The irony of Keri L (@ikeriover)

After retweeting this post of mine Keri L (@ikeriover) tweeted this:

 

My post pointed out she was either incapable of comprehensive reading or that she was imagining I wrote something completely different from what I actually did. And she calls me crazy?

Another thread of interest is this:

you can get prosecuted for leaving your children in the car alone, but not if you leave a loaded gun for them to find? #NotOneMore

— Keri L (@ikeriover) June 7, 2014

@ikeriover Not true in most states. Reckless endangerment laws exist and are used.

— Joe Huffman (@JoeHuffman) June 7, 2014

@JoeHuffman actually this is a true story.http://t.co/EE1tzMnJDX

— Keri L (@ikeriover) June 7, 2014

@JoeHuffman you are a bully & not so surprising with your crazy pro-gun stance. I am sure you ‘quote me” &yourcrazy followers will join in.

— Keri L (@ikeriover) June 7, 2014

@ikeriover I was referring to the part about not being prosecutable for leaving a loaded gun accessible to kids.

— Joe Huffman (@JoeHuffman) June 7, 2014

As part of this same thread she also said, “You are a monster.” But that tweet has been deleted.

These people have mental problems. There is no other explanation.

Update for clarification: In the comments there is some confusion about who said what which led to the confrontation between Keri L. and I. Here is more of the thread:

KeriLTwitterThread

Open letter to Eric Holder

This, from Mike Vanderboegh, is interesting. It represents one of the stated ideas behind the second amendment back in the day– Something about keeping would-be tyrants “in awe”, presenting a force beyond that of any standing army, etc.

I’m not sure what good the letter could do, beyond letting Holder and Company know that we have a fairly good, general idea of what they’re up to, that we’re not all entirely intimidated, blind, cowed, distracted and demoralized. There may be some value in that and there may not, but there it is. I’ve done similar in the past, but I don’t think I’ll be doing it again.

As for the possibility of violence; I do NOT believe that, at this point anyway, Holder and Company are the slightest bit intimidated. Not in the way the author may have intended. I believe it is likely, insofar as I understand the mentality or the occupying identity that drives them, that Holder et al are quite looking forward to violence, that they’ve been getting impatient waiting for it and can’t quite understand why we’re taking so long to get with it (and thus help them fulfill their plans).

It might be more productive to try to convince Holder & Company that they themselves are mere pawns, and that once their role is served and their usefulness expired they’ll be left in the lurch, or squashed like cockroaches, by those they currently serve, but that won’t dawn on them until it’s far too late for them. It almost never does.

And so the value in such letters or postings is, at best, that later on they’ll not be able to say they weren’t warned or didn’t have any choice. In light of THAT, maybe our efforts should include defining for such unfortunates a viable way out.

Crazy talk

I don’t even know what this means:

CsgvNonsense

This is some sort of crazy talk. These people are out of their minds and yet the media listens to them? If anything they should use them as an example of people with mental health issues.

Quote of the day—Scott Martelle

As for handguns, assault-style weapons, etc., let’s have a flat-out ban. Beyond the histrionics of the gun lobby, there is no defensible reason for such weapons to be a part of our culture. They exist for one purpose: to kill.

Scott Martelle
May 28, 2014
You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether.
[H/T to Sebastian.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you no one wants to take your guns. This is from the Los Angles Times’ Opinion Staff.

He dismisses the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms with:

One can hope that the court will someday go further than its recognition that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right and determine that rampant gun ownership is a public safety threat. And that Congress will push legislation that recognizes that the heavy societal costs of gun ownership outweigh any 2nd Amendment pretense to the right to own guns.

He dismisses self-defense with:

Impossible to measure because of a lack of trustworthy data.

This is even though his cited source, Paul Barrett, says the lower limit on estimated defensive gun use in the U.S. is about 100,000/year which exceeds the murders by a factor of ten.

