Quote of the day—Andrew Pollack

When you’re at work and you see someone coming into that school and they’re ready to hurt or kill one of our kids or teachers, I want you to shoot them graveyard dead. And if you can’t shoot them graveyard dead, then we don’t want you in this program and the door’s over there, and this job is not for you.

Andrew Pollack
July 14, 2018
(Update: Pollack was quoting the Polk County sheriff and may have misunderstood the exact words used.)
5 months after Parkland: What are activists doing to protect students?
[Last February, Pollack’s daughter was murdered at Parkland. Since then (plagiarizing from the article) Pollack advocated for the passage of a bill that requires every school in Florida to appoint law enforcement officers or armed “guardians.” Gov. Rick Scott signed it into law in early March.

While I understand the sentiment expressed and give him a pass for his special circumstances that attitude may get someone into trouble. Example, the perp sees the LEO or guardian and drops his gun and is in the process of surrendering. The LEO or guardian should not proceed to “shoot them graveyard dead”. Even if they needed a piece or two of hot lead to reconsider their morning activities once they are no longer a threat you should stop shooting. You can’t walk up to a perp who is curled up in a fetal position, whimpering, and crying then put a couple rounds into his head.

You may shoot until they are no longer a threat then you must stop shooting.

That said, it’s really great Pollack and others got this bill passed and the LEOs and guardians are now being trained for dealing with active shooters. It’s an important part of what should be a multilayer security plan for any place where there a large groups of soft targets.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Stephen P. Halbrook

In 1776, Pennsylvania declared: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state.” Vermont copied that language in its constitution, which explicitly abolished slavery. Massachusetts and North Carolina adopted their own versions.

When the states debated adoption of the Constitution without a bill of rights in 1787-88, Samuel Adams proposed the right to bear arms in Massachusetts’s ratification convention. The Dissent of the Minority did so in Pennsylvania, and the entire New Hampshire convention demanded recognition of the right.

There was no connection to slavery in any of these historical antecedents.

Stephen P. Halbrook
June 25, 2018
The Second Amendment Had Nothing to Do with Slavery
[The background for this is that a certain professor, Carl T. Bogus, has been peddling the fiction that the Second Amendment was about keeping slaves from rebelling. In 1998 it was an open claim. More recently it is more of a suggestion. Halbrook explains why the story Professor Bogus has been telling is, as you might expect, totally bogus.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Larry Correia

If you guys come up with a plan to dissolve this marriage through an amicable divorce rather than a murder-suicide, I’m all in.

Larry Correia
July 11, 2018
Facebook post regarding the political left advocating for a civil war.
[I’d give serious consideration to a “divorce” but as of now I’m not seeing the amicable path.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

The GUN GRABBERS spent more than $80 million in 2016 to elect Hillary Clinton president and a Senate that would confirm her Supreme Court nominees. They failed.
Then it spent at least $3 million in 2017 to defeat Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. They failed.

Now the President has nominated another pro-gun rights person to fill a seat on the Supreme Court, and there’s no doubt the gun grabbers are going to spend millions of dollars trying to derail another justice who will NOT fall in line with their extremist gun ban agenda.

They cannot afford another defeat.

Alan Gottlieb
July 9, 2018
Via email.
[See also Kavanaugh Has a Record on Guns.

SCOTUS nominations are why I and millions of other gun owners voted against Hillary Clinton. We now need to follow through and get good judges actually onto the SCOTUS bench.

Please consider donating to organizations who will use the money to help get Judge Brett Kavanaugh nomination confirmed.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sean D Sorrentino

“Moderate:” Someone who agrees that the plain written text of the Constitution means something halfway between what it actually says and what the Left wants it to mean.

“Extremist:” Someone who believes that the Constitution means what it actually says.

Sean D Sorrentino
July 7, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Emma Brown
[Sad but true.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michel & Associates

As stated by CA DOJ in their “bullet-button assault weapon” regulations, AR-15 style firearms with the upper and lower receivers completely detached from one another are not considered “semiautomatic” for the purposes of California’s “assault weapon” laws.2 What’s more, semiautomatic firearms lacking a crucial part (such as a firing pin, bolt carrier, or gas tube) are also not considered “semiautomatic.”

