituency, one that punches above its weight because it includes so many one-issue voters. In the legislature, Democrats continue to introduce new gun control bills at the rate of about 50 per year, while Republicans regularly introduce bills to repeal or at least scale back the SAFE Act. Neither side currently has any chance of actually passing new legislation.

The SAFE Act’s impact on gun crime, suicides and accidents has never been seriously assessed, although both gun control proponents and gun rights advocates make extravagant claims. In truth, there seems little likelihood that the SAFE Act has had much, if any, effect since it has been only partially implemented, almost completely unenforced, and widely ignored.  Its various provisions are easily circumvented.

James B. Jacobs
December 19, 2017
Assault Rifles and The Impact of New York State’s SAFE Act
[It’s a very factual article with near zero emotional content. I like it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jonathan Walder

When your proposals never would have stopped the massacre that inspired the proposal, it makes it very clear that the proposals are not made in good faith. As we’ve seen, the problem lies not with the private sale exception, but with the fact that the NICS checks are not particularly effective. Fix that before you start passing unenforceable laws that require drug dealers to run background checks on other drug dealers.

Jonathan Walder
December 14, 2017
Comment to SANDY HOOK ANNIVERSARY: THESE ARE THE GUN CONTROL LAWS THAT HAVE FAILED SINCE THE NEWTOWN SHOOTING
[“Fix that”? I don’t think it is fixable. Well, maybe getting rid of NICS and spending the money on something more productive might be considered a “fix”.

Prosecuting violent criminals would seem to be a good alternative.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Feinblatt @JohnFeinblatt

As a package, “Fix NICS” would keep guns from domestic abusers — while “Concealed Carry Reciprocity” would force states to allow people to carry concealed guns in public even if they are domestic abusers, have other dangerous histories, or lack even the most basic safety training to carry concealed guns in public.

John Feinblatt @JohnFeinblatt
President of Everytown for Gun Safety
December 8, 2017
NRA hijacks first bipartisan gun bill in years. Now it’s too dangerous to pass.
[There is a reason no one ever says anti-gun people are smart.

Here we have one of these mental midgets apparently unable to avoid asserting two incompatible conclusions in the same sentence. If Fix NICS keeps guns from domestic abusers, because they are prohibited from firearms possession, then how can CCR force states to allow something Fix NICS prevented?

This sort of thing happens so frequently we have a name for it. It’s called Peterson Syndrome. Logical thought is beyond their capability.

I wish we could just laugh these idiots out of the political arena but unfortunately there are too many people with these type of mental issues.—Joe]

Quote of the day—NRA

Despite scare tactics by the bill’s opponents, concealed-carry licensees as a group have proven to be more law-abiding than the general population and even the police. We are on the eve of passing the most expansive piece of self-defense legislation in the history of Congress.

NRA
December 6, 2017
House approves concealed-carry reciprocity, gun bill faces challenge in Senate
[The first sentence is factual and verifiable. See, for example, Comparing conviction rates between police and concealed carry permit holders.

The second sentence is somewhat subjective but I am in agreement with it.—Joe]