We used to fall into this trap as advocates when reporters would ask, ‘What would have stopped this shooting?’ We’d be trying our very best to say, ‘This policy would have.’ And that was the wrong answer because it’s not true. There’s no one policy that’s going to stop any shooting—it takes a multitude of solutions. Many times our movement would play into the NRA’s defeatist…attitude.
August 21, 2019
Trump Thinks Background Checks Won’t Stop Shootings. He’s Wrong.
[Although isn’t not in the form of a direct quote Malte is also credited with:
For their part, gun control activists have learned that it’s better to steer clear of the debate over what caused a particularly horrific shooting, explains Brian Malte, who was a senior official at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence—now known as Brady United—in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre.
What I conclude from this article is significantly different from what the author and those interviewed conclude.
What I conclude is that they admit to knowing that the “solutions” they push in response to a mass shooting could not possibly have prevented those deaths. They push for them anyway.
They are admitting they are not stupid. They are admitting they are not ignorant. They are admitting that it is a deliberate infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms with no possibility of reducing the harm they claim to be so concerned about. They are admitting they are evil.
This can and should be used at their trials.—Joe]
There was, predictably, very little meaningful blowback on the United States Marshals Service or any other parts of the federal government. The Ruby Ridge Task Force delivered a highly redacted 542-page report. And the six marshals involved in the initial shootout were given the highest commendations awarded by the United States Marshal Service.
Siege at Ruby Ridge
[A similar thing happened with the Waco massacre. The ATF agents who attacked and killed innocent people were given medals and a memorial was created for the agents who died when their victims fought back.
I would like to suggest justice would have been better served if their estates, including their viable organs, had been auctioned off, the proceeds given to the survivors of the Branch Davidians, and then their heads mounted on pikes in front of ATF headquarters for a few months.—Joe]
An exhaustive new study from the CDC reveals that the leading cause of gun violence in America is your political opponents. Researchers looked at a number of potential causes of gun violence such as mental health, family situation, cultural shifts, gun laws, rap music, videogames, sugar consumption, and the actual gunman, but by and large, the most prominent cause of gun violence was what most already suspected. The fault lies with those who you disagree with politically.
The Babylon Bee
August 5, 2019
Study Shows Leading Cause Of Gun Violence Is Those You Disagree With Politically
[Yes, it’s satire. Still, a disinterested observer could listen to both sides of the issue and arrive at the above conclusion.—Joe]
YOU NEED TO GROW A PAIR AND STOP GETTING YOUR LACK OF MANHOOD FROM A FIREARM. ITS A PIECE OF METAL, IT DOESN’T DEFINE YOU
CO Independent @COIndependent1
Tweeted on August 5, 2019
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
H/T to less fat Dave @BigFatDave.
We have SCOTUS decisions. They have childish insults.—Joe]
The First and Second Amendments mean exactly what they say. You should be able to express whatever you want and you should be able to own any kind of weaponry you want and can afford. End. Of. Fucking. Story.
Milo Yiannopoulos @m
Via Gab on August 5, 2019
[I think a good case can be made on restrictions for libel, slander, and incitement to riot/violence. But those exceptions doesn’t make for a good sound bite.—Joe]
I would like to see every woman know how to handle guns as naturally as they know how to handle babies.
[H/T to Alex of Ammo.com.
I should have posted this on Oakley’s birthday, last Tuesday, August 13th. Which also happens to be my dad’s birthday. But, I wasn’t reading all my email and missed this one until last night.—Joe]
Why do we have the 2A.
I direct you to Hong Kong.
Adam, RN @aginorr
Tweeted on August 14, 2019
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
You can’t put anything behind you with these people, because there is nothing to put behind you. It’s all a lie. You are not a racist. Your guns won’t hurt anyone but criminals and aspiring tyrants. And the leftists know it. They know they are spewing skeevy slanders, and if you give in on this one – handing over your AR-15 and hanging your head over prejudices you don’t possess – the libs and their newsprint lackeys will just club you with another set of grievances that you can only atone for through further submission.
It will never end. They will always hate you. Always. Nothing you can do will change that. Nothing. So get used to it and invite them to pound sand.
August 8, 2019
They Will Still Hate You Even If You Disarm
[Via email from Chet.
Stand up to them and tell them the adults are in charge. Temper tantrums from people that act like two year old’s and insults from people that act like they are in Junior High will be dealt with appropriately.—Joe]
While you guys are off stroking your shafts dreaming of some armed rebellion in the downfall of society and you get to be Rambo, the rest of us are moving on with civilization.