Michel & Associates
July 2018
BULLETIN FOR GUN OWNERS WHO DID NOT REGISTER THEIR FIREARMS AS “ASSAULT WEAPONS”
[Interesting.

I wonder how long that will last. Will it last long enough for a new Supreme court to slap down the state of California for those who prefer not to escape to relative freedom someplace else?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Emma Brown

Constitutional-law scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun debate say that Hardiman — who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit and maintains chambers in Pittsburgh — holds a more expansive view of the Second Amendment than the Supreme Court has articulated to date. His nomination and confirmation would push the court to the right, they say, making it more likely that justices would agree to hear cases challenging gun laws — and perhaps to strike them down.

Emma Brown
July 6, 2018
Thomas Hardiman, possible Supreme Court nominee, seen as ‘Second Amendment extremist’
[I’m reminded of something attributed to Barry Goldwater:

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

But that leaves the claim of “extremism” unchallenged. Adhering to the letter and intent of the U.S. Constitution cannot legitimately be considered extremist. Those who advocate for the departure from the letter and intent of the Constitution are the extremists.

And a final note, Supreme Court appointees who adhere to the letter and intent of the Constitution is one of the primary reasons why I and tens of millions of other gun owners voted against Hillary Clinton. If this is who President Trump nominates to fill Kennedys seat, then thank you President Trump.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bill Hamilton

The thrill of target shooting an assault weapon is no justification for allowing these weapons of mass destruction. At a minimum, individuals who possess them should be registered, licensed and taxed. Until that time, their sales should be banned.

Bill Hamilton
July 5, 2018
Kittery Trading Post should engage with community about guns
[The Second Amendment isn’t about “the thrill of target shooting”. It’s about defense against a tyrannical government. Which means that in order to be useful they must, at a minimum, be untraceable and unknown to any government entity.

Hamilton has crap for brains and/or is an activist for the enemies of freedom.—Joe]

Quote of the day—T. Piatek

Snyder’s arguments are compelling: they hinge on several easy-to-swallow propositions.

First, he asserts that we have rights, and first amongst those is our right to life. From that right, he infers a right to self defense, without which the right to life is rendered meaningless. Thus, with a right to self defense, one has the right to posess the means with which to render such defense effective – ergo, the right to own and use a firearm.
Second, he asserts that classical liberal theories of government hinge on the notion of “government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.” Sound familiar? This is the idea of government by consent set forth in the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson. Snyder argues that consent is meaningless without the ability to object, and to enforce such a negative vote. Thus, firearms allow the citizenry to collectively enforce their will on their subject, and any infringement upon their rights (already established above) to own and use them violates the principle of consensual government.

The arguments hardly stop there – Snyder continues to logically follow the arguments of gun control to their conclusions, thus demonstrating the grounds on which he calls them self-contradictory and immoral.

Amongst other topics, Snyder launches attacks against irresponsibility, instrumentalism (denier of will), and utilitarianism (the destroyer of rights). While many of the same arguments are repeated throughout the text, one must remember that the chapters are merely a collection of columns, speeches, and articles written throughout the years. While this does detract from the cogency of the text as a whole, it is undeniably admirable as a purely ethical defense of arms-bearing.

If there’s only one book you buy about gun control, make it this one.

T. Piatek
July 26, 2002
Amazon review of Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control
[I concur.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Windy Wilson

The ability of people to rationalize their way to slavery is one of the mysteries of psychiatry.

Windy Wilson
July 3, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Jim Mastro
[My hypothesis is that it has to do with the failure of socialism/communism to scale up from the tribe level to larger populations. These dysfunctional political systems “feel right” in a lot of ways. This probably was extremely useful in evolution and increased the probability of successful tribes. But when those feelings are acted upon at a level where evil tyrants can retain power bad things happen and many people don’t, or can’t, understand why.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jim Mastro

In 1936, sawed-off shotguns and Tommy guns were heavily taxed and regulated by both state and federal law, to the point that sales plummeted, which essentially had the effect of banning them. In 1986 (in a law signed by President Reagan), Congress made fully automatic weapons (machine guns) illegal. None of these actions constituted an “attack” on the Second Amendment, nor did the 1994 ban on “assault weapons,” which expired in 2004. Another ban on these weapons, which were specifically designed for combat, also would not constitute an attack on the Second Amendment, nor would it constitute an attack on NRA members, law-abiding gun owners, or hunters.