It is apparently beyond his ability to accept the realities of the Supreme Court ruling that firearm in common use, and handguns in particular are protected. This is in the ruling he linked to! Then after realizing numbers and simple arithmetic are apparently beyond his grasp we could suggest he look to the “success” of banning things which have far less benefit and probably more harm, such as recreational drugs. How did the prohibition of alcohol work out? And the continuing ban of hardcore recreational drugs? Maybe he would like to extend the bans of those things harmful to other things such as tobacco? How does he think that would turn out? We already have a large black market in cigarettes because of the high taxes on them.

But we shouldn’t bother speculating. He obviously has crap for brains and is incapable of extrapolating past the end of his nose.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Janey Rountree

There is no question it will be the smartest, toughest regulation on gun stores in the country. It’s designed to prevent gun trafficking and illegal sales in these stores.

Janey Rountree
Chicago mayor’s deputy chief of staff for public safety
May 28, 2014
Chicago mayor pushes plan requiring all gun sales to be videotaped
[I don’t care what it is “designed to prevent”. I care about results. The city of Chicago could pass a law requiring chastity belts for all women which was “designed to prevent” prostitution and unwanted pregnancy but that doesn’t mean it would achieve the desired goal or be constitutional.

For decades the city banned handguns and yet the cops confiscated about 7,000 guns a year. So how is the plan for videotaping the sales, limiting sales to about 0.5% of the city’s geographic area, and limiting sales to one per month per buyer going to be measurably better than the way gun stores are regulated in the more free states?

If they think it will be so successful then why don’t they place the same restrictions on alcohol and tobacco sales to prevent them from getting in the hands of minors. Or the sales of illegal recreational drugs? Oh, yeah. Those are even more tightly regulated yet any high school dropout can get anything they want within a few minutes, 24/7, from all the “unlicensed” drug dealers.

This law is not “smart”. It’s crap for brains stupid. It’s unconstitutional. And those that voted for it should be prosecuted.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The_One_Pc

The type of gun control we have now doesn’t work. We need to outright repeal the 2nd Amendment.

The_One_Pc
May 24, 2014
Comment to Sheriff: Gunman killed 3 people at home before going on rampage
[If laws aren’t working then those laws need to be repealed. You don’t double down on something you admit isn’t working.

The drug control laws aren’t working either. What does he advise to remedy that problem?

Or how about the laws against people under 21 drinking alcohol? What does he recommend for that?

Even though the guy has crap for brains, don’t let anyone tell you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mark O’Mara

Our Constitution is a resilient force, and our Bill of Rights has survived countless modifications and restrictions without the erosion of fundamental freedoms. Our Second Amendment right is no different: It can survive modification and restriction without the fear that it will vanish altogether.

Mark O’Mara
May 2, 2014
I’m a gun owner and I want gun control
[“…without fear that it will vanish altogether”! That’s his criteria for the preservation of a specific enumerated right? So as long as you get permission from the government to checkout your single shot .22 rifle once a month at the gun range and use it under close supervision before checking it back your right to keep and bear arms hasn’t been infringed, right?

Let’s test this concept with some other rights:

  • Your right to freedom of speech hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you are given a “free speech zone” a mile from the nearest person that might be offended.
  • Your right freedom of religion hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you tithe 10% to the one government approved church regardless of which of the other two approved religions you more closely align with.
  • Your right to not have government agents quartered in your home hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you get one day a month without them.
  • Your right to be free from involuntary servitude hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you get one day a week to yourself.

I would like to suggest that O’Mara review the concept of “strict scrutiny” in regards to constitutionally protected rights. But I fear his ability to think rationally has vanished altogether.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Zack Beauchamp

There is no longer any defensible argument for a constitutional right to own a firearm, if there ever was.

Zack Beauchamp
February 20, 2014
Ban the Second Amendment: Imagine the Second Amendment didn’t exist, and try arguing for a constitutional right to gun ownership. You will fail.
[H/T to Kurt Hofmann.

