Quote of the day—Paul O’Brien

A simple repeal of the 2nd amendment coupled with a replacement that clearly states what you can and cannot have access to (i.e. MAYBE a single manual hunting rifle or shotgun), plus a government buyback of existing guns and ammo, should do the trick over time.

But it MUST start with putting the gun manufacturers out of business. They need to be shut down immediately.

Paul O’Brien
May 21, 2015
Comment to John Traphagan: When will we examine our heavily armed culture?
[H/T to Hazmat who sent me an email about something else contained here.

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

This guy has total crap for brains.

A “simple repeal of the 2nd Amendment”? No such thing is possible.

Roughly 300 million guns, plus ammo, at market value would be roughly $300 billion dollars assuming everyone politely brought them to the local collection point. Add in the cost of those who would turn in their guns only when they were out of ammo and I expect the cost would be an order, or two, of magnitude larger.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brandon Smith

Each citizen is his first and best line of defense.

Only when the American people take on the philosophy of self-defense rather than government reliance will we be free of fear from terrorism and free of fear from tyrannical government. It starts with each of you, in your homes, neighborhoods, towns and counties. Citizen organizations for mutual aid and security to counter any threat, regardless of the mask it wears, will be the catalyst for a legitimately free society. In the face of such organization, martial law is not only illegitimate, but entirely unnecessary. ISIS does not matter. It is what we ultimately do about ISIS or similar threats that matters…

Brandon Smith
May 20, 2015
Is Martial Law Justified If ISIS Attacks?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jody Powell

As much as I hate to say it, the NRA is effective primarily because it is largely right when it claims that most gun control laws inconvenience and threaten the law-abiding while having little or no impact on violent crime or criminals.

Jody Powell
Former President Carter press aide
January 1994
George Stephanopoulos sought gun control debate in Bill Clinton administration
[H/T David Hardy.

Gun rights advocates have been saying this for at least five decades. The Clinton administration knew this over two decades ago. If you listened carefully to the anti-gun politicians and even most of the leaders of the anti-gun organizations you would find they use evasive wording when they talk about gun control. It was, and still is, very clear they know gun control doesn’t and can’t reduce violent crime. I’m certain the Obama administration knows this as well.

So what is the real reason they advocate for gun control?

Whatever the answer is, it can’t be good.—Joe]

Quote of the day—J-

Glockheads are heathens, following a false prophet. Real Americans worship at the Church of John Moses Browning.

Follow not the unbelievers. Heed not the basement dwellers, mall ninjas, and armchair commandos. Do not anoint thy hip with Kydex and polymer.

May 13, 2015
Comment to The New Austro-American Jihad.
[It’s a very well done rant and rave.

Via email from Michael B.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bear Brian

This is crap. Grow some balls and ban them outright. This accomplishes nothing.

Bear Brian
May 18, 2015
Comment to Obama to Ban Military-Style Assault Weapons For Local Police Forces
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.

The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous. See Drake, 724 F.3d at 454 (Hardiman, C.J., dissenting).12 Nor does the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will accidently shoot themselves or others or engage in criminal activity than those who cannot meet this requirement. See id. The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who do not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.
May 18, 2015

[H/T Firearm Policy Coalistion (BREAKING: Washington, D.C. “May Issue” Handgun Carry License Law is Unconstitutional, Rules Federal Court Today).

The decision as a whole says “may issue” carry is probably unconstitutional and pending the actual ruling a preliminary injunction is granted against the highly restrictive D.C. “may issue” law. There are other jurisdictions that are going to have to take notice soon!

Others will have a lot more to say about what this means and the likely response of D.C. See for example see what Sebastian has to say about this ruling. But I really wanted to point out is that in the last sentence I quoted above judge is calling the anti-gun people out on merely making “reasoning sounds” rather than a logical argument. He’s mocking them!

I especially like the part where the court agrees the plaintiffs should post a bond to cover the costs if the preliminary injunction was improperly granted. The plaintiff have to put up a bond of $1000.00. I regard that as a slap in the face for the tyrants of D.C.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bill

We aren’t going to be breaking glass and using flash-bangs.

May 15, 2015
[Mid morning on Friday (the 15th) my boss poked his head out of his boss’s office and asked me to join them and my lead. The first thing he told me was that I wasn’t in trouble. Next they asked me if I would be able to help out a different group by doing some travel that might extend into the weekend.

About then the V.P. poked his head into the office and gave us the guidance above. This was more than a bit amusing since my lead is former special forces, my boss is former law enforcement and army, and his boss helped make explosives for Boomershoot this year. And of course my guns and explosives experience was also being addressed. The V.P. knew of all of this experience in the room and I’m pretty sure he was speaking metaphorically.

I ended up putting in a 17 hour work day on Friday and 11 hours on Saturday. It was an interesting experience. I drove out into the desert and observed and helped another much more experienced team do their work until the early morning. I was the least experienced person there but in some ways I was better prepared than most of them. I shared my food with them and even used one of my knives to assist. There was only one person other than me who had the recommended ear plugs.

