Quote of the day—OliveBucket

3D printing is the end of gun control. The so-called progressives are acting like there’s a debate about it. The debate is over. The guns are downloadable. The files are in the public domain. You cannot take them back. You can adjust your politics to this reality. You will not ask me to adjust mine.

OliveBucket
May 15, 2020
Comment to WHAT ARE GHOST GUNS? SENATE DEMS INTRODUCE BILL REGULATING UNTRACEABLE 3D-PRINTED WEAPONS
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tribune Content Agency

The decline occurred despite a spike in gun sales that month.

The number of mass shooting incidents, killings and firearm injuries all dropped as states and cities took aggressive measures to contain the virus.

Tribune Content Agency
May 10, 2020
Mass shootings in US plunge during pandemic closures
[It was only six weeks earlier the anti-gun rights groups were “concerned” about the spike in gun sales:

Gun control advocates are concerned about a large number of new owners lacking the usual access to training on how to store and handle their weapon properly.

In fact, they wanted gun stores and ranges completely closed during this pandemic*.

So, once again, their “concerns” and/or predictions have been found to be not only false, but 180 degrees out of phase with reality. One could claim they are delusional. But, the truth is, they just lie all the time. It’s part of their culture.—Joe]


* Actually for all time, but they don’t usually admit to that.

Quote of the day—thatgunguyfl

80% lowers/receivers, etc.., are NOT FIREARMS. That’s the whole point. Chunks of Unfinished metal are worthless until someone turns them into a finished product. Where does this stupidity end? If I possess a ton of scrap aluminum or steel, should I have to register it as a car and forced to purchase insurance? The ignorance of some of you only help the lying media fool the American public.

thatgunguyfl
May 12, 2020
Posted on Reddit in response to ATF or Congress should act to declare ‘ghost guns’ firearms requiring background checks
[The people who advocate for the making “ghost guns” illegal, or “declaring them firearms” must not be aware of the existence of “shop class” in high school. And as such they are doing the equivalent of expecting someone who fails to observe the laws regarding violent crime to dutifully obey them in regards to engaging in an activity which harms no one.

And when you see this you wonder how they made it to the directorship of a government agency without knowing laws are not supposed to be made by government bureaucrats:

Thomas Brandon, the former acting director of the ATF who retired last spring, said he recommended to his bosses at the Department of Justice that they reclassify certain ghost gun kits as firearms because of the ease in putting them together.

I suppose I just need to remind myself, and others, of what Henry Kissinger said.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Nylah Burton

I believe that for many Black people, especially those living in predominantly white areas, firearms might prove necessary. And not just for defense, but for food sustainability, which will become more important as the climate crisis worsens. In fact, home birth, natural medicine, farming, hunting, and fishing, are all skills I believe Black people should turn to as we prepare for the seismic shift that political upheaval and environmental collapse may bring.

America is a gun country, and it’ll destroy itself before it lays down its arms. With the storm that’s already here and with the storms that have yet to come, the idea of my people laying down ours first terrifies me.

Nylah Burton
May 12, 2020
As A Black Woman In This Country, I Feel I Need To Bear Arms
[I tend to disagree with many of her assertions and the process by which she arrives at her conclusions. I am, however, quite content with the conclusions reached.

I would like to encourage her and others to proceed with the proposed independent mindset and skillsets. I expect this will result in many of their beliefs being revised. I’m good with that.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Joan Skiba

Why is the Second Amendment the single go-to amendment for the assault weapon-toting people concerned that gun regulations take away their constitutional rights? Why not take a moment to read a bit from the Ninth Amendment advocating for my constitutional right provided by our government for “…obtaining happiness and safety”? I am finding it difficult to feel any sense of safety knowing someone could be packing heat at my grocery store, movie theater or local bars. Any answer for me?

Joan Skiba
May 11, 2020
All amendments matter, not just the 2nd Amendment

[Sure, I have an answer for you Joan. You apparently are getting your delusions confused with reality. In the reality shared with nearly everyone else the full text of the Ninth Amendment is:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now, Madison did propose an amendment which contains those words:

That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

But it was not part of the Bill of Rights in our reality. And, it had nothing to do with the government providing it.

Joan, please check with your mental health providers and see if your meds need to be adjusted.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mike

I swear to God, if you’ve never felt the government’s jackboots on your neck, it’s because you’ve never stood up for yourself.

Never give an inch, Joe. Never.

