Quote of the day—Maj Toure‏ @MAJTOURE

Why is the 2nd amendment the ONLY Constitutional RIGHT you need a permit to exercise?

Maj Toure‏ @MAJTOURE
Tweeted on May 21, 2018
[It’s a rhetorical question. I’m not going to bother answering it.

That doesn’t mean I’m not going to be asking it a bunch.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

When it comes to gun policy, the political left is harming America, delaying rational programs, and flatly denying the public’s rights. Denying civil rights always has bad consequences, as we saw here.

Alan Korwin
May 21, 2018
Liberals Must Step Back for School Safety
[School shootings are one of the most effective tools in the political left’s toolkit for denying people their right to keep and bear arms. They will not let us put a stop to them no matter how many children’s lives it costs.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Donkey Otay‏ @CervantesMount

It’s well established that gun humper culture exists to project machismo to compensate for feelings of physical inferiority.

Donkey Otay‏ @CervantesMount
Tweeted on April 23, 2018
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a tweet from Jonathan.

I read through a bunch of the responses to this tweet and my favorite was:

It’s well-established that feminized men are scared of inanimate black plastic objects.

I wonder what color the sky is in Otay’s universe.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lyle

This fight has never been, and never will be, about WHETHER people should own guns because criminals and government will always have them no matter what. Rather, the only question regarding guns is whether the honest and the law-abiding should also have them.

Anyone who opposes an unadulterated second amendment is therefore a criminal, a would-be criminal, has emotionally bonded with criminals, or has fallen for the lies of criminals to such an extent that this basic, irrefutable, self-evident line of reasoning is abandoned. There is simply no other possible conclusion.

Lyle
May 7, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Hieu Nguyen
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—EisenhowerConservative

Only hardcore right wing extremist belong to the NRA, over 98% of gun owners want nothing to do with the NRA and it’s unhinged extremist political agenda.

EisenhowerConservative
May 18, 2018
Comment to Parkland father calls out Trump, McConnell, Ryan after Santa Fe shooting
[Interesting claims. Nearly all the gun owners I know who don’t have NRA memberships say the reason is because they NRA gives up our rights too easily. The others I know say it’s because they don’t want to be on a list the government might someday get access to and use to confiscate their guns.

Going on to the next portion of the sentence, the NRA claims they have something like 6 million members. If that represents only 2% of gun owners then EisenhowerConservative is of the belief there are 300 million gun owners in this country out of a population of about 325 million, of which about 35 million are under the age of 18. So, EisenhowerConservative  believes the entire adult population and a significant portion of teenagers are gun owners.

Hence, we must conclude EisenhowerConservative is a liar and/or has crap for brains. It is my hypothesis that one or both attributes are prerequisites for being a gun control advocate. EisenhowerConservative is just one more data point confirming that hypothesis.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Floyd Wilson

Firearms are rarely used for self defense. They are mostly used for domestic violence and to make racist suburbanites feel tough.

Floyd Wilson
May 17, 2018
Comment to Gun Rights Group May Sue Columbus Over Gun Control Laws
[Trolling? Crap for brains? Delusional? Telling the big lie?

I’m going with, “Telling the big lie” with “Trolling” in second place. The facts are easy enough to look up even if you can’t arrive at the correct conclusion from thinking about easily observable data (such as the police carrying guns for self-defense).—Joe]

Quote of the day—Timothy Hsiao

Your right to life isn’t dependent on whether respecting your life would yield the best set of consequences. It is absolute and unrelenting, even if it would be more beneficial to others if your right were violated. It would be wrong for me to override your right to life in order harvest your organs to save five people, even if in doing so I produce a more beneficial outcome.

Your life has basic dignity that cannot be defeated in the name of social utility. It isn’t dependent on the outcome of a cost-benefit analysis. The same goes for other rights that are derived from the right to life. For example, it would be wrong to rape someone even if doing so would save ten lives. Rights function as moral “trump cards” that override appeals to utility.

