Quote of the day—Andrew Whitehead, Landon Schnabel and Samuel Perry

In our newly published and freely available study, the connection between Christian nationalism and gun control attitudes proves stronger than we expected. It turns out that how intensely someone adheres to Christian nationalism is one of the strongest predictors of whether someone supports gun control. One’s political party, religiosity, gender, education or age doesn’t matter.

You could be a mainline Protestant Democratic woman or a highly educated politically liberal man — the more you line up with Christian nationalism, the less likely you are to support gun control.

Andrew Whitehead, Landon Schnabel and Samuel Perry
July 25, 2018
Why some Christians don’t believe in gun control: They think God handed down the Second Amendment
[Interesting observation. But probably not that surprising when you know their definition of Christian nationalism:

Americans who subscribe to Christian nationalism believe that America has always been ― and should always be ― distinctively Christian in its national identity, sacred symbols and public policies. What’s more, for adherents to this ideology, America’s historic statements about human liberties (e.g., the First and Second Amendments) are imbued with sacred, literal and absolute meaning.

If I understand this correctly they believe a higher power, the Christian God, created our nation and constitution. And, I would imagine, therefore claim that God’s creation must be in His likeness—i.e. perfection. Any utility argument, or even a principled argument, that does not address the creation of the U.S. Constitution by a perfect being is pointless.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cam Edwards

That pile of cash is the Venezuelan equivalent of one US dollar. Behold the power of socialism.


Cam Edwards @CamEdwards
Tweeted on July 23, 2018
[The destructive power of socialism is absolutely amazing. No other political system has been so well tested and proven again and again to be such a threat to property and lives. Only an “intellectual”, completely out of touch with reality, could honestly advocate it as an improvement in the living conditions for the majority of the people.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kurt Schlichter

Right now, social justice fascism is just too valuable to them to just abandon. It works. It lets those who rightfully would have no power exploit the stupid and weak elite to exercise unearned authority. These goose-stepping aspiring Red Guards got a taste of power and they like it. And they are bad people. They have to be stopped, here and now.

Kurt Schlichter
July 23, 2018
Conservatives Reject Unilateral Disarmament In The Face Of Liberal Social Fascism
[He makes some very good points. There days when I think risking riots and civil war by standing up to the fascists isn’t worth it. Perhaps we should just let them throw their tantrums and don’t make a big deal about it.

No. Compliance with insane demands just encourages more insanity.

At the class this last weekend Greg make what I thought was great point that I have mentioned several times, expressed in different words, by my counselor. Greg expressed it more succinctly:

Have you ever noticed that crazy people will act only as crazy as you let them be?

We have to set boundaries and enforce them. Schlichter drew a line in the sand. I’m willing to enforce it. Are you?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mark

If you support this proposal then you must support a keeping homeowners honest act. While the vast majority of homeowners are law abiding citizens, studies would suggest that over 90% of illegal drugs distributed in any given area are distributed by a few bad apples. To have all homes periodically searched to prevent illegal drug sales is just common sense.

July 17, 2018 at 1:24 pm
Comment to Senators Blumenthal and Murphy offer new bill to increase gun dealer oversight
[The ATF should be a chain of convenience stores, not a regulatory agency.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

How is it, then, that “assault weapons” magically transform into “counter-assault weapons” when handled by the police? And how do they revert to “deadly assault weapons” when handled by everyone else?

The fact that people believe that law enforcement may use these weapons demonstrates, of course, that people understand that the weapons have obvious and legitimate utility for defense of home, community and nation. This one fact shows that the guns are not evil of themselves, and do not whisper to their owners, taunting them to shoot children playing at recess or innocent bystanders in drive-by shootings.

This one fact shows that people understand that the responsible use of firearms depends foremost on the purpose and character of the person who wields the weapon. And because we know these things, this discrepancy between how we view police holds the key to understanding what the assault weapon ban is really about.

