Quote of the day—Mike Lupica

This isn’t about responsible gun owners. This is about all the slow thinkers, starting with the mouth breathers from the National Rifle Association — the ones who have pimped themselves out to gun manufacturers and prostituted the Second Amendment at the same time — who actually believe that assault-weapons bans and tougher background checks and limits on ammunition are somehow a threat to everything good and decent.

Mike Lupica
December 14, 2015
America continues to protect gun nuts, even though Newtown remains wounded two years after Sandy Hook shooting
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

That is what some people think of us. “Gun nuts”, “slow thinking … mouth breathers from the National Rifle Association.”

I’ll beat he believes we would give up before we could sound out all the words and get to the point where we read, but still not understand, that if he could he would ban the most popular guns in the country. But it is he that is the slow thinker.

He apparently doesn’t care that more people are murdered with hands and feet than are with the type of rifle used to murder children at Sandy Hook. He apparently doesn’t understand that criminals substitute one weapon for another depending upon availability at the time. He apparently doesn’t understand that when some madman is slaughtering first grade children a machete would work just as well as a rifle, doesn’t need to be reloaded, and can be fabricated in your garage from a piece of scrap metal, a piece of wood and a couple of screws.

Mr. Lupica is such a slow thinker that he believes tougher background checks would prevent “the wrong people” from gaining access to firearms yet the evidence shows any high school dropout has easy access to whatever illegal recreational drug they want as well as alcohol.

Mr. Lupica is such a slow thinker that he thinks a ban on America’s most popular gun and limiting ammunition would not run afoul of the Second Amendment.

If Mr. Lupica thinks we are such slow thinkers then why doesn’t he offer to take point when they decide to go house-to-house enforcing the “assault-weapons” bans he is advocating? If he did then we could get some real world data as to who is the slower thinker as to the practicality of such an endeavor.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mr Wiseguy

Sometimes – as sad as it is – only violence stops violence. The next middle-class white kid that wants to go postal should do a service to his country and do it at the NRA headquarters.

Mr Wiseguy
December 16, 2014
Comment to Why Sandy Hook Victims Won’t Win Their Suit Against Bushmaster
[There are two ways to interpret this. One is that Mr. Wiseguy wants such a person to be quickly stopped with a minimal loss of life. The other is Mr. Wiseguy wants the people at NRA headquarters murdered.

I’m inclined to believe the latter interpretation is correct. Otherwise he might have avoided the ambiguity by suggesting the event occur at a police station or a military gun range where the good guys are more likely to be in armor, relatively well trained, and with loaded guns.

Hence, I have to tentatively conclude Mr. Wiseguy is advocating for the murder of NRA employees. You shouldn’t be surprised by this. It’s an inherent part of their nature.—Joe]

Quote of the day—kglnyc

Our society is at fault for allowing people like you and the NRA for creating a national epidemic of gun violence, and one day we will be able to take reasonable legislative actions to control you murderous, greedy, insensitive elements and live freer and more safely.

kglnyc
December 16, 2014
Comment to Why Sandy Hook Victims Won’t Win Their Suit Against Bushmaster
[I’m going to ignore all the factual and logical errors and focus on the really important issue here…

And just what “legislative actions” would normally be taken to control those who are “murderous”?

As I have said before, one might even be able to make the case that the Second Amendment isn’t only not about hunting–it’s about protecting us from people like him.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mike Costanza

Morons with guns are the scourge of this country.

Mike Costanza
December 15, 2014
Comment to Bride, groom bring out the big guns during Washington state rally opposing universal background checks
[This is what they think of you.

And just what do you suppose they think should be done to end the scourge?—Joe]

Quote of the day—westcoast2012

Back ground checks before being allowed to own a gun is just common sense, as is outlawing AK-47’s, but the pro gun movement has always seemed to me to be void of common sense.

westcoast2012
December 14, 2014
Comment to Bride, groom bring out the big guns during Washington state rally opposing universal background checks
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one want to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—BadExampleMan @BadExampleMan

Being called fetishist by someone preferring random slaughter of children to giving up a penis substitue: priceless.

BadExampleMan @BadExampleMan
Tweeted October 25, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Quote of the day—thambi

I have better things to do with my time than listen to stupid, uneducated rednecks.

thambi
December 12, 2014
Comment to A lobbyist resurfaces: The NRA mulls strategies to undermine I-594
[This was in a response to a suggestion they attend a rally against I-594 in Olympia.

This is what they are willing to say about you in public. What they actually think of you is almost for certain more than enough to justify maintaining a firm grip on our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms and regular training.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dave Workman

Just as it is none of the government’s business who peacefully protests in a public setting, First Amendment advocates seem to insist, it is equally none of the government’s business – or anyone else’s – when someone harmlessly exercises the right to keep and bear arms, Second Amendment activists might argue. Do they have a legitimate point?

The Stranger habitually sneers at Second Amendment activists and, exercising the First Amendment right of free speech and the press, clearly advocated placing the “universal background check” restriction on gun owners. The Stranger is a popular alternative newspaper among Seattle’s far left, the folks who overwhelmingly voted for I-594. It was not their right being stepped on.