Tweeted on July 29, 2019
[I give this an “honorable mention” for an another Markley’s Law Monday because they didn’t mention penis size.
In addition to resorting to childish insults they overlook the fact that The Gun Is Civilization.—Joe].
Swat’em! They’re dead. Now come and arrest me. My defense? I was protecting my children and 500 innocent children & their families. Threaten my kids?! There will be YUGE consequences for open carry. We will ensure it!
Jim Poland @JimPolandcom
Tweeted on August 8, 2019
[This can and should be used at his trial.—Joe]
You think you’ve seen a massacre? Just wait until you surrender your guns to the Government!
Morgan Chambers @Morgxn2001
Tweeted on August 5, 2019
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
If we can’t ban the damn things, then why don’t we raise the purchasing age to like 40?
August 7, 2019
Comment to Heading to El Paso, Trump nixes assault weapons ban
[I still sometimes find it odd that people have no concept of following the law of the land. “…shall not be infringed…” seems so clear and yet someone imagines it means the infringement of a specific enumerated right doesn’t really count if the person is not yet 40 years old.
Keep this in mind when people demand the age for purchase of any gun be raised to 21. The slippery slope is there. If this is allowed then what rationale can there be to resist raising the age to 30, 40, or 90?—Joe]
Items PV3 and PV4 from the CCES involve justifying violence by the inparty to
advance political goals. Terrorism, in other words. PV3 asks about violence today. PV4 asks
for responses if the outparty wins the 2020 presidential election, a hypothetical but realistic
scenario given recent alternation in party control of the presidency. Nine percent of
Republicans and Democrats say that, in general, violence is at least occasionally acceptable. However, when imagining an electoral loss in 2020, larger percentages of both parties
approve of the use of violence – though this increase is greater for Democrats (18 percent
approve) than Republicans (13 percent approve).
Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason
Lethal Mass Partisanship: Prevalence, Correlates, & Electoral Contingencies
[H/T to J.D. Tuccille.
The questions PV1 –> PV4 were as follows:
When, if ever, is it OK for [Own party] to send threatening and intimidating messages to [Opposing party] leaders?
When, if ever, is it OK for an ordinary [Own party] in the public to harass an ordinary [Opposing party] on the Internet, in a way that makes the target feel unsafe4?
How much do you feel it is justified for [Own party] to use violence in advancing their political goals these days?
What if [Opposing party] win the 2020 presidential election? How much do you feel violence would be justified then?
4 “Unsafe” was replaced with “frightened” in the Nielsen survey.
I’m surprised by two things in this study.
- The number of people supporting violent threats and action is higher than I would have thought. I would have expected it to be not over one or two percent for any of the questions for either party. Sure, there are a lot of people advocating violence, but they are just a noisy, extreme, minority, right? Well… maybe not such a small minority after all.
- I would have expected a much bigger difference between the Democrats and the Republicans with the Democrats leading by at least a factor of two on every question. Aren’t Republicans the one who follow the process and the rules more so than the outcome?
That nearly one out of six Democrats and one out eight Republicans think violence is justified if the other party wins the presidency in 2020 I’m seriously hoping for a Libertarian win (yeah, right, only if the Democrats and Republicans kill each other off at some extremely drastic rate prior to the election) and planning on avoiding what probably will be “hot spots”.
With that high of percentage of violent people available to surround themselves with people are going to find the courage to “take action”. Regardless of who wins, the 2020 election could just be the spark that ignites CWII.—Joe]
Can gun-owners be faulted in believing when a liberal man marries a liberal woman, it’s a same-sex marriage?
July 22, 2019
Henny Penny Builds A “Safe” Gun
[While probably not strictly true it’s certainly directionally true.—Joe]
You are “the depraved evil” we need to eradicate.
Reza Aslan @rezaaslan
Tweeted on August 4, 2019
[This was in response to this tweet:
We need to come together, America.
Finger-pointing, name-calling & screaming with your keyboards is easy, yet…
It solves not a single problem, saves not a single life.
Working as one to understand depraved evil & to eradicate hate is everyone’s duty. Unity.
Let’s do this.
Kellyanne Conway @KellyannePolls
August 4, 2019
What’s even more telling about the way this person thinks is this response when someone points out Aslan is “calling for the murder of @KellyannePolls”:
I understand why a gun freak would read this as threatening violence. It’s how you all think.
How can someone not conclude that someone calling for the eradication of another person or group of people is not a threat of violence? Ever read a speech given by a genocidal tyrant? That is exactly the type of language they use.