Mike
May 20, 2020
[Via email. Mike also informed me:

Looks like things are heating up in Canada with a gun prohibition that covers every ar-15 model they could think of. This will also include 12 gauge shotguns. Why, you ask? Because barrel lengths are important to determine if a firearm is to be considered Non-restricted, Restricted, or Prohibited, according to the law. This new set of regulations prohibits any firearm with a bore diameter of over 20mm, which is 0.787″. As a 12 gauge bore can range from 18.5mm (0.728″) to 20.3mm (0.799″), that can cover a lot of shotguns. Worse, is that if your shotguns have screw-in chokes, those chokes cannot be considered part of the barrel when measuring firearm barrels for importation purposes; and since you must cut the bore to a larger internal diameter to have the threads with which to screw in the threads in the first place, you would be unable to import it; and if you already own such a shotgun, you will then be possession of  a prohibited weapon. Imagine if your 28″ barrelled over/under has now been deemed a machinegun, by government decree.

Writing a law which defines something not a machine into something that now is a machine gun sounds familiar from somewhere

Why aren’t these politicians being tarred and feathered?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Walter K. Olson

I am a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, with which I have been associated since 1985, and am the author of three books on the American civil justice system. My most recent book, The Rule of Lawyers (St. Martin’s, 2003), published in January, includes a chapter exploring the origins and objectives of the movement seeking to make makers and distributors of guns pay for criminals’ misuse of their wares. I conclude that the gun suits are at best an assault on sound tenets of individual responsibility, and at worst a serious abuse of legal process. Even more ominously, the suits demonstrate how a pressure group can employ litigation to attempt an end run around democracy, in search of victories in court that it has been unable to obtain at the ballot box. Finally, I argue that strong Congressional action to restrict litigation of this type is not only consistent with a due regard for federalism and state autonomy, but is in fact required by it.

Walter K. Olson
April 2, 2003
PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT HEARING
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

[Reading the transcript was interesting. At that time, prior to the Heller Decision in 2008, SCOTUS had not definitively stated the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. This was an issue in the hearings:

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. In the finding, Mr. Keane, on the finding number one, citizens have a right protected by the second amendment to the United States Constitution to keep and bear arms, I notice it says ”citizens” and not ”a citizen.” there is no individual right in the Constitution to bear arms, is there?

Those were dark days.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Peter J. Boyer

Henigan believes that it is imperative to steer the argument about guns away from the problematic area of criminal use, with its inconvenient focus on criminals, and toward the matter of guns in the home—incidents of suicide, accidental shootings, and domestic violence. This is an important shift, because it allows the gun debate to be recast as a health issue. Henigan told the Castano lawyers about the many studies that have considered guns in an epidemiological context; in other words, guns should be thought of as pathogens, and gun ownership, perhaps, as a disease.

Peter J. Boyer
May 17, 1999
BIG GUNS
The New Yorker
[I was rearranging some things in my bookcase and found the May 1999 issue of The New Yorker. The quote above is from one of the articles. Viewing the article online requires payment. The picture below is the entire second page of the article.

image

See also:

I find the wording of Henigan’s response to congressman Feeney interesting. Henigan is a lawyer and I’m sure he chose those words carefully. He doesn’t say he believes the characterizing is invalid. He only says he doesn’t endorse it. There is a reason I call him “Half-Truth Henigan”.

The mid and late 1990 were very dark days for the rights of gun owners.—Joe]

Quote of the day— Persuasion (@SonOfAlgos)

The only way the country is going to get back on its feet is to haul all Trumpers into Quarantine Camps, so they can’t run around infecting everyone else.

And just leave them there..permanently.

Image

Persuasion (@SonOfAlgos)
Tweeted on May 5, 2020
[This is what they think of you.

This is why we have the Second Amendment.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Hamilton Spectator

The assault weapon ban is fine, as far as it goes. But since a real handgun ban is unlikely, to what extent can Canadians feel safer?

Hamilton Spectator
May 5, 2020
Assault-style weapon ban is like Swiss cheese–The majority gun crimes involve handguns. This legislation doesn’t address that at all.
[I find the phrase “feel safer” very telling.

The author could have said, “… to what extent will Canadians actually be safer?” Or “… a real handgun ban is required to improve safety.” That they said, “feel safer” strongly implies they know gun bans won’t make the average person safer. They apparently have some motive other than public safety when they advocate for gun bans.

Since this is Canada it’s more difficult to get traction with a principled statement of rights. But that doesn’t mean the victimized gun owners don’t have verbal tools to fight back with.