How many of those attorneys and public defenders and newspaper editorialists voted for I-594? If they don’t understand the parallels between restricting peaceful protest and being photographed by the police, and building records on gun owners, then they shouldn’t be practicing law or pounding keyboards for a living.

Dave Workman
December 12, 2014
Is it time to treat the First Amendment just like the Second?
[Lyle has often said the political left understands how rights are supposed to work. But I think we have sufficient evidence now that is not true. Do you think progressives understand how the First Amendment is supposed to work? Really? If so then explain to me why we are nearly 600 days into the IRS scandal with none of the perpetrators in jail or even indicted?

I do not believe progressives have respect for individual rights. They only claim rights when people engage in activities that advance the cause of the collective. As THE Clint Black tweeted a few days ago:

Your government arms dictators.

Your government arms “rebels”.

Your government arms terrorists.

Your government prefers you unarmed.

How else do you explain this?

Here’s another example: There are about 8000 murders each year in the U.S. that are committed using a firearm. Using the most conservative estimates there are about 80 million gun owners. Assuming the worst case, suppose each of the murders was committed by a different person (way wrong, at Newtown there were 26 murders by just one person) you still end up with the odds of some random (and they are certainly NOT random) gun owner being a murderer in a given year at 0.01%. Yet they insist we should be registered and every time a gun changes hands we should request permission from the government and submit paperwork documenting the exchange. And this is even in those cases where the recipient already owns one or more guns. No rational person can believe this will make society safer so their must be another reason. I can only think of two possible explanations for this behavior:

  1. These people have serious mental defects.
  2. These people have evil intent.

In either case we have only unpleasant options available to us.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Gavin de Becker

No woman should obtain a restraining order unless she believes it will help her circumstance no mater what police may say. The fact that so many of these murderers also commit suicide tells us something. It tells us that refusing to accept rejection is more important to them than life itself. By the time they reach this point are they really going to be deterred by a court order? A glib response is that the temporary restraining order can’t make things worse.

But here’s the rub. The restraining order does hurt by convincing the woman that she is safe. The bottom line is that there is really only one good reason to get a restraining order in the case of wife abuse. And that is that the woman believes the man will honor it and leave her alone.

If a victim or a professional in the system gets a restraining order to stop someone from committing murder they have probably applied the wrong strategy.

Gavin de Becker
The Gift of Fear and Other Survival Signals that Protect Us From Violence
[This is an excellent book. It was recommended to me by Rolf (and here). Ignore the few times Becker drops some anti-gun nonsense into it. With his personal history I almost give him a pass. Everyone I have convinced to read (or listen to) this book have told me it was awesome.

The last sentence it the money quote. If someone is not deterred by the penalties associated with murder you can be absolutely certain they will not be deterred by the penalties associated with the violation of a restraining order. The only method of prevention is to make it physically impossible to commit the murder. This gives us only three options to save the life of the innocent victim:

  1. The perpetrator is incarcerated or executed prior to assault.
  2. The intended victim cannot be found by the perpetrator.
  3. Physical force is used to defend the innocent victim before the assault has caused permanent injury or death.

We do not have a Department of PreCrime so the first option is off the table.

The second option is extremely difficult, expensive, and requires a very challenging change in lifestyle if you have a smart and determined pursuer. The physical and emotional costs associated with this option may be out of the reach of many people.

The third option requires people with guns. If they cannot afford hiring others to protect them then they will have to protect themselves. There is no substitute for a gun. Embedding multiple jacketed hollow-points in an attacker is not a guarantee that a victim will escape injury, or even survive, but it does dramatically improve the odds.

No anti-gun person can sincerely claim they are concerned about the safety of women who are being pursued by people intent upon violence unless they value the safety of the attacker more than that of the intended victim. These people either have an extraordinarily warped and dysfunctional sense of morality and/or they are incapable of rational thought.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

The essence of the “weapon of choice” argument is that, because criminals and madmen use these guns to commit crimes, the law- abiding must give them up. But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.

By criminalizing an act that is not wrong in itself the purchase and sale of a firearm the ban violates the presumption of innocence, the principle that insures that government honors the liberty of its citizens until their deeds convict them. By completely banning the sale of assault weapons to prevent crime before it occurs, the law effectively and irrebuttably presumes that all who want such a weapon are no better than murderers or madmen, forever ineligible to acquire these firearms.

Obviously, a law which restricts the liberty of the innocent because of the behavior of the guilty, that rests on principle that the conduct of criminals dictates the scope of liberty the law will allow to the rest of society, in no sense “fights” crime. It is, instead, a capitulation to crime, born of a society in full-bore retreat from crime, a society fearful of and desperately accommodating itself to crime.

Jeff Snyder
August 25, 1994
The Washington Times, page A19.
Who’s Under Assault in the Assault Weapon Ban?
[H/T to Craig in the comments.

