Category Archives: Crap For Brains

People and especially governments do some incredibly stupid stuff. This is about those stupid actions.

Quote of the day–Sen. Ed Markey

Posted on by

We need a ban on assault weapons. We need to stop the flow of high magazine clips, like the ones used in Aurora and Newtown.

Sen. Ed Markey
December 16, 2013
Markey calls for assault weapons ban
[H/T to NRA News for the Tweet.

If it weren’t so common I would say it is ironic that someone so ignorant of firearms that they say something like “stop the flow of high magazine clips” thinks he knows enough about them to make firearm law. But I suspect ignorance of the subject matter and the desire to use force to impose your will on those that are not ignorant are highly correlated. Think of school bullies versus the nerds, the KKK versus people of color, and Anti-Semitists versus Jews.

Philosophically, Senator Markey has a lot of close and dangerous company throughout all known history. And this is why we need to protect our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It is a last ditch safeguard to protect innocent people from ignorant bigots with power like Senator Markey.—Joe]

California crazy talk

Posted on by

Maybe it’s in the air they breath or something but California has more than its share of crazies. This is someone legally representing the state:

California argued that even under intermediate scrutiny, the State could give everyone a handgun and mandate it is the only gun you could use for self-defense in the home….and that would be enough. The Court seemed troubled by the logical extension of California’s argument that only one handgun was enough to allow the full and unencumbered exercise of Second Amendment rights. Peña counsel made it clear that the Constitutional analysis the State wanted to implement would logically allow them to restrict all handguns by caliber to only .22lr, or even to ban all handguns and only allow Tasers — an argument the District of Columbia made and lost on in Heller.

Can you imagine someone arguing that the 1st Amendment would not be infringed if the state gave everyone their one and only religious book and mandated it never leave your home or be replaced by some other book? Or that it doesn’t violate your freedom of association if the state were to assign you your job, social circle, and spouse? Or that it doesn’t violate your right to be represented in court by supplying your one and only defense lawyer? That would be crazy talk.

Okay, maybe the lawyer for California isn’t actually crazy. Maybe they were just doing the best they could while attempting to defend, as is their job, an indefensible law. I can buy that.

Politician crazy talk

Posted on by

These people have mental problems:

Senator Kevin de Leόn (D-Los Angeles) today announced he would introduce legislation to ban the sale, manufacture, purchase and trafficking of “ghost guns” unless they are pre-registered with the Department of Justice through a serial number and gun owner background check.  In order to receive a serial number, self-made or assembled firearm must include permanent metal components that cannot be detached and that are detectable as required by existing law.

…

“Gun parts can be obtained online or now with 3D printers made at home, leaving no way for law enforcement to ensure that prohibited individuals are not making ghost guns on their own,” said Senator De Leόn.  “No one knows they exist and there is no way to know if criminals or other dangerous individuals are circumventing firearm laws by making these guns.”

If the concern is, as it appears to be in the press release, that a gun can be easily made with a 3-D printer by someone prohibited from possessing a firearm then how is a law prohibiting such guns being made going to be more effective than the law prohibiting the possession once the gun is finished?

“Permanent metal components that cannot be detached”? I don’t care if it is riveted, glued, or completely encased in plastic, it can, almost trivially, be removed. Drill or grind out any rivets, drill a hole in the metal to insert a screw, heat the metal until it slightly melts the plastic and then pull it the metal out via the inserted screw. Then, if needed, refill the void with plastic/wood/fiberglass/whatever.

And that is if the guy pushing the “Print” button isn’t smart enough to delete the extra instructions for the 3-D printer to make the void for the metal part in the first place.

And in any case does this guy think such a law will be any more effective than laws banning recreational drugs? This is crazy talk.

I would expect to find more rational people in long term care at a psych ward. Maybe he hasn’t been taking his meds recently.

Delusions are not “incredibly successful”

Posted on by

Brian Malte, of Handgun Control Inc. (aka The Brady Campaign), says:

The laws that Colorado passed are still on the books, and even the senators that were recalled said they would do it all over again for public safety. And when you have nine out of 10 Americans feeling strongly that background checks are the right thing to do, we will prevail. We’ll do everything we can to protect those gun laws, and we don’t think they’ll be repealed. We think they’re popular enough.