People need to demand gun control advocates openly state their motive for restrictions on self-defense tools. If they claim public safety, then demand they supply the data that restrictions achieve that goal.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert Higgs and Donald J. Boudreaux

Nothing is so permanent in government as a temporary agency or an emergency bill. Crises bring into operation new government activities and new scales of spending, taxing, and regulating; they were not intended to be permanent, yet became so by virtue of entrenched special interests and bureaucrats, often backed by congressional sponsors. Act in haste, repent at leisure.

Robert Higgs and Donald J. Boudreaux
May 5, 2020
Past Crises Have Ratcheted Up Leviathan–The COVID-19 Pandemic Will Too
[Politicians never let a crisis go to waste.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Globe and Mail

If a ban on military-style semi-automatics is an effective way to reduce the number of weapons in circulation and available for mass shootings, then surely a similar ban on handguns – which also have no legitimate civilian purpose, and which kill and wound more Canadians every year than any other firearm – would have a similar effect.

Friday’s announcement accomplished two things. It banned a style of weapon that has no place outside of the military, but it also reminded people who care about gun control that the Liberals have been inconsistent and at times illogical in their approach to the issue.

The Globe and Mail
May 1, 2020
Trudeau’s hurried assault-rifle ban is a weak half-measure
[Says the voice of reason.

Well actually… ignorance, stupidity, and/or evil.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Greg Scharf

The United Kingdom has ridiculously restrictive gun laws, and right now is having a tsunami of knife crime. And what we’re not hearing is that bad guys have a steady stream of illegal weapons coming from Eastern Europe via the Chunnel.

Greg Scharf
May 1, 2020
Gun control is unable to contain the problem of evil
[It’s obviously not about crime. It’s about control and creating dependency.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Josh Horwitz

As the world faces the COVID-19 public health emergency, America is still grappling with another public health crisis: gun violence.

Gun violence and the COVID-19 pandemic are inextricably linked. As Americans are asked to stay home, many might be in closer proximity to guns for longer periods of time. This is a concern because even under normal circumstances, guns do not make us safer. Guns do not make us more secure. Guns do not improve the health of the general public.

Josh Horwitz
May 1, 2020
Via email. See also here.
[And proximity to cars and ladders make us more likely to be injured while using one. But this ignores the utility of these objects. Horwitz not only ignores their utility, he denies their ability of firearms to be used to increase personal and public safety.

Horwitz is liar and a threat to the rights and safety of everyone and should be treated as such.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Group of Democrats

While the surge in firearm sales from federally licensed dealers has received nationwide attention, at least 16 companies that sell ghost gun kits have reported order backlogs and shipping delays due to overwhelming demand. The uptick in sales of ghost gun kits and parts have received substantially less notice, even though the increase in sales of ghost guns poses a direct threat to public safety and law enforcement… Because the proliferation of ghost guns is a serious problem, we write to request…information and documentation to probe how the ATF is monitoring, overseeing, and regulating the sale of ghost gun kits and unfinished frames and receivers, amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Group of Democrats
April 2020
Congressional Democrats seek answers from ATF on efforts to track “ghost guns”
[<snort!>

The last time I checked the ATF didn’t have the authority to do any such thing. Furthermore people engaging in legal behavior should not be monitored, overseen, and regulated. They should, and currently are, for the most part, left alone. As they should be. That a “Group of Democrats” expects a government agency to engage in such behaviors tells you all you need to know about that group. They should be forever barred from public office, government jobs, and any government pension.

I also recommend law enforcement investigate to see if an 18 USC 242 case could be pursued. People like this need to be made into examples to discourage others from going down the same path.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sex Positive Dennis Prager @PragerSex

We’ve never had gun control, evidenced by the fact we’re overflowing with guns and the NRA has blocked every effort.

Sex Positive Dennis Prager @PragerSex
Tweeted on April 26, 2020
[So, which is it this time?

  1. Willfully ignorant.
  2. Knows that if they tell a big enough lie enough times someone will believe them.
  3. The mental hospital allows them Twitter access.

When confronted with a small sample of the laws restricting access to guns he claimed, “None of those laws made guns illegal.” Hence, it wasn’t true gun control.

I’m voting for, 4. Troll.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Herschel Smith

So Giffords opposes semi-automatic gun ownership because it is “more effective than automatic firing of the same weapons because they allow for more accuracy without substantially sacrificing rate of fire.”  On the other hand, bump stocks are a “serious threat to public safety” precisely because, according to Giffords, it mimics fully automatic fire.