This same argument can be used against almost any law that presumes to “prevent crime” rather than punish acts which injury others. I’m specifically thinking of I-594 in Washington state but the application is far broader.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dana Loesch

Anti-Second Amendment advocates argue that because violent criminals have black market access to firearms, law abiding innocents should not. They argue that because rapists and murderers may illegally possess firearms the law abiding innocent women and men should not carry them. They don’t defend your Constitutionally protected choice and instead better enable the choice of criminal to make you a statistic.

They want to be able to have a choice as what to do after you’ve been raped. But want to restrict your choices of how to prevent your rape.

Dana Loesch
Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America
[I recently finished listening to this book and was quite impressed. Usually in a book of this type I find little new material and a significant number of errors. That was not true in this case. I seem to recall one minor error but I didn’t write it down and I don’t recall what it was now.

I addition to detailing her personal fights with anti-Second Amendment advocates, such as Piers Morgan and Shannon Watts, she articulated sound arguments and gave insightful analysis to both the principles and factual data regarding the right to keep and bear arms.

I have many more QOTDs in the queue from this great book. Thank you Ms. Loesch.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tam

Wow, Mark, that was nearly wrong in every particular! It bordered on fractally wrong, in that every little piece, taken by itself, was as wrong as the whole.

Tam
December 7, 2014
Sigh
[I read Mark Morford’s troll piece and briefly considered blogging about it. But I prefer to blog about things that either no one has noticed yet or that I have a quasi-unique viewpoint on. And this piece has been well covered by many others. This is just a small sample:

I had completely dismissed it as blog material. Morford is just too easy of a target and I have dealt with him at length before. Then I read the last sentence I quoted above of Tam’s. Wow!

I have seen this sort of thing many times before but didn’t have a name for it. Fractally wrong. I like it. I like it a lot.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Travis Dodge‏ @MWTravesty

What about my right to not live in fear of my fellow citizens? Is that moot because you have a boner for guns?

Travis Dodge‏ @MWTravesty
Tweeted on October 16, 2014
[It’s (sort of) another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.

Dodge obviously doesn’t understand rights when he says he has a “right to not live in fear”. There are people afraid of gays, blacks, and Jews as well as gun owners. But that fear doesn’t allow them to infringe upon our rights.—Joe]

Quote of the day—AllynF

The cheap and easy availability of guns in any home in America makes it very easy for criminals to get their hands on as many weapons as they choose. All they have to do is break in and steal them and create their free market of stolen guns on the street –quite the active and ongoing enterprise. Shhhhhh…this is a truthful point that upsets Conservatives if you even dare to bring it up and burst their bubble. They like to pretend that there is no cause and effect that results from that.

AllynF
December 6, 2014
Comment on Gun Control, Real Time with Bill Maher.
[Got that? Criminals “get their hands on as many weapons as the choose” because private citizens possess guns in their homes. The specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is the root of all problems with guns.

If banning the private possession of something would solve the problems associated with it then banning alcohol, cigarettes, and recreational drugs would solve problems too. AllynF has no respect for the Bill of Rights, no concept of guns being useful for the protection of innocent life, and at best a tenuous connection with reality.

Don’t let anyone ever get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

the attempted commercial introduction of the Armatix has floundered so badly that it remains the sole example that Brady can cite as even approximating a “smart gun.”  Thus, were it to trigger the New Jersey law, the result would surely collide with the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.  There, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes.  Even the Brady Campaign cannot seriously argue that all handguns other than the iP1, an $1800, 10- shot pistol chambered in .22LR, are not commonly used for lawful purposes.

NRA-ILA
December 4, 2014
N.J. Attorney General Rejects Brady Campaign Bid to Trigger Handgun Ban
[Elaborating even further, it seems likely the entire NJ law will declared unconstitutional simply because it makes illegal those guns which are in common use.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

What it shows though is the power of setting the narrative, and that’s done in print on paper, even in these days of the Internet.

And The New York Times and their cronies control it and do it. Despite reality, despite the ludicrous absurdity of their claims about so-called assault weapons that can’t even be defined, they were able to twist the national civil-rights debate about guns into a knot for ten years, and then only fess up ten years later. Two decades lost to mythology — by “the paper of record.”

Alan Korwin
December 3, 2014
“The Assault-Weapon Myth” (NY Times Headline)
[It’s only by perpetuating the culture of deceit that they win.

It’s time to prosecute the perpetrators.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann

While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the ‘freedom’ of individual gun owners, it’s actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory.

Josh Sugarmann
Executive director of the Violence Policy Center
December 1, 2014
Connecticut dodges answers on Sandy Hook school tragedy
[I find it very telling that ‘freedom’ is in quotes.

Sugarmann has no respect for, and perhaps does not even recognize the existence of, individual freedom. If he did then he would recognize that the freedom of individual gun owners is dependent upon there being a free market offering for sale the types of firearms the individual wants.

For example, would we have freedom of religion if the book publishing industry were only allowed to publish religious texts if they were consistent with Islam? Protecting the freedom of the gun industry to design, develop, and manufacture whatever gun or accessory there is a market for protects the specific enumerated right of the individual to keep and bear arms of his choosing. Sugarmann has clearly stated he does not want individuals owning handguns or “assault weapons.” This rhetoric is a means to that end.—Joe]