Jim Mastro
Dover, New Hampshire
June 30, 2018
There is no attack on gun rights
[I have no words to describe someone who even pretends to believe this.

Of course, he is an admitted fiction writer.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Goodwin Liu

Impossibility can occasionally excuse noncompliance with a statute, but in such circumstances, the excusal constitutes an interpretation of the statute in accordance with the Legislature’s intent, not an invalidation of the statute.

Goodwin Liu
California State Supreme Court Justice
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,  v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
S239397
Ct.App. 5 F072310
Fresno County
Super. Ct. No. 14CECG00068
[See also California Supreme Court Upholds Bullet Micro-Stamping Law and Laws That Are ‘Impossible’ to Follow Can Still Be Constitutional, Says California Court

Background:

The Legislature amended the definition of unsafe handguns to include “all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015 [if] not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.

The manufactures said this requirement was impossible to comply with. The State Supreme court just said that doesn’t invalidate the law. You may not have to comply with the law, but the law still stands.

What I didn’t see in a quick scan through the ruling was whether the California DOJ will be required to ignore that part of the law when the test new guns in regards to whether the guns are safe or not and will people be able to purchase new guns which do not meet the microstamping requirements.

My thought is this is crazy talk. Just get out of there. These people are nuts.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Hamilton Nolan

Read a f****** history book. Read a recent history book. The U.S. had thousands of domestic bombings per year in the early 1970s. This is what happens when citizens decide en masse that their political system is corrupt, racist, and unresponsive.

‘The people out of power have only just begun to flex their dissatisfaction. The day will come, sooner that you all think, when Trump administration officials will look back fondly on the time when all they had to worry about was getting hollered at at a Mexican restaurant.

Hamilton Nolan
June 25, 2018
This Is Just the Beginning
[There may be interesting times ahead. I was asked last Monday if I thought there would be a civil war in our country soon. I told them, “No. At least not one like the previous one with two or more militaries and visible government support on each side.”

However, Jim Goad does point out:

Third of Americans see a new US Civil War likely soon. As it stands currently: North 1, South 0. https://t.co/v8EtMgxgTz

In the following thread Jordenius‏ @Jordenius offered a correction of:

Republicans 1, Democrats 0.

Which, for some reason, in my mind, made it more real and likely to occur.

But when I think about it I still don’t think it will be military v. military. It will be left wing terrorists against the existing governments and hapless individuals caught in the middle. Which means the left wing terrorists will not have broad public support and will for the most part lose. It might play out similar to how it did in the 1970s.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Greg Abbott @GregAbbott_TX

The gun control debate was settled…in 1791.

Greg Abbott @GregAbbott_TX
Governor of Texas
Tweeted on June 25, 2018
GregAbbottGunControlDebateSettled
[It may have been settled then but that didn’t mean it wouldn’t became an issue years later. And with the return of the debate we, of course, now have massive infringements of our natural and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Still, it’s a decent response to gun controls advocates. Tell them the issue is settled and, “Your move. Are you volunteering to take them away from anyone?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Emily Witt

Despite the Parkland students’ insistence on taking a back seat, I was still surprised when Emma González did not speak at the event. Instead, the other Parkland students came out arm in arm, led by a Stoneman Douglas student named Kyrah Simon, and gave an expression of support that rivalled the speeches by will.i.am and Chance the Rapper in its lack of substance. “Everyone from Parkland is so grateful to be here with you tonight,” Simon said. “Our voices and your voices united are stronger than anything else!” When this short speech ended, the audience seemed confused—that was all? Father Pfleger had to hype the crowd as the Parkland visitors left the stage. This was either a magnanimous gesture or a cop-out. What example did it set if the Parkland students, with all of their radical empathy, treated Chicago’s violence as unknowable? The night had been a moving testament by young people trying to overcome a long history of inertia, and the visitors had chosen not to specify their commonalities. These thoughts, however, seemed ungenerous.