But law enforcement in Colorado says:

Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws, saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights. Many more say that enforcement will be “a very low priority,” as several sheriffs put it. All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.

The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states, raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions is high.

Beyond that are the court challenges to the new laws and the successful recall elections of three (two plus one resignation because of the recall in process) of the politicians who voted for the laws.

Malte says, “I think 2013 was incredibly successful.”

They passed laws which law enforcement is refusing to enforce, politicians are getting recalled over, are being seriously challenged in the courts and he thinks that is “incredibly successful”?

I think his group over reached, is headed for major defeats, and he is delusional.

These people have mental problems.

More on mental disorders

Posted on by

American Mercenary elaborates on some stuff I have been saying.

He pulled many of the symptoms of Emotional Regulation Disorder (aka Borderline Personality Disorder) from here and puts them in the context of our debates with anti-gun people. It’s scary accurate.

I’m certain these people have a mental disorder.

Barb and I both have personal experience with people that have these behaviors. I read many of the symptoms aloud to her as I was reading his post. It’s really spooky to read about someone you know from a list of mental disorder symptoms.

Small goals from small minds

Posted on by

I received the following email from CSGV which gives us insight into just how small their support base is. $3000 after a week of fundraising? And a goal of $10000? Wow!

If the contributions were the suggested $20 then that means they have about 150 people who were willing to support them with actual money as opposed to just pressing the “Like” button on Facebook. Boomershoot attracts that many people who travel hundreds or thousands of miles and spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars to participate.

Even though I am far from an expert on the subject I know they are totally clueless about writing a fundraising letter. But what do you expect from people who are totally clueless about the people and culture they want to destroy?

Small goals from small minds.

Continue reading →

The setup, the pitch, and… WHACK!

Posted on by

Home run!

“The nationalized preschool promoters, led by feckless bureaucrats who piled mounds of debt onto our children with endless Keynesian pipe dreams, claim that new multibillion-dollar “investments” in public education will “benefit the economy.” But ultimately, it’s not about the money or improved academic outcomes for Fed Ed. The increasing federal encroachment into our children’s lives at younger and younger ages is about control. These clunkers don’t need more time and authority over our families. They need a permanent recess.”

I was just telling my daughter on the way in this morning that you need to look past the authoritarians’ rationalizations, dismiss them out of hand, and look instead at their behavior and results over time. Then you see the disease for what it is. Malkin is exactly right; they need a permanent recess.

Quote of the day—Keri L (@ikeriover)

Posted on by

@JoeHuffman @linoge_wotc that’s a backwards argument. I own guns to kill people with guns. *facepalm*

Keri L (@ikeriover)
December 11, 2013
In response to “Defense of innocent life is why I own guns.”
[Then why do the police have guns?

The lack of rational thought process in these type of people has me convinced they have a mental disorder. Further evidence is that this tweet of mine:

If you believe no one is trying to take away our rights then you aren’t paying attention: https://blog.joehuffman.org/category/gun-rights/no-one-wants-to-take-your-guns/.

Resulted in a response from her of:

if you believe that it’s OK to gun down little children… you both need your head checked.

I’m very familiar with this sort of thought “process”. Apparently they imagine, and truly believe, you said or wrote something other than what you did. There was a case where I went through an email line-by-line with a certain person and ultimately they agreed I didn’t say what they claimed I said. Then mere seconds later they again made the same false claim. Pointing out they just agreed I didn’t say that resulted in a claim that they didn’t mean it when they said it. I went through this process three times with the same result each time before I finally gave up in extreme frustration.

Mental problems. I’m completely convinced of it.—Joe]

Ordered thought of the day

Posted on by

You know; ordered as opposed to random, just because I feel like being a smart ass.

The most ignorant, uninspired person in the room is the one who’s most interested in running things.

The person who’s doing nothing, seeing the person who’s doing something, will become irritated and try to tell the person who’s doing something that he’s doing it wrong or that he shouldn’t be doing it, and/or that the doer is victimizing the non doer with all his inconsiderate and irresponsible doing. Failure in that strategy requires falling back on plan B; taking credit for the works of the doer that could not be redirected or discouraged.

The non doer views the mastery of this simple strategy as incontrovertible proof of superior intelligence and worth.