Self defense, one of the easiest ways to argue it to most people is dismissed with:

The second argument in favor of untrammeled gun ownership, a right to self-defense, is equally incoherent. For starters, there’s no reason that, in a civil society, the right to defend yourself implies the right to defend yourself however you’d like. A basic part of government’s job is to limit our ability to hurt others; assuming the absolute right to self-defense constitutes, in Alan Jacobs’ evocative phrasing, “the absolute abandonment of civil society.”

Here you can see some of his incredibly scary mindset. “A basic part of government’s job is to limit our ability to hurt others”. Wow!

It’s that same old prevention instead of punishment argument. In my mind one of the characteristics of a free society is that you are free to make mistake, or be evil, it’s just that you will suffer the consequences of your actions if you do. Except in extreme outlier cases, such as true weapons of mass destruction, the government should not ever be granted the power to prevent ordinary people from doing whatever it is they want to do. In terms of citizen/citizen interaction government power is only granted to punish those that infringe upon the rights of others.

Beauchamp’s mindset is that of one who yearns for an all powerful, all seeing, all protective government. A government with widespread informants which interrogates and tortures people in response to anonymous or torture induced testimony. That is the only way you can even hope to approach a preventive model for citizens hurting others.

Beauchamp should study history rather than yearn for an utopia who’s quest has resulted in the murder of 10’s of millions by their own government in the 20th Century.—Joe]

Government at work

This is what happens when the government tries to do something. It is in part because it’s “someone else’s money”:

Employees at an ObamaCare processing center in Missouri with a contract worth $1.2 billion are reportedly getting paid to do nothing but sit at their computers. 

“Their goals are set to process two applications per month and some people are not even able to do that,” a whistleblower told KMOV-TV, referring to employees hired to process paper applications for ObamaCare enrollees.  

The facility in Wentzville is operated by Serco, a company owned by a British firm that was awarded $1.2 billion in part to hire 1,500 workers to handle paper applications for coverage under the law, according to The Washington Post

The whistleblower employee told the station that weeks can pass without data entry workers receiving even a single application to process. Employees reportedly spend their days staring at their computers, according to a KMOX-TV report. 

“They’re told to sit at their computers and hit the refresh button every 10 minutes, no more than every 10 minutes,” the employee said. “They’re monitored, to hopefully look for an application.”

Obamacare will make healthcare more affordable. All the government has to do is pass a law declaring something to be true and that is what will happen.

That is what the suckers believe. Historic data to the contrary is always ignored. Present results are ignored. They believe intentions are more valid than results. These people do not operate in a world of facts. They operate in a world of good intentions. Most of them anyway. Some are truly evil and take advantage of this flaw in the nature of many people.

Daniel Webster and Henry David Thoreau both had it nailed over 150 years ago.

It’s time people put their brains to work and stop relying on their “hearts”. If we don’t the consequences may be extremely severe. Their ideology puts millions of people at extreme risk.

Quote of the day—James Dawson

No need for new gun laws, but will you please make all NRA Members, including you, take a Mental Test!

If this was to happen, you and 96% of NRA Members would fail a mental test.
BTW, you already failed..

James Dawson
April 24, 2014
Comment to The battle over gun policy: Old fight, new strategies
[This was in response to “Kim Jong” who said:

States/counties that issue CCWs have statistically lower crime rates. The more guns in the hands of ordinary citizens the more empowered they become against gun toting criminals who don’t care what the gun laws are.

Jong made a calm, rational, claim of fact and is told that he would fail a mental test on the basis of this statement. And the anti-gun side says we are preventing there being a national conversation on guns. Wow!

This “Progressive” wants to make all NRA members take an mental test. What is the moral, political, constitutional, or common law justification for anyone or organization having such power?  For someone to believe what he believes means I do not have any words for him. It is simply not possible for me to have a conversation with someone with whom I have no common basis to communicate. He is an alien life form who intends to destroy me and our culture and should be treated as such.—Joe]

Studying “gun violence”

CNN is no friend to the Second Amendment so it comes as no surprise they published such a biased piece on gun control. But I continue to be amazed at how widespread the prejudice and bigotry extends into so many aspect of our culture.

