If there’s one thing gun owners in America don’t need, it’s the star of “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” telling them whether or not they can own and operate firearms.
Zachary Leeman Just What We Need: Kim K Calls for Gun Control
[I think what is happening is a perverted form of “argument by authority”. If someone has a high status/visibility they are viewed, by some, as being an authority regardless of the subject matter. I suspect it is “hardwired” into our brains and served a valuable evolutionary purpose. Just because someone is well known, that, obviously, does not make them a subject matter expert. But at some level it satisfies a need for an authority opinion on the subject.
When, in high school, I first noticed this sort of thing I thought it was one of the most bizarre things I had ever heard of. Decades later during the I-676 campaign our anti-gun opponents used the approach and I was confused. Who, I wondered, would care whether some well known, but ignorant and/or stupid, person supported a law. Our side ended up doing the same thing and I still thought it was weird and felt rather “soiled” to be associated with that. But now, decades later, I realize that advertising uses celebrity endorsements all the time and they wouldn’t do that if wasn’t effective. If it works, it’s not stupid.
I still think it’s weird but I now think of it as a quirk of our brain evolution. Most people do not have a process by which they can accurately determine if something is true or false. Having such a process is an, in evolutionary timescales, extremely recent development. A quick and dirty test to determine truth of falsity that improved the odds of a correct determination by 20% is a huge evolutionary advantage over a ecological niche competitor. And quick and dirty test can even beat out competitors which use a more rigorous test that takes much longer. Hence even when more rigorous tests are available something as stupid as getting your firearms law recommendations from Kim Kardashian will feel entirely appropriate to people who appear to function normally. This is because it works often enough that they don’t remove themselves from gene pool.—Joe]
Kevin Imel USPSA NROI Range Instructor
June 3, 2017
[Kevin said this just after showing a video of a USPSA shooter almost shooting himself due to the compensator on his open class gun catching on the pocket of his loose fitting short during the draw.
Participating in USPSA matches are extremely safe. As near as USPSA records can determine no one, in 40 years of the sport, has ever died due to being shot while participating in a match. There have been heart attacks and auto accidents while going to and from matches which resulted in death, but not shooting accidents. Skiing, high school football, and a lot of other sports are far more dangerous.
But, the potential is there for serious injury or death and it is the job of the range officers to keep it safe.
I’m taking the USPS Range Officer class again because I let my RO certification expire in 2014. I just wasn’t shooting enough in 2012 and a few of the following years. I’m now shooting a lot more and I am going through the class again to get caught up with all the changes in the rules since the last time I took the class in 2012.—Joe]
I’M NOT AGAINST GUNS AND I’M NOT AGAINST PEOPLE OWNING GUNS. AFTER WHAT HAPPENED TO ME IN PARIS, I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO BE SAFE AND TO HAVE ARMED SECURITY. ALL OF MY SECURITY TEAM IS ARMED, BUT THEY ALSO SUPPORT STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS AND BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD RESTRICT ACCESS TO FIREARMS FOR PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS, ANYONE PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND THOSE AT A HIGHER RISK OF COMMITTING GUN VIOLENCE.
I HOPE THAT WE WON’T BECOME NUMBED BY THE INCREASING NUMBER OF GUN-RELATED TRAGEDIES WE SEE ON THE NEWS. WE ALL HAVE A VOICE AND A RIGHT TO FEEL SAFE, TO BE PROTECTED FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE A THREAT, PARTICULARLY WHEN HANDED A DEADLY WEAPON. I WANT TO HELP BUILD A SAFER FUTURE FOR MY CHILDREN AND I BELIEVE TOGETHER WE CAN FIND WAYS TO DO THAT, WHILE STILL PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
I recognize the difficulty the anti-gun people have in getting knowledgeable people to support their side, but they really should keep highly visible dimwits on a shorter leash. This dimwit is advocating for the denying someone convicted of shoplifting a jar of baby food 30 years ago their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. On top of that she believes she has a right to feel safe and to be protected.
However, the topper is that one paragraph after advocating for the explicit infringement upon the rights of people she claims, “we can find ways to do that, while still protecting the rights of the American people”. You can’t find ways to infringe upon the rights of people while protecting their rights.
This conclusively demonstrates she has crap for brains.—Joe]
Clinton seeks to present herself as the most forceful opponent of the Trump administration. Should the president be impeached, she’ll be able to say: Hey, I called it! But she isn’t leading the national conversation, she’s mouthing along with it, like any other retiree talking back to cable news at home. Even if the Trump administration proves to be the catastrophe she foresees, there is no reason the Democrats would turn back to her for a third run. Every time she draws attention to the Trumpian flaws that were conspicuous to all during the campaign, she doesn’t hear the obvious rejoinder echoing in every American’s mind: Then why couldn’t you trounce him?
Kyle Smith May 31, 2017 Has-Been Hillary [Most people know the answer. Clinton’s flaws were worse than those of Trump. Just one data point to consider in this regard is that if we had equality before the law she would be in jail for the rest of her life.—Joe]
The silencers are an accessory to make up for the loss of guns sales since President Obama left office.
They’ve sold the Barbies, and now they need to sell the Barbie Dreamhouse, and the Barbie shoes, and the Barbie car. That is essentially what suppressors are.
Founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America
May 29, 2017 Gun lobby seeks to calm fears about silencers
[Watts and her left wing ilk apparently believe that money is the motivation for everything and/or that motivation by money it is an evil impulse. Hence by lying about the NRA being primarily monetarily rewarded for firearm related sales Watts thinks it will generate more support for her position. All it really does is demonstrate she is clueless and/or has evil intent.—Joe
Update: It occurs to me that this is also about insulting gun owners. She is dismissing our exercise of a specific enumerated right as the equivalent of “playing with dolls”. ]
The passage of this bill conveys a special message. It tells me that these Democrat politicians are more concerned with the lives of convicted felons who used a gun in the commission of their crime than they are about law abiding gun owners who are guilty of nothing more than the unspeakable act of merely owning a gun. There really is no other way to logically interpret this. To them, law abiding gun owners are bad, but using a gun in the commission of a felony is acceptable.
The insanity in this state has reached previously unfathomable levels, and it shows no signs of reversing course.
Don’t you ever give up your guns. If people lose that right, forget about it. Politicians — they will take everything away from you. And then what are you going to do, protest with a rock? Because that’s what they do in Europe.
De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.
What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first – and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end – is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.
While Krauthammer is thinking things through better than most anti-gun people he isn’t thinking far enough ahead. If crime is very low then anti-gun people will have no justification for infringing upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. You see a hint of that awareness already with anti-gun people attempting to use suicides as justification to infringe upon our rights.—Joe]
The polls don’t measure the passion for voting on the gun issue. Someone might think a gun ban is a good idea but give up on that issue in favor of a promise of lower taxes.
A legislator might be inclined to vote for “smart guns” then have it explained that it cannot possibly achieve the claimed benefits.
A majority of the public might like the idea of a gun ban and confiscation but the legislators know confiscation cannot work without violation of the 4th Amendment even if there might be a path past the 2nd Amendment.
We do not have a system of simple majority rule. There also exist minority rights that is upheld, to a least a certain extent, by the judicial, legislative, and the executive branches of government. Polls do not measure the strength of this type of opposition.
Polls also indicate one of the most popular parts of ObamaCare is the elimination of restrictions regarding preexisting conditions. But things like someone buying insurance while on a stretcher after an auto accident in the emergency room (it used to happen in Washington State) prove the folly of government attempting to change the laws of economics or human nature.
Democrats should just keep on polling … and loosing.—Joe]
I’ve worked with and trained with law enforcement officers from all over the world (including British LEO’s), and inevitably we have discussed the realities of criminal violence in our respective jurisdictions and shared our exasperation with just how… misguided… most private citizens are regarding the realities of crime. A lot of people state they “never felt the need” to worry about their own protection or security, and sure, the odds that you’ll ever be accosted – even in the most crime-ridden societies – are relatively low. BUT… even the safest societies still have crime. Even the safest societies still have innocent people who get brutalized and murdered by criminals… and a lot of the victims of violent crime would NOT have been victimized if only they had taken even the most rudimentary steps to protect themselves.
6Gunner April 27, 2017 Posted to the thread Gun control in the UK [Self defense is more than just possessing a firearm and knowing when and how to use it. It requires awareness of your surroundings, the nature of people, and criminal methods.—Joe]
This supports an hypothesis of mine that most such “social justice” types are themselves exceptionally shallow, narrow-minded bigots. When something even more blatant than “Friday” comes along, and they are forced to be aware of their own human failings, they over-react, as does the reformed alcoholic or druggie who suddenly “Finds God” and obsesses over religion (versus faith or piety) to the point where it’s apparent it’s merely a substitute addiction.
Once aware of their own failings, their form of denial is to project their shortcomings onto all “normal” people, who obviously feel as they do, about those “non-normal” people they suddenly realize were in fact human beings all along.
Cleansing a sickness from our souls doesn’t come easy. It’s gruesome…
John Morse Colorado Democratic Legislator March 8, 2013 In the context of advocating for the passage of oppressive gun laws. [This has been widely, and erroneously, quoted as:
People who own guns are essentially a “sickness on our souls” that must be “cleansed. … Cleansing a sickness from our souls doesn’t come easy. It’s gruesome…”
While that could seen to be a valid interpretation of his intent, that is not what he said. He claims,
“To insinuate that I referred to gun owners as a ‘sickness from our souls’ is obscene,” Morse said Tuesday, according to KDVR. “As a former police officer and a gun owner myself, I believe in the right to bear arms. And as a legislator, I am committed to making our whole society healthier and safer.”
The claim, “I believe in the right to bear arms” does not mean he respects the right. And from the context we know he is admitting that that he is intent on knowingly attempting to violate that right.
While we can’t definitely read his mind the erroneous version of the quote can’t be far from the truth of what he believes.—Joe]
The left did not mourn the mass destruction of the moderates. Instead it celebrated the growing purity of the Democrats as a movement of the hard left. It did not notice or care that it was no longer a political force outside a limited number of cities. It anticipated that voters would have no choice but to choose it over the “extremist” Republicans.
Delusions are often functional. In this case they cannot see the truth because it would destroy their entire system of belief. What we have here could be another chapter in the book When Prophecy Fails (my website about this amazing book it is here). As their prophecies fail instead of admitting they were wrong they proselytize more. Converting more people to believe as they do reduces the psychological stress of their discovery that they were wrong. That proselytization has a lower cost than admitting they were wrong.
Read Greenfield’s whole pamphlet. I alternated between seeing it as a nearly unbelievable conspiracy theory and brilliant insight. Perhaps it is both.—Joe]
Soviet organisation has made possible the creation of armed forces of workers and peasants which are much more closely connected with the working and exploited people than before. If this had not been done it would have been impossible to achieve one of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism—the arming of the workers and the disarming of the bourgeoisie.
The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.