Jeff Snyder
Who’s Under Assault in the Assault Weapon Ban?
The Washington Times, Aug. 25, 1994, page A19

See also, Nation of Cowards 2001 page 64
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Windy Wilson

Certainly the Leftists do not want us to love freedom and liberty at all, and as soon as the streets and cities are made safe from “gun violence”, and knife and club and fist violence take its place, the lickspittle followers of the Leftists can sit in their houses and quake at every thump and bump, and think about what they did, or perhaps they will later write letters to Comrade whoever explaining why it’s a mistake they’re in the camp.

Windy Wilson
July 18, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Dov Marhoffer
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Quinn Norton

in the wild, in really dangerous situations — even when people are being hunted by men with guns — when encryption and security fails, no one stops talking. They just hope they don’t get caught.

Quinn Norton
May 20, 2014
Everything Is Broken
[It appears this is true or at least very close to being true. I’ve heard it said that most criminals only go to jail because they talked. The TV shows and movies where some super smart detective or reporter figures things out are fiction. In real life the bad guy got unlucky, the good guys got lucky, or the bad guy talked.

Norton isn’t talking about bad guys in the usual sense. She is talking about political activists and reporters trying to take down corrupt (at least in their world view) governments. But still, people have a very difficult time keeping quiet even when their life depends on it. They want to share exciting information. They want acknowledgement and praise for accomplishing some difficult task. They want the status that comes from contributing to the fall of a powerful opponent.

This is something to remember if you ever get into such a situation. Almost for certain, you will want to talk about things that could get yourself and others thrown in jail or killed. If you have to talk then only talk face-to-face with people that already know what you know and keep in mind they may be recording the conversation so they will get an lighter sentence.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dov Marhoffer

I am a Holocaust concentration camp survivor. I am one of a rapidly dwindling number of eyewitnesses to the Nazi Holocaust, the most systematic genocide of all time.

I regularly speak at high schools, universities, and community events, sharing my eyewitness account with newer generations of Americans who have no concept of the horrors governments can inflict. I feel a duty to keep alive the memories of millions of Jews who were murdered by Adolf Hitler’s Germany and who cannot speak for themselves.

Today, misinformed students cynically led by progressives are using that event and its rallying call to confiscate guns and turn them over to government–the exact opposite of the core lessons to be learned. This is so fundamentally wrong no justification can excuse it. Naming a book Never Again!–which is a desperate call to arms–to address drug-addled, video-mesmerized, psychotic, murderous classmates –misappropriates and reverses the central messages and lessons of the Holocaust.

In the 1940s, the words Never Again! in German were scrawled on the wall of the Muehldorfer Hart Nazi concentration camp in southern Germany, where 2,200 prisoners, mostly Hungarian Jews, were murdered and buried in a mass grave. For 70 years, the slogan Never Again! has been the post-Holocaust rallying cry of Jews everywhere. It is a solemn vow that millions of Jews will never again be disarmed and defenselessly marched into camps for systematic liquidation because we can resist with the same powerful firearms we might face in the hands of totalitarian government. That progressives would take this vow, turn it upside down, and use it to grab guns is an abomination.

Dov Marhoffer
JPFO Board of Advisors
July 17th, 2018
“Never Again!” Belongs to the Holocaust — not an anti-gun-rights book and campaign Using the Holocaust this way is disgraceful
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Judge Brett Kavanaugh

It is especially inappropriate for the majority opinion here to apply intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny to D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles. No court of appeals decision since Heller has applied intermediate scrutiny to a ban on a class of arms that have not traditionally been banned an “incidental” regulation. It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech. Such restrictions on core enumerated constitutional protections are not subjected to mere intermediate scrutiny review. The majority opinion here is in uncharted territory in suggesting that intermediate scrutiny can apply to an outright ban on possession of a class of weapons that have not traditionally been banned.

Gun bans and gun regulations that are longstanding—or, put another way, sufficiently rooted intext, history, and tradition—are consistent with the Second Amendment individual right. Gun bans and gun regulations that are not longstanding or sufficiently rooted in text, history,and tradition are not consistent with the Second Amendment individual right.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh
October 4, 2011
HELLER, et al., Appellants v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellees.No. 10–7036.
[Sounds solid to me. I just want to hear that in a majority opinion from SCOTUS.—Joe]

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

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]