Emily Witt
June 26, 2018
Launching a National Gun-Control Coalition, the Parkland Teens Meet Chicago’s Young Activists
[I’ve attended many anti-gun events and pro-gun owner events with protestors. I’m always somewhat startled by the the poor quality of their presentation. I keep thinking, “Is this all they’ve got?” Here we have an article in the New Yorker also pointing out “The Emperor has no clothes.”

It’s a start.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian Keith

The true diversity test

Liberals love to talk about diversity.

Churches in Seattle are festooned with “love your Muslim neighbor” signs.

But the real test of diversity isn’t whether you can break bread with someone who worships differently than you.

The real test is if you can be civil, be courteous, be inviting… to gun owners.

Consider this: all gun owners, in the minds of liberals, are responsible for all mass shootings.

Remember, a bombing or knife attack is the responsibility of the person, but attacks with guns are the responsibility of the inanimate object and all people who have those inanimate objects are at risk of engaging in the same criminal behavior.

This is the liberal mentality of, “I wouldn’t trust myself with a gun because I might go shoot someone the first time I got angry!”

To most readers here who concealed carry on a regular basis that sounds absurd, but I promise you it is a devout belief among Seattle liberals.

They believe that having a gun makes you into a crazy person who murders people.
Which book your worship out of, or if you pray with your hands in front of you or on the ground- that is small potatoes compared to having a device that instantly makes you a murderous psychopath.

And so the true diversity test is not whether you would shake a Muslim’s hand, or eat dinner with someone of a different skin color, or even a different sexuality. These kinds of diversity are officially encouraged, condoned, and safe.

The true diversity test is- would you have coffee with a gun owner?

With someone who lives on the responsibility plane of “I keep myself, my family, and my community safe from violence” and relies on police as the second line of defense?

My experience among liberals tells me, mostly not.

And I think it’s not just the gun- it’s the self-reliance that’s to blame.

Apart from my neighbors, I don’t accept that violence just happens randomly and I can do nothing to stop it.

I don’t wait meekly while evil people do evil things.

And in Seattle, that separates me from my community.

That stigmatizes me.

If I ever let it be known.

Check out the Pink Pistols experience in the Pride Parade. Flagrantly gay? Two thumbs up. Want to talk about defending yourself? We’ll follow you around and shout you down so everyone knows you aren’t welcome here.

I imagine inviting my more liberal friends to coffee and letting them know I’ll be armed. Or revealing during coffee that I’m carrying.

I don’t have the courage.

I don’t want the scene.

I can’t bear to lose yet more friends because I believe life is worth defending and I actually prepare to live that belief.

But you, dear reader of Joe’s blog- perhaps your liberal friends are different?

Perhaps you could invite them to a social situation where they explicitly know you’ll be armed?

I’ll love to hear the results of your True Diversity Test in the comments below.

Brian Keith
June 25, 2018
Via email. Slightly edited with permission.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tiffany Johnson

One: I really wish my pro-gun friends would stop calling people “libtards.” Two: I really wish my gun-averse friends would stop calling people “Nazis.” #NotHelping. That is all.

Tiffany Johnson
June 24, 2018
Please Just Stop
[I have a strong inclination to agree with this. I used to call certain groups derogatory names and probably still do at times. But I try to avoid the name calling and talk about factual stuff and tendency instead. I still use insulting terms, such as having “crap for brains” for individuals if I think they deserve it on a particular issue or point.

The reason I think it doesn’t help is because it alienates people who might be aligned with you on one or more topics. For example, someone might identify as a liberal because of their strong support for equal rights and access to legal abortion. They might also think gun ownership is important but is not what they mostly identify with. Getting them to help teach an introductory gun class is going to be a lot easier if you haven’t, even indirectly, called them a “libtard”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Greg Bates

If we want to end the carnage, we must advocate for the solution that is required, not one designed to be politically palatable. Instead of shying away from the NRA’s accusation that gun control advocates want to take away their guns, we should embrace it as a mantra.

Let’s clear the air and call for total civilian disarmament. Period.

Greg Bates
February 25, 2018
Maine Voices: It’s time for a gun abolition movement
[I find it interesting there is no thought given to how, or who will take away all the guns. And does Mr. Bates have any clue what the cost will be? I don’t think so. I think he has crap for brains.

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