Timothy Hsiao
February 27, 2018
Why Americans Have A Right To Own Guns Even If That Makes Us Less Safe
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Don Kilmer

There are no significant Second Amendment obstacles to local and state gun control at this point.

Don Kilmer
May 15, 2018
California Cities Are Free to Regulate Gun Stores Out of Existence
[The twisted bit of reasoning that led to this particular situation is:

No historical authority suggests that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to sell a firearm.

If you read the appeals court ruling a little deeper you will see they don’t see any reason why the manufacture of all firearms couldn’t be regulated out of existence. Sure, you have a right to keep and bear “arms” of some sort, but no right exists for someone to build them or parts to repair them. The same would appear to be true for ammunition.

Assuming you want to retain some semblance of the right to keep and bear arms in the all the states there are three paths ahead of us.

  • Change the culture.
  • Get gun friendly justices into the Federal Courts with particular attention to the SCOTUS.
  • Take up arms and use them effectively and efficiently.

Option 1 is probably a lost cause in places like California, New Jersey, New York, and other tyrannical states.

Option 3 is far too uncomfortable to give serious consideration until all other options are exhausted.

We have to get behind option 2 and make it a reality while preparing for option 3.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Insipid‏ @insipid42

Anyone who wants an AR15 is too crazy to own a gun. And yes, I do want to take your guns. But I know that’s unrealistic.  However outlawing future sales of Assault rifles is extremely reasonable- even for Scalia.  The ones being unreasonable and tyrannical are the gun nuts.

Insipid‏ @insipid42
Tweeted on May 12, 2018
[I would be more likely to agree with the first sentence if the words “who wants” were replaced with “who doesn’t want”.

What a stereotype. If you read just a little bit of the Twitter threat linked about you will find Insipid is hitting on all three of the SJWs laws:

1. They always lie
2. They always double down when confronted with their lies
3. They always project

And don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you, “No one wants to take your guns”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Blurtsy TouRIOTte’s‏ @blurtsy

Yet another limp gun junkie peacocking his pew pew. #BobKeller #FuckTheNRA #GunContolNow #NRAIsATerroristOrganization

LoveGunsYouMustFeelInadequate

Blurtsy TouRIOTte’s‏ @blurtsy
Tweeted on April 15, 2018
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a tweet from Jonathan‏ @CorrelA_B who says:

The fixating on strangers’ genitalia is par for the course with #guncontrol extremists – hence #MarkleysLaw (@JoeHuffman).

The simultaneous calling for the murder of ~6,000,000 peaceful Americans by way of the #NRAIsATerroristOrganization tag? Ironically, that’s why we own guns.

They declare us terrorists then we get stubborn about giving up our guns. Odd how that works out. You would think they would be smarter than that. I mean, how much dumber could they be?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rep. Eric Swalwell

I’d had it backwards this whole time. I’ve told town hall participants and reporters in the media that we can protect the Second Amendment and also protect people’s lives. What these kids have taught us is their right to learn, their right to go home, their right to live is supreme over any other right. We should put that first.

Rep. Eric Swalwell
D-California
Questions and answers with the lawmaker who wants your assault weapons
[In other words, the Second Amendment is null and void because he says so. And unless we get a good SCOTUS ruling in the next five to 10 years his vision could be the way it plays out.

His end game is something we need to think about. No door-to-door confiscations. If you get caught with a gun you go to jail. Sure, you can hide it and get away with it for a long time. But you someone will sell you out, a relationship will turn sour, or you’ll get in an accident as you drive to the deep woods to shoot it. We loose that game because the culture will slowly die.

So what do we do? Show up at the first guy’s trial with 100’s of people open carrying AR-15? Burn down the court house?

I’m not sure that is the best way to win friends and influence people in the way we want them influenced.

My best approach is “sanctuary states”. States which refuse to cooperate with the feds on these sort of issues. But that can escalate with blocking of Federal grants and other money. And that is just the start.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sean D Sorrentino

Anti-gunners don’t like you. They don’t just want to take away your guns. They want to take away your rights. They want to humiliate you. They want to force you to obey. They want to bring you to heel. Why do you think they care that so-called “Red Flag Orders” or “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” or “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” violate more than your Second Amendment rights?

