Quote of the day—Daniel Greenfield

The left exists to destroy you. It does not seek to co-exist with you. Its existence would lose all meaning. Any common ground will be used to temporarily achieve a goal before the useful idiots are kicked to the curb and denounced as bigots who are holding back progress.

The purpose of power is power. The left is not seeking to achieve a set of policy goals before kicking back and having a beer. The policy goals are means of destroying societies, nations and peoples before taking over. If you allow it a policy goal, it will ram that goal down your throat. It will implement it as abusively as it can possibly can before it moves on to the next battle.

It’s not about gay marriage. It’s not about cakes. It’s about power.
More fundamentally it’s about the difference in human nature between the people who want to be left alone and those who want power over others.

You can’t work out a truce with tyrants. You can give in or stand up to them. There’s nothing else.

Daniel Greenfield
June 30, 2015
No Truce With The Left
[Via an email from Ry.

While at the Washington State Steel Championship a couple weeks ago a few of us were talking about something closely related. “Why do they want gun control? They know it doesn’t make people safer. They know almost all the mass shootings have been in ‘gun-free zones’. What is the real reason to keep pushing for gun control?”

Bill, who sometimes comments here, said, “I read your blog. You know the reason.” Another guy and his wife said essentially the same thing and continued with, “We were just talking about this the other day. What we don’t get is what do they think they are going to do if they get their way? Their lives, as well as ours will be worse off then. Everyone loses.”

But as Greenfield points out, to them it’s not about money, physical possessions, or quality of life. It’s about power and control. There are people that crave power. There are people that who are frightened if “someone isn’t in charge”.

I can sort of understand wanting power even I don’t really crave it myself. Power can silence your enemies, bring you wealth, give you status, bring you respect, and help preserve your health compared to those with lesser power.

It is more difficult to understand those who are frightened if “someone isn’t in charge”. But keep in mind that at the end of the civil war there were slaves who were frightened by the prospect of freedom. Slavery was all they had ever known and they were frightened of freedom. Today we have people who crave a form of slavery because they see it as providing security. Samuel Adams quote from 1776 is my response to them.

My response to those who crave power and control is to remember that today is July 4th and that has meaning to me and they will be well advised to understand the significance of that in their quest for power.—Joe]

Quote of the day—AWR Hawkins

According to Suffolk University, in addition to not wanting to hear about gun control in 2016, a majority of Americans do not believe increasing gun control via expanded background checks will curb mass violence. Fifty-six percent of respondents said it would not, while only 40 percent of respondents said it would.

This makes sense, when you consider that Roof allegedly purchased his gun via a background check at a Charleston gun store.

AWR Hawkins
June 30, 2015
Survey: Majority of Americans Not Interested in Gun Control for 2016
[Makes sense? It would make sense if it were 95% instead of 56%. That 40% think expanded background checks would “curb mass violence” when the example immediately in front of them is completely counter to that hypothesis is proof of their inability to draw even the simplest of logical conclusions.

This is a demonstration the fact that for a very large percentage of the population they, at best, make reasoning sounds. The concept of reason is completely alien to them. This is really frightening to me. I would expect dogs, cats, dolphins, and some birds, let alone all primates, to have that good of reasoning skills with similar problems. Apparently humans, on the whole, can do little better than chance.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jo Ed

Accept the fact that freedom is risky. If it weren’t risky, it wouldn’t be freedom.

Accept the fact that the very worst mass murders were not committed by gunmen, but arsonists, bombers, and pilots.

Jo Ed
June 29, 2015
Comment to LETTER: What gun control measures would work?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jonathan Hutson

Through simple, common-sense solutions, supported by nearly all US Americans, including the vast majority of gun owners, the Brady Campaign plans to realize the audacious but achievable goal of cutting gun deaths in half in the United States by 2025.

Jonathan Hutson
Chief communications officer for the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence
June 30, 2015
Is Strict Gun Control the Best Way to Prevent Shootings?
Another Massacre Begs What Can Be Done

[It’s fascinating to read his entire answer to the question. He writes entirely about how great and wonderful background checks are. But not once does he say they would have prevented the Charleston massacre. Not once does he even hint at any evidence that “simple, common-sense solutions” will cut “gun deaths” by any amount let alone half in the next 10 year.