Herschel Smith
April 22, 2020
Giffords Law Center Presents Anti-Gun Arguments That Contradict Not Only The Constitution, But Their Own Positions
[What most people don’t realize is rational thought is alien. Rational thought is a very thin veneer over a mass of beliefs and feelings.

In our culture some portion of us were told, expected, to think and reason. In general it may even be that you expected to go with that flow. But it’s tough. Reality is really, really difficult to understand. The vast majority of people have reasons for their beliefs and actions. Notice I wrote “reasons”, not rational, logically consistent, factually supported constructs.

Those reasons are far more than enough to convince yourself and can frequently even convince the majority of people around you. You can believe you have everything all completely figured out. But yet the majority of the time you don’t.

I suspect, but don’t know for certain, that in this case the people at Giffords Law Center believed they had a very tight, logically sound belief system. But what they actually have are “reasons”.

Those “reasons” are, in essence:

  • Bump stocks are bad because they can fire many bullets in a short period of time like fully automatic guns.
  • Semi-automatic guns are bad because they are more accurate than fully automatic guns.

It’s circular “logic”. Until someone points it out one could be be completely comfortable with such a belief system for the rest of their life. And most people, when their faulty logic is pointed out to them, will try to save their beliefs rather than correct their thinking. It’s far less psychologically stressful to cling to their beliefs rather than admit they are wrong. Everyone does it sometimes and to varying degrees.

For some people there exists a cure. They need to feel safe in admitting they were wrong. The cost of such admission must be made low or a even a positive experience. High self esteem helps. A politician seeking votes can change their beliefs easily and even multiple times in one day. They value the votes and the power far more then their beliefs. The beliefs are no more a part of them them than a shirt or a pair of shoes. They change their clothes in response to their circumstances, why not their beliefs? And if they really believe it then it’s not lying.

For those will a low self-esteem and with a few people who support them in their irrational belief system it’s far more difficult to give up a firmly held belief. They may even hold onto their beliefs even when faced with their own death rather than give them up.

Anti-gun people tend to fall more into the second category than the first. Look at them and watch and listen to them. Most are timid, low self-esteem people. When they are confronted with evidence and arguments which contradict their beliefs they will shut off the dialog or dismiss you will a childish insult rather admit their belief is worthless.

There are exceptions of course. The power hunger politicians must be persuaded via power but the timid low self-esteem types can sometimes be empowered by taking them to the range. Teaching them to be good at something that gives them independence from fear and you have a good chance of changing their irrational beliefs.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays

Democrats are so worried about Trump’s decision-making that they want to replace him with an elderly dementia patient with credible #metoo allegations. How can Trump learn to make good decisions the way Democrats are doing by picking Biden? Is that a learnable skill?

Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays
Tweeted on April 27, 2020
[Excellent question!

The answer depends upon what tribe you belong to.

If you belong to tribe R then no matter how many times people correct, shame, scold, punish, and ridicule you it will intuitively obvious to the most casual observer than you are beyond all hope of learning anything.

If you belong to tribe D then there is no need to learn it. It is an inherent trait that cannot be diminished in any way, certainly not by obvious dementia, and perhaps not even by death.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mark Knapp

Leopold & Loeb were trying to commit the perfect crime and never expected to become famous by their crime. At the same time, they prided themselves on their ability to throw off the shackles of morality and demonstrate to each other that they had achieved Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideal; i.e., the Superman, who arises above moral arguments that are designed by the weak to hold back those with the will to become strong. Despite the manner in which the present day Progressive elite camouflages its motives by appeals to social justice and egalitarianism, such Superman morality is at the core of much of our modern culture. It all boils down to survival of the fittest if there is no absolute groundwork for our moral beliefs!

Mark Knapp
January 8, 2014
Leopold, Loeb, Active Shooters, Modern Man & Superman
[I think this overstates it a little bit. Multiple, incongruent, moral philosophies can co-exist. For example, Jainism, Objectivism, and Christianity shouldn’t have a problem with the others and get into a survival of the fittest contest. Yet, they are very, very different.

Quibbling aside, his point about Progressives does seem fair. You can see it in their attitudes toward gun owners and conservatives in general. You see moral superiority at every turn.

In one specific case it was scary. An Obama supporting woman I knew several years ago proudly told me she and I were one of the “new humans” or some such thing. And it was people like us who would take over the world as lesser humans failed to keep up. She was sure we were more advanced and knew better than “ordinary people” on most topics.

She apparently didn’t realize I disagreed with her on almost every topic she had expressed an opinion about. I just didn’t see any reason to confront her on the multitude of absurdities she asserted.—Joe]