But anti-gunners don’t want to prevent violence by unstable, dangerous people. They just want to take guns.

Sean D Sorrentino
Facebook post, May 9, 2018
[H/T Sebastian.

Sean makes a good case.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jordan B. Peterson

If you can fight you generally don’t have to. When skillfully integrated, the ability to respond with aggression and violence decreases rather than increases the probability that actual aggression will become necessary. If you say “No!” early in the cycle of oppression and you mean what you say which means you state your refusal in no uncertain terms and stand behind it then the scope for oppression on the part of oppressor will remain properly bounded and limited. Forces of tyranny expand inexorably to fill the space made available for their existence. People who refuse to muster appropriately self protective territorial responses are laid open to exploitation as much as those who genuinely can’t stand up for their own rights because of a more essential inability or a true imbalance in power.

Naïve, harmless people usually guide their perceptions and actions with a few simple axioms: people are basically good; no one really wants to hurt anyone else; the threat (and certainly, the use) of force, physical or otherwise, is wrong. These axioms collapse, or worse, in the presence of individuals who are genuinely malevolent.

Jordan B. Peterson
2018
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
[Daughter Jaime and I share an account on Audible and generally pick books that we are both interested in and then discuss them. This was one of the books she picked that, from the title, I wasn’t particularly interested in. Even after she said that this was a book that she was putting on a list for her son to read when he got older I just didn’t have any interest. But then, I ran out of books on my phone and decided to at least start it rather than immediately go searching for another book.

I am extremely pleased with what I found.

Among other things Peterson is a psychologist. In this book, what he tells us is how our minds work and how to make them work better.

What Peterson says in the quote above works on many scales on many topics. From the personal, to the political, to the international. The grand scope of this would not come as a surprise if you read the chapter. He tells us the knowledge in this quote was learned by animals 100 million years before the arrival of dinosaurs. It is an essential part of all animals today.

Extrapolating only the smallest amount you realize what he says is an argument for the right to keep and bear arms. It is instructive on how to retain our rights.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dr. Karim Brohi

It is ridiculous to suggest guns are part of the solution to knife violence.

Dr. Karim Brohi
May 7, 2018
At NRA Convention, Trump Slams Gun Control Laws in France & U.K.
[Apparently this crap for brains doctor has never heard the phrase, “Never bring a knife to a gun fight.”

I would like to suggest the good doctor should visit a USPSA match in the U.S. carrying a knife and see how much knife violence is possible.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jonathan Chait

On the left, victimhood is a prime source of authority, and discourse revolves around establishing one’s intersectional credentials and detailing stories of mistreatment that reinforce them. Within the ecosystem of the left, demonstrating that you have suffered harassment or microaggressions is a big win. But among the country as a whole, the dynamic is very different.

Jonathan Chait
April 22, 2018
Democrats Have Great Female Presidential Candidates. They Need to Avoid the Victim Trap.
[The Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations repeatedly make this error. Apparently they don’t seem to understand that when they use someone who was shot in a mass shooting as their spokesperson they are not presenting someone who is an authority on solutions regarding those type of events. The truth is they are being represented by someone who is an expert victim with no experience as a victor.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Hieu Nguyen

I carried a gun all the time. I used to have a Mac-10, I used to have a .44, a 380, a 9 millimeter.

Those gangs, those criminal people, that want to do criminal thing they will go to the black market and purchase the gun.

Hieu Nguyen
Former San Jose gang member
May 6, 2018
San Quentin Inmates Join The Gun Control Debate
[Others interviewed also spoke of how easy it is to buy a gun via the black market.

What found most interesting was that the author thought it insightful to ask people who made such poor decisions they ended up in prison what they thought what public policies should be.