This is the basis of all politics, in the same sense that space, time, matter and energy are the bases of life– It is a fundamental law of nature.

Explain to me how this works

Posted on by

There are more and more people calling for constitutional amendments, or a convention of states.

Let me see if have this right– Those in office aren’t obeying the constitution, so we’re going to change the constitution that they aren’t obeying.

Isn’t that a bit like a “gun free zone” sign, in that those who would obey it aren’t the problem we’re addressing? “We must pass new laws because criminals aren’t obeying the laws” is what we scoff at when it comes from Progressive communists. Now we’re doing it too?

The best I can see coming from a new or revised constitution is that it would represent an official mandate– It might serve as a psychological incentive for the three percent, somewhat like the Emancipation Proclamation which on its surface had no teeth being that there was already a state of active rebellion.

Just don’t think for a second that the dirtbags in power are going to see your shiny new, libertarian constitution and say to themselves; “Golly! Now THERE’S a constitution I can obey to the letter, the spirit, the whole deal! Heck yeah! No problem! No more redistributionist/interventionist/kleptocratic thinking for me! No, Sir! This is GREAT now…all of a sudden…like!”

Really?

Quote of the day—Edgar Chavez

Posted on by

Guns are a big problem in our country. They have made us more violent. Basically, guns have taken control of us.

…

This country would be a lot safer if we could, in some way, get rid of all the guns. One way this could happen is by making the government intervene and take them away from every person. I think that would be the best.

Edgar Chavez
December 2, 2013
Taking guns out of society
[We sometimes say that the anti-gun people must believe guns control people. Here is someone who explicitly says that.

Further evidence of his delusions is that he imagines the government could take all the guns from every person and that would make people safer.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Anonymous

Posted on by

A gun has no other purpose than to kill. It appear to me that the right to bear arms transcends the right of school children’s right to live. As long as the public are allowed to own weapons of local destruction children’s lives will be in danger. Make ALL ownership of guns a capital offence.

Anonymous
Comment to Would a ban on guns reduce crime in the U.S.?
[Simple solutions from simple minds.—Joe]

Ignorance and bias

Posted on by

The headline is “Police find 5 guns, large ammo stash in George Zimmerman’s home.” The text of the article says, “police found five guns and more than 100 rounds of ammunition in the house.”

“Large ammo stash”?

When I buy either components for reloading ammo or completed ammo I consider 100 “sample size”. When reloading, unless I’m doing load development, the smallest batch of anything is 100.

100 rounds isn’t enough for an ordinary morning pistol match. When at a match I carry close to that many (typically about 85) rounds in the magazines on my belt. I could easily burn through that in a two minutes of practice. A single ammo can holds about 1000 rounds of .40 S&W and I have several cans in my gun room. A year ago I bought 4000 rounds of .22 LR (yeah, great timing!) which I could probably have stored in my coat pockets.

If I’m down to 100 units of any type of ammo I consider that “out” and time to restock.

Ignorance or bias by the reporter? Ignorance and bias?

It depends on how I feel

Posted on by

Yesterday I posted some screen clippings of Tweets by @lougagliardi. Today I received these Tweets directed at me from them:

.@JoeHuffman hates free speech. He hates people that disagree with him. Why is he so angry? what is he trying to compensate for?

— Me (@lougagliardi) November 26, 2013

interesting that @JoeHuffman believes the screenshots of a pro-gun, transphobic bigot without actual links to anything. should sue for libel

— Me (@lougagliardi) November 26, 2013

 

This gave me flashbacks and other symptoms of mild PTSD from years of dealing with someone with mental health issues. @lougagliardi lives in an alternate universe where they imagine I have written things that have no basis in our reality.

If I hated free speech, in particular speech by @lougagliardi, why would I posted their Tweets? Where is the evidence I hate free speech?

Where have I said @lougagliardi should be sued for libel or anything for that matter?

@lougagliardi either imagines I have said things I have not or believes they can read my mind and spectacularly fails when they attempt to do so. I can feel the anxiety rise up as the flashbacks occur of these same things happening to me before.

All that remains to complete the connection to interactions I once had with someone else with mental health issues is to ask, “What is the process by which you determine truth from falsity?” And their reply being, conclusively confirming the mental health issues, “It depends on how I feel.”