The answer is that to the political left even physical violence committed by them is considered “free speech” while insults against the political left are considered “violent rhetoric”.
Adults need to stand up and put these type of people in their place. Don’t buy his books, don’t take his classes, and use him as an example of present day people advocating for geocide.—Joe]
Yet another lifelong member of the micro penis club chimes in. With yet another totally lame & stupid comment.
Paul Quinn @PQuinn2007
Tweeted on July 18, 2019
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
H/T to The Original SPQR in 3D @SPQRzilla.
The best response as of the time of creating this post was from s a hinchcliffe @SAHinchcliffe. She said:
Yet another misogynist exposes his Pro-Rape, Pro-Domestic Violence support
I have nothing to add to that.—Joe]
The grand fallacy of the political left is that decisions are better made by third parties who pay no price for being wrong. Much of the 20th century has been taken up proving how tragically mistaken that theory is, all around the world. But those who want to be the third-party decision-makers remain undaunted.
March 6, 1999
THOMAS SOWELL: Back again – random thoughts
[This is true in economics, personal ethics, self-defense choices, and all but a few special cases mostly covered by the enumerated powers given to the U.S. government in the constitution.
At this point I’m convinced it’s only a fallacy or mistaken belief on the part of the useful and professional idiots. Those who are smart enough to rise and retain political power have to know the truth.
Evidence for making the case for the 21st century will be little different from the 20th is Venezuela.—Joe]
Disgusting anti-government violent rhetoric from Cherokee Guns in North Carolina. Threats against members of Congress, particularly minority members are and it is driven by the president’s racial rhetoric This is dangerous!!!
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Gun shop billboard mocks “the Squad,” calling four congresswomen “idiots
[This is the “Disgusting anti-government violent rhetoric”:
There is nothing “anti-government”,“violent”, or a threat in this.
It’s to be expected. Anti-gun people lie all the time. It’s part of their culture.—Joe]
the sad reality of the encryption debate is that after 30 years it is finally over: dead at the hands of Facebook. If the company’s new on-device content moderation succeeds it will usher in the end of consumer end-to-end encryption and create a framework for governments to outsource their mass surveillance directly to social media companies, completely bypassing encryption.
In the end, encryption’s days are numbered and the world has Facebook to thank.
July 26, 2019
The Encryption Debate Is Over – Dead At The Hands Of Facebook
[Via email from Chet who referred me to Slashdot, which linked to Bruce Schneier, who linked to the article quoted above.
The article says WhatsApp will be, or perhaps already has been, compromised by Facebook. Moving to Signal is probably warranted but that is no guarantee of security. Furthermore, I think blaming Facebook for this is a little unfair.
Back when I was working for Pacific Northwest National Labs I suggested the government could add code to whatever O/S a particular set of terrorists were fond of using and then “upgrade” their phone to send duplicate copies of messages, phone calls, and even record conversations when the phone was believed to be “asleep”. To the best of my knowledge the suggestion went nowhere. But that doesn’t mean I was just very late to the game and there was no need to tell me it had already been done.
Similar things can be done to your Windows and/or Apple devices. You upgrade your computers and other communications devices all the time to guard against security vulnerabilities. But how do you know you aren’t also installing a custom version of the O/S dictated to Apple, Google, and/or Microsoft, by government spies?
If you want communication security you will need to make sure your O/S is secure as well as the applications and the channels it transmits over. It’s not an easy thing to ensure.—Joe]
Overarching, and across the world, is the fight over globalism. I’ve said in the end globalism will win, because it’s being driven by technological change at its root. The struggle isn’t whether we have transnational systems where the nation state plays a less important role: that will happen. The struggle is whether globalism will be a democratic movement that is controlled by the people for the people’s benefit, or whether it will be a aristocratic movement that benefits the transnational aristocrats. It’s been set up as the latter, and the people are, across the globe, calling foul.
The struggle over the RKBA is downstream of that fight, but what we’re seeing I think fits in the overall struggle. It’s a theme repeated throughout history that aristocrats do not like their subjects being armed. So it was practically inevitable that when the people started asserting themselves against this cultivated global order, the counter-reaction was the aristocracy returning to their traditional fears and anxieties about armed peasants. That anxiety is acting itself out among the pool of Democratic candidates.
July 31, 2019
What Money Can Buy
[He has a valid point.
The counter point is that 100 million people with 300+ million guns and billions of rounds of ammo can make themselves heard and respected…if they have the will to do so.—Joe]