Even if you were to concede they had some sort of constitutional authority to exist how can the National Institute of Health think it has any business studying criminal use of firearms?

NIH has and will continue to fund research to inform prevention programs related to firearm violence,” agency spokeswoman Renate Myles said. “Studies designed to develop and evaluate firearm injury prevention activities are part of larger efforts to develop more effective public health education programs.

Would it be appropriate for the NIH to be fund research on Muslim/Christian/name-a-religion violence and develop religion injury prevention activities? Or how about developing free speech injury (such as inciting to riot) prevention activities?

Why can’t these people understand? Government has no business preventing crimes in this sense. You don’t prevent people from falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater by gagging them as then enter the theater. You punish those that cause injury after the injury has occurred. Anything else is prior restraint and has been clearly decided as unconstitutional.

The best American is a stupid, silent American

(that is to paraphrase the radio show host, Michael Savage)

Teacher gets suspended for showing kids his tools. Via the Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org).

Properly, that school would have all of its funding suspended until it publicly apologizes to the teacher and agrees to allow tools in the classroom.

Seriously; who doesn’t think there’s been a war going on against individual capability, productivity and self sufficiency in this country? If people are aware, knowledgeable, strong, confident and self-sufficient, who’d need our current nanny style government, after all? That would put 90% of our government right out of business, and we can’t allow that, now can we? “Oh no, Preciousss….nassty kids musst bow to our greatnesss, yesss they mussst. Make them crawl, we will…”

ETA; I wish people would stop using that word (liberal) to describe authoritarians. We CAN take the language back. That would be a great first step. Just use words correctly. It’s easy. Authoritarian. There; I just did it. See? I wasn’t hit by lightning or anything. Don’t be afraid. Go on; try it. It doesn’t hurt a bit.

Ignorance of basic security principle

I can’t recall anyone every accusing our anti-gun opponents of being well-informed or smart. And there is good reason for that. We have a lot of evidence they the have no clue in regards to criminology, constitutional law, firearm terminology, existing firearm law, or how firearms work.

Robb Allen seems to be leading the mockery (and here, and here) this week but there is no shortage of things to be mocked and people mocking them.

But the ignorance and stupidity go much deeper and has far greater consequences than a few idiots who think a barrel shroud is “the shoulder thing that goes up” or don’t know that bullets, not cartridges, leave the muzzle of a gun.

It is nearly a fundamental tenet of security that if the bad guy has physical control of your hardware and essentially unlimited time then there is no security mechanism that cannot be defeated. Yet Democratic Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts has introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate demonstrating that he is entirely ignorant of this basic security principle:

S.2068 calls for grant money, up to $2 million, for companies, individuals, and states, to research technology that would lead to the personalization of firearms.

A personalized handgun, according to the bill, is a firearm which:

  • enables only an authorized user of the handgun to fire the handgun;
  • was manufactured in such a manner that the firing restriction described is incorporated into the design of the handgun;
  • is not sold as an accessory;
  • and cannot be readily removed or deactivated.

The bill calls for institutions such as schools and companies to apply for grants for technology to personalize both new and old firearms.

The plan, according to the text of the legislation, is to completely transform the firearms industry with regard to handguns over the next several years.

According to the bill, “Beginning on the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, no person may manufacture in the United States a handgun that is not a personalized handgun.”

It says later that, “Beginning on the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, no person may distribute in commerce any handgun that is not a personalized handgun or a retrofitted personalized handgun.”

The law would essentially make it illegal to make or sell a gun that is not personalized, new or old.

If this became law and was not gutted by the courts it would stop the legal sale of handguns in the U.S. to private citizens. I cannot imagine that is is possible to build such a gun let along retrofit existing guns to function this way. Hence it would not be possible to legally sell a handgun.