His entire response is an exercise in avoiding the question asked. There are two possibilities here:

  1. He knows gun control, of any type, will not prevent the shootings that make headlines and he is deliberately avoiding the question.
  2. He has mental problems similar to Peterson Syndrome. He literally sees and hears something very different from what others write and say. He brain is malfunctioning and he is incapable of rational thought.

In either case Hutson is making it clear to everyone that he and his organization are either malicious or have crap for brains and are to be ignored in the political debate.

Because of the evidence supplied by Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson, for which Peterson Syndrome is named, and the actions of their lawyers, I’m inclined to believe crap for brains is a requirement for everyone aligned with them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michelle Ye Hee Lee

Lawmakers have a responsibility to check out the facts in the reports they use, especially ones that come from advocacy groups. If they are aware there are definitions that are disputed, or that are defined in other ways depending on who uses them, it is incumbent on lawmakers to clarify exactly what they are talking about and not mislead the public. In particular, lawmakers should rely more on official government statistics, such as from the FBI, rather than misleading metrics cobbled together by interest groups.

We wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios. But this is a definition of “school shooting” that was widely disputed a year ago, and lawmakers need to present information — especially for such a controversial topic as gun control — in a clear, responsible and accurate way. Murphy’s failure to do so tipped the rating to Four.

Michelle Ye Hee Lee
June 29, 2015
Has there been one school shooting per week since Sandy Hook?
[Gun control advocates lie because it is in their nature and they have to if they are to have any hope of achieving their goals. That people at The Washington Post are pointing out their lies is a really big deal.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Lords Taint @UtopiasTaint

@wallsofthecity @tesstoro like the irrational fear that only subsides by carrying a penis extension, I mean binky, wooos I meant gun

The Lords Taint‏ @UtopiasTaint
Tweeted on January 18, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Quote of the day—A Reader

I think genocides were/are actually useful to the planet’s preservation. Imagine if all these ppl would have not died how much more pollution there would be? I did follow this statement by ” yes genocide is horrific…but” I honestly know that genocides are terrible things however I actually don’t feel bad for these humans that were killed.  I don’t care  at all….. I know it’s wrong as society thinks it’s wrong but I actually think it’s not entirely a bad thing….it has its positives?

A Reader
June 21, 2015
[Yes. These people exist.

And the interesting thing is that it doesn’t take very many of them to implement a genocide. I think it was in Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust that I found it was something like only 2% of the population were directly involved in the genocide. That can explain why gun control is an essential component of every genocide. If that 2% is attempting to exterminate 20% of the population and half of the intended victims are armed then that means the intended victims outnumber the bad guys by about five to one. Even with an equipment advantage it’s going to be “challenging” to put those “reluctant” victims in the boxcars without losing a lot of bad guys. Which tends to make them “reluctant” to proceed.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jerry Larson/The Associated Press

Six witnesses interviewed by the AP describe a melee that began with a few pistol shots but was dominated by semiautomatic gunfire.

some officers carry semiautomatic weapons, which fire a single shot with every pull of the trigger and automatically reload between shots.

Jennifer Cicolani, of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, noted that a semiautomatic gun can shoot more bullets in less time than a small-caliber weapon.

Jerry Larson/The Associated Press
June 6, 2015
Semiautomatic gunfire dominated Waco biker shootout, several witnesses say
[There is so much crap for brains demonstrated here that I don’t even want to think about it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Windy Wilson

So, now with words having no meaning until the court interprets them for the masses, we do not know what any law means until it comes back from the high priests holy of holies. The Senate and Congress no longer need the high salaries they get, nor do they need to be in session more than a week or so out of the year. They no longer need staffs of statute writers, since all they need to do is give the high priests of law a general request. Perhaps the title, and some language analogous to asking a tailor for a fully custom suit. It took over 100 years for the Administrative State to swallow Congress through the actions of this administration, I don’t think the next step, eliminating Congress as legislature will take as long.

Windy Wilson
June 25, 2015
Comment to Quote of the day—Robert W. Tyson
[This was in reference to the SCOTUS decision in regards to subsides for Obamacare.

Everything I have to say about this ruling Ry and I have said before in regards to a previous Obamacare SCOTUS decision. It’s good to have clarity.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert W. Tyson

Former supreme courts could just as easily have interpreted that amendment to require gun ownership, be well-regulated and linked to a militia, except for single-shot rifles for hunting.

But that ship has sailed. To unilaterally disarm citizens would only leave them vulnerable to bad guys with guns. The darkness has won. Get used to the bloody carnage. Beelzebub must be gleeful.