But, this is San Francisco. Perhaps they were just making sure the criminals would still have plenty of job opportunities.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robin Hanson

One might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met. As with income inequality, most folks concerned about sex inequality might explicitly reject violence as a method, at least for now, and yet still be encouraged privately when the possibility of violence helps move others to support their policies. (Sex could be directly redistributed, or cash might be redistributed in compensation.)

Robin Hanson
April 26, 2018
Two Types of Envy
[Interesting. Read the article to get background about “incels” if you aren’t familiar with the term.

Some people see “incels” as about male supremacy. See, for example, What Are ‘Incels’? The Anti-Woman Online Community Behind the Toronto Van Attack. I think it is more about envy and inability to find a partner which results in the symptoms of a somewhat male supremacist attitude. The author doesn’t even mention this as a component. I suspect counseling, social skills training (not pickup artist type stuff), and attending social events to practice their training would provide the “cure” for “incels”.

I knew the scum bag loser who shot some people then drove his car through groups of people in Isla Vista California in 2014 had problems with his relationships with women. But I didn’t know there were online communities of these type of people and that the April 23rd terrorist attack in Toronto was perpetrated by someone who identified as an “incel”.

Getting back to the QOTD by Hanson. In the quote above, Hanson may appear to advocate for the forced redistribution of sexual access. In an addendum they clarify:

Let me also clarify that personally I’m not very attracted to non-insurance-based redistribution policies of any sort, though I do like to study what causes others to be so attracted.

Apparently many people can’t imagine any other way to reduce or moderate sex inequality. (“Redistribution” literally means “changing the distribution.”)  In the post I mentioned cash compensation; more cash can make people more attractive and better able to afford legalized prostitution. Others have mentioned promoting monogamy and discouraging promiscuity. Surely there are dozens of other possibilities; sex choices are influenced by a great many factors and each such factor offers a possible lever for influencing sex inequality. Rape and slavery are far from the only possible levers!

What I find interesting about this whole thing in that the political left has some components which would appear to make them likely to take this on as an issue. Consider the following:

  • The left uses violence to achieve their ends just as the “incel” attackers.
  • The left appears to take the side of those who use violence to achieve their ends.
  • The left uses envy and disparity of outcomes as political issues to justify government intervention (government intervention is actually just a special case of using violence).
  • “Slavery”, one method of addressing the sexual access inequality, can also be used to described the nearly 100% marginal income tax rates frequently advocated and sometimes implemented by the political left.
  • The left views many issues through some sort of sexual lens. i.e. Markley’s Law, feminism, celebration of sexual minorities, etc.

Hence, one could make the case that taking up the cause of “incel”s will soon be part of their political platform. It appears to be a good fit.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Devin M.

They seem to be legitimate illegal activity.

Devin M.
May 3, 2018
[This was from work.

Devin was researching a business that, essentially, sold stolen goods and had a good reputation with their customers.

This is sort of like an “honest politician” is one which, once bought, stays bought.—Joe]

Quote of the day—BJ Campbell

There is no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate. Not within the USA. Not regionally. Not internationally. Not among peaceful societies. Not among violent ones. Gun ownership doesn’t make us safer. It doesn’t make us less safe. The correlation simply isn’t there. It is blatantly not-there. It is so tremendously not-there that the “not-there-ness” of it alone should be a huge news story.

BJ Campbell
March 13, 2018
Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide
[Via email from daughter Jaime.

For people who care about practical outcomes but think rights and constitutional law are irrelevant this article may be influential.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kris Brown

The AR-15 is modelled after a military grade M16 assault weapon. It’s designed to be able to shot at a long distance, with high-capacity magazine attachments that can spray many, many bullets in rapid fire, at a velocity that’s three times that of a regular pistol and can shoot the front and back through a helmet.

Kris Brown
Co-president of Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence
April 30, 2018
How The Gun Lobby Uses Van and Knife Attacks To Shut Down Gun Control And why experts are calling bullshit on it.
[Yet another example of where they have ignorance, drama, and deception.

We have SCOTUS decisions, data, and inalienable rights.—Joe]