Probably the easily way to defeat such technology is to provide a false “authorized user” signal. At some point in the mechanism there will be a sensor that obtains information about the user. If this sensor is replaced or bypassed then fake data can be supplied such that the “authorized user” always appears to be present.

If for some reason that method is not practical then the mechanics of the firing mechanism can be attacked.

Any such gun will have to have a power source, probably a battery. The power source can either be removable or it can be easily destroyed hence removing the source of power. Without power the device must fail in such a way that it cannot be fired or else the “firing restriction” mechanism would have been “readily deactivated”.

The “firing restriction” can work in one of two ways. It could be something that blocks the firing mechanism in some way like a firing pin or hammer block on many guns. Or it could be something that is removed from the firing mechanism in some way like a transfer bar on some guns.

In either case jamming the “firing restriction” in the position where the gun is operational will deactivate it.

In any case the only thing Senator Markey has done with the introduction of this bill is demonstrate, yet again, that the anti-gun conspirators, like most criminals, have crap for brains.

Quote of the day—Sten Deadio

Yeah we get it gun nuts…”yer rahts” are WAY more important than the rights of innocent victims of gun violence, and even though you zealots absolutely SPAZZ if people are allowed to vote without twelve federally-approved IDs, you think it’s just too Communistic to require you to PROVE who you are to buy a WEAPON OF DEATH.

Sadly, you will only learn the pathetic and embarrassing stupidity of your stance the hard way…like when you lose a loved one to a criminal who bought his gun at a gun show…you know, the way the overwhelming majority do?

Sten Deadio
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[This is a typical, error filled, caricature of what they think of you.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Beard

The pro-gun lobby is predictably using the recent school shootings as an opportunity to ask, “What if the teachers and students had been armed?” That is the wrong question.

The right question is, “What if the perpetrator had NOT been able to obtain those firearms? How many lives would have been saved?” Instead of asking what the U.S. would be like with more guns, shouldn’t we be asking what our country would be like with fewer guns? Guns do not solve problems, they create problems. A handgun is designed for the sole purpose of taking human life.

Michael Beard
April 21, 2008
The Wrong Question
[In answer to the question “What our country would be like with fewer guns?” The answer is that those with evil intent and willingness to break the law will always be able to acquire a firearm. And it will never be more difficult that it is to acquire illegal recreational drugs. Which, in case Mr. Beard doesn’t have the social awareness or intelligence to answer for himself, is so easy that any, and most, high school dropouts can acquire within a few minutes any hour of any day in any city in the country. And therefore if people with evil intent can easy get a gun then those not willing to break the law will be the ones without the skills and the tools to defend themselves from evil.

Gun do solve problems. I like R. A. Lafferty’s response to people who come with things like Beard’s asinine assertion.—Joe]

This is a clue

When people this stupid are elected to national office is it any surprise nearly all government actions are messed up beyond all hope of functionality? Just think about this:

This FBI investigation of Leland Yee reveals how easy it is to import lethal assault weapons that were previously banned,” said Speier in an emailed statement from the Representative’s office to Guns.com.

“This case should be a warning to us all that even the most trusted appearing among us are ready to do real harm,” she said.

Her solution to fix future instances of potential gun running such as in the Yee case? Call on the White House to ban the import of “assault weapons.”

Furthermore, from her congressional website:

Jackie was appointed to serve as a Vice Chair of a new congressional Gun Violence Prevention Task Force…

Apparently she is one of the best and brightest the anti-gunners have to offer yet says things like:

She is an outspoken advocate for a federal ban on assault weapons, full and complete background checks on all gun sales, including sales at gun shows, and strict limits on high capacity ammunition sales.

“High capacity ammunition sales”? What does that even mean? Is that when I bring a semi-truck to the gun show to haul away my ammo purchases? And that is disregarding all the evidence that restrictions that she is “an outspoken advocate” for do not make people safer and violates the Bill of Rights. She truly has crap for brains.