Robert W. Tyson
June 23, 2015
Letter: Gun control ship has sailed
[“…courts could just have easily..”? I guess there are people that think that. There is no “original intent”. The words used don’t mean what they say. The courts can just make up whatever they want and insert words like “hunting” that have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

Then Tyson goes on to say citizens can’t be unilaterally disarmed because they would become vulnerable to the bad guys. But then immediately says the current situation with citizens being armed results in “the darkness” having won and “bloody carnage”. But wouldn’t people have been vulnerable to bad guys even if they had been disarmed decades ago?

I think this guy has crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rich Hanlon

74% of gun owners support closing the gun show loophole. Not the subhuman NRA.

Rich Hanlon
June 23, 2015
Comment to Here’s the deal with the Australian gun control law that Obama is talking about
[This is what they think of us. We are subhuman if we don’t support closing a loophole that doesn’t even exist.

There is a reason they describe us as subhuman. It makes it easier to implement their solution to the “gun owner problem”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian Doherty

Certain anti-gun folk seem to sincerely believe that the only reason Second Amendment advocates want to have a gun, or want other people to have the right to have a gun, is because guns are so great at killing people; that a gun not used to kill someone isn’t really worth having. But it isn’t true.

Brian Doherty
June 22, 2015
Gun Rights Advocates Don’t Just Want Guns in Order to Kill Criminals (Believe it Or Not!)
A much-hyped new Violence Policy Center study grossly misses the point about guns’ value in self-defense.
[Doherty points out the straw man almost all of us have encountered with the anti-gun people. It comes in various flavors, such as

  • The only thing a gun is good for is killing.
  • Guns are designed to kill.
  • If you own a gun you must want to kill something.

No matter how many times we correct them they keep coming back with the same or essentially the same straw man. And we keep pointing out the data, as Doherty does in his article quoted above, that successful defensive use of firearms seldom involves killing anyone or anything.

So why do they keep attempting to use this straw man when each time they get what appears to be a full mouthful of reality shoved in their face? I believe it is because their minds don’t operate in our reality. They live in their own imagined reality.

I’m reminded of something Richard Feynman observed in one of his books. I think it was a musician friend was teaching Feynman music and Feynman was teaching the musician physics. After a few weeks the musician told Feynman, “When you say you know something, you really mean it.”

What this means to me is that there a lot of people who believe knowledge is a personal thing. One person’s beliefs, knowledge, and opinions are just as valid as anyone else’s. This is emphatically not true. But yet I am certain there are a great many people who believe this. These people cannot understand facts and logical trains of thought. You can no more teach them logic than you can teach colors to someone blind from birth.

Personal interactions with these people should elicit your sympathy. Their public claims of relevance should be greeted with mockery.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James Burdick

I believe he’s never seen a tough guy close up, or a drunk or a tough guy drunk on liquor or pcp. So I know he has no idea what he’s doing, but that he also probably has a very tiny wee-wee, which explains the gun.

James Burdick
June 15, 2015
James Burdick: My Visit to Costco in Bloomfield Hills and the Gun-Toting Twerp
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via Sean Sorrentino on Facebook.

What I found most interesting about the article was that Burdick constructed a fantasy world around someone open carrying then started insulting the guy based upon the fantasy he had created. There were similar things in the comments too. What they “believe” is more important than reality. There is a technical term for that. Crazy.

I just call it crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John M. Snyder

These trying times demand that traditionalist Americans develop, defend and promote a manifesto of freedom

Let us fight for the right to life, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to be free from the abomination of same-sex marriage.

John M. Snyder
June 16, 2015
Manifesto of Freedom Needed
[I don’t think that word means what you think it means John. Both laws against abortion and “the right to be free from the abomination of same-sex marriage” would appear to require the use of the force of government. That’s not “freedom”.

You aren’t helping when you don’t even make sense.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jewel Staite ‏@JewelStaite

Maybe that last tweet wasn’t clear enough: let’s take all the guns, lock them in a box, and drop it in the middle of the fucking ocean.

Jewel Staite ‏@JewelStaite
Tweeted on June 18, 2015
[She deleted the tweet above a short time later. Here is what she said about it:

Had to delete a tweet cuz someone whose name rhymes with Dadam Raldwin pointed his nutjob followers in my direction. The crazy be out today!