Most of the team left about 1:00 AM. One other guy and I left about 1:30 and went to our motels. We came back at 6:00 AM for a few minutes. He then left and I went back to my motel for more sleep. At 9:00 AM I attended a phone conference call for about 90 minutes and then returned to the site by myself until a little after 4:00 PM. I arrived home about three hours later and went straight to bed.

Who knew the life of a software engineer could be so interesting?

No glass was broken and no flash bangs were used. Mission accomplished.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Stossel

No one wants to see law break down so completely that people get hurt, but historian Thaddeus Russell reminds us that many freedoms we take for granted exist not because the government graciously granted liberties to us but because of lawbreakers.

Bootleggers, “robber barons” who did things like transporting ferry passengers in defiance of state-granted monopolies and tea-dumping American revolutionaries ignored laws they opposed.

John Stossel
May 13, 2015
Let’s All Disobey Stupid Laws
[This is what I expect will happened with I-594 and its cousins. People will mostly ignore it. The police will “have better things to do” and the prosecutors will only charge people with violating it if the criminal has more serious offenses as well.

Even if we can’t get it thrown out by the courts (the chances are still decent, just not as good as they were before the recent ruling) many, many people will ignore it because it is so stupid. Then eventually a friendly legislature will dispose of it.

This process will soon be visible in the State of New York in regards to The SAFE Act (H/T to Sebastian).—Joe]

Quote of the day—Williams, Gibson, and O’Donnell

Our city will be a better place when we realize that our overwhelming access to guns and penchant for violence will only be mitigated by supporting our men and women in blue, realizing they must not be left to address this crisis alone.

Jumaane D. Williams, New York City Council Member
Vanessa L. Gibson, New York City Council Member
Eugene O’Donnell, Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice
A Holistic Approach to Reducing Gun Violence
[So they think the police need to reduce access to guns? And how can they do that and still respect the Bill of Rights? The Supreme Court has very clearly said the 2nd Amendment means what it says, “… The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Either these people are saying they have no intention of honoring the U.S. Constitution or they are saying they completely out of touch with reality.

That gives people only two options on how to deal with them:

  1. Prosecute them for conspiracy to infringe upon the rights of the people.
  2. Insist they get treatment for their mental health problems.

In either case they have no business holding the positions they do.—Joe]

Quote of the day—clam_dude

I understand that in the context we live, in which there are many criminals with guns, it may be unfair to stop people from owning them legally.  But this is because of the problem of having too many guns in the first place.  It seems to me that we should try to find some way of decreasing, over time, the number of guns floating around out there.

Or perhaps the best solution would be to limit the number of bullets produced and make them more expensive. 

But I think something needs to be done in the direction of less guns as opposed to more.  Can we agree that in the long run this will lead to less gun deaths?

May 13, 2015
A thought on gun control
[They “dude” is incredibly naïve, simpleminded, or went on a magic mushroom trip and never made it all the way back.

Decreasing “the number of guns floating around out there”? And how would he suggest someone do that? Forbid the manufacture of them then going door to door and asking nicely? I don’t think you have a clue how that might turn out. A reduction in “gun deaths” would not be what history would record for that little exercise.

And the same thing with the ammunition supply.

If this “Einstein” thinks any of his ideas would work then why not try them with recreational drugs and see how that works out. Oh! That’s right. They have tried those sort of things are. Any high school drop out can get whatever recreation drug they want within an hour or two, 24x7x365.

So the answer to his question is, “No!” Now shut up. The adults are talking.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dan Gross

This is a huge victory that will save lives in Oregon by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people who will no longer be able to exploit the vast ‘Internet loophole’ to buy guns for cash in back alleys without a Brady background check. Lives will be saved as a result.

Dan Gross
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
May 11, 2015
Oregon Governor Signs Bill to Expand Background Checks
[I know this is a lie. You know this is a lie. The CDC knows this is a lie. And Dan Gross knows this is a lie.

How do I know that Gross knows this is a lie? Look at the careful wording of their media release:

The Brady Campaign recently released a report highlighting the success of the Brady Law, while making the case for why Oregon needs to expand Brady background checks to all gun sales. The report shows that Brady background checks work, and that expanding them in Oregon will save lives. In 2013, Brady background checks blocked 2,215 prohibited sales in Oregon; an average of six every day.

Here they measure success by the number of sales blocked. Not the number of lives saved. If they blocked all sales they would claim an even greater success.

They go on to say:

States with expanded Brady background checks see 46 percent fewer women murdered with guns by intimate partners; 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers killed by guns; and 48 percent fewer gun-related suicides, according to a recent report by Everytown for Gun Safety.

Here they measure success by reduction in the number of people murdered or committed suicide with guns. They don’t tell you if the total number of people murdered or committed suicide went down or perhaps went up. They don’t want to talk about violent crime rates. They only to talk about “gun deaths”.

There is a reason for that. They know that gun control does not save lives. They have a cultural of lies and deception. And whatever their motivation is for advocating gun control they are willing to lie to advance their agenda.—Joe]

Quote of the day—RickR

The gun lobby never lets stupid get in the way of their goals.