If someone’s ability to think rationally is so impaired that they are unable to comprehend how stupid the things she says are then it surely extends to every other thing she wants government involved in. If this were someone in management of a private business they would be demoted to a manual labor position, fired, or the business would go broke. As it is people this stupid are still smart enough to get elected, spend your money on stupid stuff, and tell you how to run your life. And it’s not just her. Government is filled with idiots like this and they believe they are your superiors and they “intend to do you good”.

Although Thoreau had an appropriate response when it is an individual with the obvious intent to do you good (run for your life) when it is a government official you don’t have that option available. When they have the power of government behind them they are a threat to society. As Daniel Webster said when talking of those in government with “good intentions”, “They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

I’ve said this before but it doesn’t hurt to remind people that good intentions are not a valid defense at a trial. Should, as would be appropriate, Jackie Speier be put on trial we should not let her use good intentions as a defense.

Quote of the day—Sten Deadio

Allowing anonymous gun purchases makes as much sense as allowing anonymous anthrax purchases.

Sten Deadio
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[Anthrax possession is not a specific enumerated right unless you consider it a form of arm in common use.

Their analogy is just as invalid as it would be if you were to substitute any of the following for “gun purchase”:

  • “book purchase”
  • “printing press purchase”
  • “computer purchase”
  • “association meetings”
  • “religious meetings”
  • “speech”
  • “voting”
  • “homosexuals”
  • “Jews”
  • “Catholics”

As is usual, this anti-gun person has no comprehension of principles.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Imma Commenter

All the NRA has to do is scream that Obama is coming for your guns & these gunsterbating animals foam at the mouth and dance like the monkeys on the string they are.

Imma Commenter
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[Citation needed.

This one almost qualifies as an example of Markley’s Law. And they do qualify for the category of “Crap For Brains”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—happy48

The NRA officer board needs to be put in prison. They’re bad people. If I ever found it necessary to own a gun, I’d never support that organization. They don’t represent me, a responsible person. They represent the people that shouldn’t have guns. That’s why we have such a problem. They’re the devil. You’re safer without a gun in hostile situations then with one. How is a cop going to tell the difference in a shoot out. What are you going to do put out a sign that says I’m a good guy.? Guns are a big business. And money is their God. The devil supports the Republican party. Their policies support abortions and murder.

happy48
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[And if an organization such as the NRA did not exist and he found it necessary to own a gun it would not be possible for him to legally purchase one.

“You’re safer without a gun in hostile situations then with one.” I didn’t know that! I guess that is why when cops go into hostile situations they always leave their guns behind, right? Yeah. Right. And stealing the words of Roberta, “What color is the sky up his ass?”

This is what these people think of you. Imagine what they would do to you and the Second Amendment if they wrote the laws. Oh, that’s right. You don’t have to imagine. Just read the laws of Washington D.C, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, and Chicago. It is people like this that we need the Second as well as the 13th Amendment. And it is people like this that should be put on trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lee Viola

Essentially, gun advocates in 2014 are of the same mindset as cigarette smokers in 1964—just deny, blow some smoke in a rationalist’s face, and toss a butt on the street as though you own it.

Reasonable gun control will happen in the US, but it will require about fifty years of education, needlessly lost lives, price increases, lawsuits, and the same social/sexual shunning that have made smokers a powerless minority.

In the future, gun ownership will be rare and expensive.

Lee Viola
March 28, 2014
Comment to The Gun-Control Conversation Happened—and the NRA Won Again
[Apparently he hasn’t been paying attention in his gun political history class. He has it exactly backward and the time frame wrong. Rational arguments, taking new shooters to the range, court decisions, and political action is driving anti-gun people into political oblivion. At the present rate of advance we can expect that in 25 years we will have constitutional carry in all 50 states and “full auto” will be a selector switch option on nearly all new detachable magazine and belt fed firearms. Gun ownership will be as common as cellphone ownership today. More so if you count the number of guns owned per capita. The average gun owners has more guns than the average cell phone owner has cell phones.

He does have one thing right. Fifty years of mandatory government education could have the effect he desires.—Joe]