That would be Adam Baldwin who said:

@JewelStaite Would the “taking” be worth the bloodshed necessary to “take” all of the guns?

While I doubt that she has been convinced of the error of her thinking she has probably been harassed enough over this and it wouldn’t do any good to further aggravate her.

Think of it this way. In this case we have the police and the military on our side of the issue, as well as nine Supreme Court Justices who agree the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The anti-gun side has someone who plays make-believe for a living.

Basically I just wanted to remind you to never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Firearms Policy‏@gunpolicy

How do you “prevent” people from violating laws? You can’t –there is no “pre-crime” division.

Firearms Policy‏ @gunpolicy
Tweeted on June 18, 2015
[I have tried to say the same thing over the years but this expresses it so much better.

You know The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is nonsensical simply by it’s name.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Contentious Otter

Thank you for demonstrating the criminal mentality of conservative gun owners. Your comment was an excellent demonstration of how all conservative gun owners are guilty of illegally trafficking in firearms, and confirms a recent study which stated that over half of all rural white males who identify as conservatives have lent, gifted or sold a firearm to a friend or family member who was not able to own a gun because of past criminal convictions.

The Contentious Otter
June 10, 2015
Comment to Sensible Gun Regulation Isn’t Unconstitutional
[This is what they think of you. If you are a conservative gun owner you have a “criminal mentality”. And “all conservative gun owners are guilty of illegally trafficking in firearms.”

It’s hard for me to imagine that people like this exist. Who could believe this? Let alone not be embarrassed to say it out loud?

It’s quite apparent that either this person is living in some alternate universe and/or they have crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Elizabeth Price Foley

Alumni of the UC system should immediately cease wasting their charitable dollars on such an anti-intellectual, fascist institution. And any intelligent young person should avoid it like the plague. The system has clearly been captured by individuals with micro-brains possessing micro-tolerance and micro-confidence. It is–like too many institutions of “higher” learning–a place where critical thinking goes to die.

Elizabeth Price Foley
June 16, 2015
[Examples from the “faculty training guide” (if they pull that copy I have another here) include:

  • “America is the land of opportunity”
  • “America is a melting pot”
  • “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
  • “Affirmative action is racist.”
  • “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”
  • “When I look at you, I don’t see color.”
  • “I don’t believe in race.”
  • “Gender plays no part in who we hire.”

And my favorite part is from the Fox News story on the training guide, “According to psychological and public health research, micro-aggressions can lead to negative  health consequences including heart disease, diabetes, depression and substance abuse.”

Outward appearances suggest people that came up this must have solved all the other problems in their utopia and had to mine for nuggets in the world’s deepest mines to find the concept of “micro-aggressions” worthy of more than a few milliseconds of their time.

But Occam’s Razor tell us the simpler hypothesis is the most likely to be true. Therefore I have to conclude the real explanation is “crap for brains”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—George M. Lee and John R. Lott

Despite assertions that the benefits from waiting periods and background checks are obvious, the complete lack of empirical studies to support those claims is stark. No evidence is offered that either of these laws reduce violent crime, nor that they reduce overall suicide rates. Even more striking, the discussions that Appellant and amici use are not relevant to the case before the court.

Evidence provided in this brief shows that for at least concealed handgun permit holders, one of the classes of plaintiffs in this case, are demonstratively law-abiding, and that it is unlikely that waiting periods or background checks for additional gun purchases could lower crime rates.

George M. Lee
John R. Lott
June 2, 2015
in her official capacity as the Attorney General of California,

[This is about California having 10-day waiting periods for people purchasing a gun even though they already have one or more existing guns and/or a concealed weapons permit.

You might be interested in reading the whole brief but it can be paraphrased as:

Kamala D. Harris and the supporters of this law must be living in an alternate universe. Not only don’t they have any data to support their half-baked ideas, they aren’t even talking about the topic at hand, and they misconstrue the data they do offer.

And if we were talking about what they want to talk about, which we are not and never were discussing, here is the data which destroys their view and proves they have at best a tenuous grasp on reality.

Lee and Lott were much more polite in their choice of words but that is what they said.—Joe]

Quote of the day—©Wonder Sammon™ @WonderSammon

@goodgreg42 @andreajmarkley @wallsofthecity All I know is that gunowners have tiny cocks. That’s why they spend their life cowering in fear.

©Wonder Sammon™ @WonderSammon
Tweeted on January 16, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a Tweet from Linoge.—Joe]