May 11, 2015
Tories push gun control changes through Parliament
[I find it very telling that RickR used fabricated data before claiming the gun lobby attempts stupid goals.

It appears to be universal and not just in our country. An anti-gun person believes gun owners are so stupid we won’t notice and call them on how ignorant, and/or malicious, and/or stupid they are.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ronald Reagan

The starting point must be the Constitution, because, above all, we are a nation of laws and the foundation for our laws, or lack of same, is the Constitution. It is amazing to me how so many people pay lip service to the Constitution, yet set out to twist and distort it when it stands in the way of things they think ought to be done or laws they believe ought to be passed. It is also amazing to me how often our courts do the same thing.

Ronald Reagan
September 1975
Editorial, Guns & Ammo
[From Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Philip Mulivor.

I was struck by how closely what Ted Cruz said a couple years ago matches what Reagan said decades earlier:

For a long time, a whole bunch of Democrats and unfortunately even some Republicans have been passing laws in this body without even asking where the basis is in the Constitution, and I think the Constitution should be the starting point for everything Congress does.

I agree with the sentiment but the cancer has spread so deep into the fabric of our society that rapidly ripping out the tumors would result in massive hemorrhaging. A slow removal almost certainly result in the tumor metastasizing and changing form to embed itself even deeper and perhaps more threating to the “patient”.

I’m nearly certain there is “too fast” and “too slow”. But what is “just right”?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Glenn Reynolds

You know, I felt better about the 19th Amendment before I knew that women, given a choice, would let Hitler live.

Glenn Reynolds
April 9, 2015
[This arose out of a hypothetical situation where you could go back in time and kill Hitler, if you wanted to. Men were more likely than women to choose that option as opposed to letting him live.

This is very interesting to me. One could claim that men are more rational and see the benefit of killing one tyrant so that, perhaps, millions may survive. And furthermore claim women tend to see the murder of Hitler as morally wrong and are unable to see there are exceptions to the morality code against killing.

But there are lots of other ways to look at the results of the study:

  • Perhaps women tend to respect rules more than men.
  • Perhaps the social norms in this country are such that women are taught it is better to be a victim than an aggressor even against a villain.
  • Perhaps women have a greater tendency to weigh the many different possibilities and come to the conclusion that maybe it might have turned out worse had someone else come to power instead of Hitler.
  • Perhaps women have developed a tendency toward pacifism not developed by men. This would give them an evolutionary advantage by being less likely to kill their own children because the biological cost of them creating another child is much higher compared to the biological cost for a man to create another child.

This study would seem to have implications for self-defense as well.

Other thoughts?—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Lott

3-D printers mean an end to any gun control. The government is not going to be able to ban magazines for guns, or ban guns themselves, and the notions of background checks would be even more impossible to do. Anyone with access to a 3-D printer can make guns functionally and indistinguishable from a gun that can be bought in a store. I don’t know how the government will stop people from obtaining a printer.

Just look at the illegal download of television shows and movies. Millions of copies have been downloaded and the government has been unable to stop it. Why would the government be successful in stopping other information like these files from being downloaded?

John Lott
May 7, 2015
Why Gun Control is Ultimately Doomed to Fail
[Well… the government can ban magazines and guns but they can’t effectively enforce the ban. It will be incredibly obvious it is like banning alcohol in the 1920s. Or even banning sex outside of marriage. It will be trivial to supply the black market and people will mock those who attempt to support it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cloudbuster

There has been adequate documentation that the religious doctrines of the terrorists are accurately reflective of accepted Muslim doctrine. The accurate term for the “moderate Muslims” everyone talks about is “apostates.” Or perhaps “heretics.”

May 4, 2015
Comment to Big Edit at the New York Times
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kim Huffman-Scott

They are getting too fast and I couldn’t count.

Kim Huffman-Scott
Boomershoot Target Production Manager
May 2, 2015
[I put Kim in charge of target production this year. This is one of the best decisions I have ever made. It dramatically reduced my work load and stress level. But most of all she did an awesome job.

The production line is usually running for about 13 or 14 hours to produce the targets for Boomershoot. This time it was less than eight hours. Part of this was the enthusiastic “army of people” (as Barb describes it) there to help. But Kim figured out how to put them all to work and they listened to her.

Kim quickly identified bottlenecks and fixed them. This is a dynamic problem because it depends on which size targets are being produced and who is doing which job at the time. She  also would anticipate when to change the line to a new target type. This is tough because the production line may have 10 to 20 targets in various stages of completion but you only have a good count of the number of actually completed crates. The following video gives you a clue of what it was like. It doesn’t show the people outside folding the boxes.

As the production crew cranked up the production rate it became more and more difficult to get a snapshot of completed crates and targets in production. This resulted in today’s QOTD. She told me this a few minutes after I took the video above.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jintana Nanana‏@jintana

Penises in hand “@minasmith64: Not sure what Shannon’s idea of motherhood might be but our family is raising men… pic.twitter.com/d0VZM562y4


Jintana Nanana‏@jintana
Tweeted on December 27, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a tweet from Linoge @wallsofthecity.—Joe]