ID Verification

Posted on by

I came across this, a story about people getting hung up on the “ID Verification” part of the application, because Healthcare.gov won’t let you shop for plans until it “knows” who you are. So data-security issues aside, could this hangup be used to leverage a renewed call for new universal ID cards, now possibly (probably) tied in with biometrics, DNA, and medical records?

Let me rephrase: I know can be. Any bets on whether or not it does (soon) and who will be the first to call for it?

Kafka didn’t write Cliff’s Notes for law design… did he?

Posted on by

Shamelessly borrowed from RNS comes this gem:

Section 501 of ObamaCare makes a non-profit hospital giving charitable care a punishable offense. Short version: people might not buy insurance if they think they can get free care via charity, so Section 501 “discourages” giving free care by fining non-profit hospitals that do so. For-profits face no such penalty.

But, not to worry! via AceOfSpades comes the return volley.

Hospitals, being full of smart people, are now exploring buying insurance for their frequent delinquents, er, regular uninsured customers. Possibly even working ObamaCare exchange insurance that can’t deny care for pre-existing conditions into the regular admitting procedure for uninsured people.

[Later Edit, pulled from my own comment: Don’t forget that the EMTALA requires emergency medical care centers to treat all comers with emergency medical needs, and those in active labor.]

Sure, why not! No possibility of adverse selection there, right? No chance of side-effects or unintended consequences to either of these things, eh wot?

FacePalm.

Folks, we now have front-row seats at the Theater of the Absurd. Gonna need more popcorn.

Quote of the day—Myrddin

Posted on by

Gun control advocates have offered capitulation couched as ‘reasonable demands’ for far too long. If the pro-gun lobby is going to resist any significant restriction on guns, then we should put on the table the very thing they fear most.

…

We need to start far more drastic measures if we are going to save our children and ourselves.

It is far past time to call for a total ban on guns.

Myrddin
December 14, 2012
Forget the assault weapons ban, it’s time to ban guns completely
[Myrddin has no sense of political, physical, or criminological reality.

With our enemies that out of touch it’s no wonder we are winning.—Joe]

Higher rates than entire countries

Posted on by

In addition to being extremely ignorant about guns many anti-gun people have no clue about math:

Some U.S. cities have higher gun murder rates than entire countries.

I find it amazing someone can pack so much stupid into a single sentence.

First off “gun murders” are an extremely biased measure of crime. It presumes that murders by various method are independent of each other. They are not. Substitution of weapons are well known to criminologist who study these things. If it were possible to eliminating firearms from society the murder rate would not be reduced by an amount corresponding to the number “gun murders” prior to the flying unicorns carrying off with all firearms.

Furthermore, firearms are far more frequently used as defensive tools than as offensive weapons. Any law which hopes to decrease their use as an offensive tool must be carefully crafted and enforced such that it does not decrease the availability and use as a defensive tool more than it does as an offensive tool. To the best of my knowledge no such law has ever existed. Hence infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, no matter how insignificantly, actually runs a strong risk of contributing to increases violent crime.

Second, saying someplace has a higher rate of anything than entire country only demonstrates how stupid the person is. If someone lives alone and commits suicide that household has a 100% suicide rate. This is a higher rate than every city, county, and country on the planet. If Tom McKay, who wrote the article, thinks his statement is of any significance whatsoever beyond making scary sounding noises he truly has crap for brains.

Quote of the day—New York Times

Posted on by

One way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business.

New York Times
September 24, 1975
The Gun Culture
[“Discourage” the gun culture?

I don’t think “discouragement” would be the response. The New York Times was, and still is, quite out of touch with reality.—Joe]

Prepping – know your environment

Posted on by

There are all kinds of “survivalists” and “preppers” in the world. Most are good folks, if a bit odd. Some are… not so acceptable. I came across this article about a group that explicitly says in a major disaster, which they expect, their plan is to take what they need. Not stockpile their own stuff, but take it from their neighbors. I.e, they plan to become looters. They claim to have “80 dues-paying members.” But I have to admit, the last paragraph in the story really gave me a laugh – it tells me they are really not all that clued in about their working environment. Situational awareness operates at many levels, and it seems they are seriously missing the big picture in a major way.