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.
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]
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.
July 18, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Dov Marhoffer
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Even a man who is bed-ridden and within months of his death can contribute to the feeding and defense of his family if he has a firearm.
July 19, 2018
A story collected from elder-care
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
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.
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]
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.
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]
Tweeted by Sam I Am @nmikel:
His twitter profile claims:
Liberal right, atheist, all around smart guy.
The first two claims seem plausible but the above tweet is conclusive confirmation the third claim is in error.
H/T Jonathan @CorrelA_B.
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]
Man, you are one of the most obsessed gun nuts I have ever seen—your dick must size of a tic-tac!!
Let’s hope.you have an accident real, REAL soon…. you and the rest of your NRA fuckard comrads should do the country a favor and just start offing eachother.
Sheena Hume Jessee
March 25, 2018
Facebook message to Ryan Harris
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
One has to wonder how serious they are about wanting us to change our minds about owning guns when they make it so clear they also want us dead.—Joe]
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.
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]
Via the Washington Times:
An Ohio judge has permanently barred the city of Columbus from enforcing its ban on “bump stock” devices, saying the city’s recently passed ordinance violates the state Constitution.
A bump stock is a “component” of a firearm, and so the city’s ban violates state law that generally allows the possession of guns and associated parts absent a conflicting state or federal restriction, Franklin County Judge David E. Cain said in a ruling announced Friday.
In the Columbus case, Judge Cain said the city tried to argue that bump stocks are gun “accessories,” not parts, because they can be installed by the end user — which he said could result in a situation where the legality of the devices hinges on who installs them.
“If a person orders a bump-stock be placed on a rifle directly from the manufacturer, then under Columbus‘ logic, that bump-stock is now a component of the rifle,” he wrote.
“If the manufacturer installed the bump-stock, you are good,” he continued. “If you installed the bump stock, you go to jail. Two different results for possessing the same product. The logic fails.”
He said the case isn’t about the levels of gun violence in society, whether it’s morally right to ban bump stocks, or whether new gun restrictions related to domestic abusers will prevent gun violence.
“This matter is purely a legal matter,” he wrote. “It is solely about whether Columbus has the authority to enact the ordinances. That is all there is.”
A judge that interprets and enforces the law as written. Nice!
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]
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.
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]
The way the recording industry killed Napster in the ’90’s was by proliferating file sharing network with defective music files. People got sick of music that had random gaps of silence interspersed during the songs. Unless you were REALLY cheap, you went ahead and spent the $0.99 for the quality version.
How about distributing gun design files with fatal flaws engineered in? The yokels who download these plans would be easily identifiable by eye patches and the lack of several fingers.
July 7, 2018
Comment to Does an Arkansas-born anarchist spell the end of gun control with printable firearms?
[Anti-gun people want gun owners to be maimed and/or killed.—Joe]
My son told me that last weekend was more fun than Disneyland.
If I were to ask my daughter I’d bet she would say the same thing.
July 10, 2018
In regards to attending Boomershoot 101.
[Extrapolate however you think is appropriate.—Joe]
This last weekend I put on a trial class I called Boomershoot 101: Target Production, High Intensity, and Intro to Long Range.
The students made the reactive targets from basic chemicals (photos by Brian, Chris, and Kim):
They learned safe gun handling and how to shoot an AR-15:
They distributed targets:
They had their own High Intensity event:
They learned the basics of long range shooting (and several claimed they could never hit anything that far away):
They all connected with 7” targets (and some with 4” targets) at 373 yards. And we have the smiles to prove it:
We all learned a lot. I will modify the class with what I learned for the next set of students. And before long I will subject this set of students to Boomershoot 102: Long Range Math.
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.
July 9, 2018
[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]
“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]
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
BULLETIN FOR GUN OWNERS WHO DID NOT REGISTER THEIR FIREARMS AS “ASSAULT WEAPONS”
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]
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.
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]
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.
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]