Quote of the day—Bryan Miller

This is another win win for the NRA and it’s buddies in the gun lobby.

The Banksters buddies crush any opposition to them, so they can continue to fund the gun manufacturers, which in turn soaks our communities with guns, blood, and death.

Bryan Miller
Using the alias “BantheNRA“.
November 15, 2011
Comment to N.Y. judge rules against Occupy Wall Street protesters, upholds decision to dismantle Zuccotti Park encampment
[For many years Miller was the director of CeaseFire New Jersey until it went belly up.

His alias demonstrates his contempt for the First Amendment as well as the Second.

But most importantly the comment above demonstrates Miller apparently hasn’t been taking his anti-psychotic medications. He, and most anti-gun extremists, live in an alternate reality all their own.—Joe]

It a government rule! It doesn’t have to make sense

Now that my ATF license to manufacture explosives has been successfully renewed I’m going to take a chance and poke a little fun at them.

First off let me say that the people I dealt with were all very professional and went out of their way to help resolve the problem with far less hassle than they could have had they just wanted to be bureaucratic jerks. I find no fault whatsoever with the ATF people I dealt with. The problem is with the regulations. Regulations sometimes aren’t really applicable to every situation. But that doesn’t mean that the bureaucrats enforcing the regulations or the peons subject to those regulations can decide to ignore them. We are mostly just stuck with them.

With those caveats imagine my surprise when after several years of using the Taj Mahal for storage of explosives as a “Type 1” explosives magazine I was told it was actually an “indoor magazine” and hence a “Type 2” magazine. See the applicable regulations here.

The Taj Mahal looks like this:

The door you see inside the metal shed is the theft and bullet resistant portion of the magazine and is 3’x6’x6′. The metal shed is 10’x14’xHeadScalpingHeight. I considered the shed part of the magazine. The shed provides protection from the rain and snow and the heavy steel and locks provides the theft and bullet resistance. For several years the ATF inspectors apparently saw it the same way.

The new inspector and her supervisor didn’t see it that way:

It is not considered a permanent structure because it is a shed that can be moved. Am I correct in the fact that the building is not attached to the ground (with cement, etc)?

It is attached to the concrete with bolts. But that wasn’t good enough:

I have reviewed the report and photographs of the magazine and have determined it to be an indoor Type II magazine.   Even though the magazine is bolted into the concrete, does not make it permanent and the shed is not incidental.    For purposes of establishing an indoor magazine, ATF has determined that the building or structure in which the magazine is placed:

1.     Is of suitable, stable construction to provide protection from wind and other inclement weather conditions.
2.    The structure’s walls and roof are constructed of metal, wood, brick, cement or concrete and makes the structure unsusceptible to mobility or intrusion.
3.    The base or floor of the structure consists of earth or other flat, level material which can sustain the weight of the magazine.
4.    The doors are secured to provide additional security and theft-resistance to the magazine.

In my review, I have determined that the shed meets the requirements, as stated above, for a building or structure.   Even though the magazine may weigh 3000 lbs and is bolted to the concrete it still does not meet the definition of a Type 01 magazine.  As it is currently constructed, this magazine is classified as a Type 2 indoor magazine.  Thus it can only hold a maximum of 50 lbs of explosives materials. 

Okay, so what?

The issue is that the maximum amount of explosives you can store in an “Type 2 Indoor Magazine” is 50 pounds. For a “Type 1” magazine it is determined by the distance to the nearest inhabited building or public road or railway. With a distance of 1950 feet to the nearest inhabited building I was previously allowed to store up to 18,000 pounds of high explosives at that site (sorry Barron, I was mistaken, it has to be 2000 feet before we could store 180,000 pounds). The Taj couldn’t hold that much because it was too small but it was nice to know I could pack it full without worrying about getting in trouble with the ATF.

A 50 pound limit just doesn’t work for our situation. We store about 1600 pounds at the Taj on the Saturday night before Boomershoot.

After getting the bad news from the ATF I started asking questions:

Would it become a Type I magazine, and hence be allowed more than 50 pounds of explosives material, if the shed were removed and the magazine were exposed?

I didn’t get a reply so some time later I sent another email:

I would like to know if a solution to Type I/Type II problem is for me to remove the metal shed.

It would also be useful for me to find out the definition you are using for the word “permanent” in this sentence:

Even though the magazine is bolted into the concrete, does not make it permanent and the shed is not incidental.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary (used by the ATF in ATF Ruling 2005-3) permanent means:

1. Lasting or remaining without essential change: “the universal human yearning for something permanent, enduring, without shadow of change” (Willa Cather).
2. Not expected to change in status, condition, or place: a permanent address; permanent secretary to the president.

By that definition the shed and magazine are permanent. I am having difficulty in imaging how it can be considered a Type II magazine because according to 555.208, “A Type II magazine is a box, trailer, semitrailer, or other mobile facility”.  Below is a picture of the base of the magazine and shed while it was under construction:

Four inches of concrete were poured into the forms above and the shed and magazine was bolted to it. I am unable to find any definition of “mobile” for which the concrete slab and attached structures qualifies. If it would make a difference I would be glad to weld the magazine to the slab instead of just bolting it.

If necessary what I can also do is only use it to store materials “In the process of manufacture” as per 555.205 since if it is “In the process of manufacture” the materials don’t need to be kept in a locked magazine.

Please advise.

In response the story changed just a little bit:

Just to make sure that I have classified this magazine correctly, I am forwarding your e-mail to our Explosives Industry Programs Branch for review.  They will make a classification of your magazine. 

I have one question, I agree that the shed would be permanent but it is not part of the magazine.  The shed is what makes it an indoor magazine.  Since the regulations do not have a description of an indoor Type 1 we must classify this as a Type II.   Even though difficult, can the bolts be removed and thus making the magazine mobile?

Less than hour later (I’m impressed the bureaucracy could move this fast) I received the following email:

The Explosives Industry Programs Branch (EIPB) also has classified this as an indoor magazine.  Since there is no definition for a Type I indoor magazine, it must be classified as a Type II.  EIPB stated that you can remove the shed and that would resolve the 50 lb limitation.  The limitation for the magazine would be 18,000 lbs.  The other possible solution is that you can apply for a variance to store in excess of 50 lbs in an indoor magazine.  The magazine must meet the Tables of Distance and construction requirements.  I am not sure it will be approved but you may want to make that request before taking down the shed.

So it’s the existence of the shed and not the “mobility” of the shed that makes it a Type 2! That give me an opening for more questions:

Assumi
ng I remove the shed I would then need to cover the magazine with a more weather resistant covering such as the metal from the shed. What would the maximum spacing between the magazine and the metal covering before it would become an indoor magazine again?

You can see where I’m going with this, right? Apparently so could the ATF because they responded with:

I am trying to find a simpler solution to the problem.   I have a few suggestions into our EIPB that may not be an extensive as building a new structure but changing the old one.   I should have an answer in the morning.

Early the next morning I received the following email:

Here is the easiest solution that we could come up with.  Empty the shed of all materials except the magazine, remove the doors or a wall of the shed.  Since the magazine is not totally enclosed in the shed it would no longer be an indoor magazine.   I think that would resolve all of the issues.  Let me know what you think.

So the bottom line is that if I remove the doors from the shed I can store 18,000 pounds of explosives. If I put the doors on I can only store 50 pounds.

It doesn’t have to make sense. It’s just a government rule.

Quote of the day—Anne Laurie

Starbucks? This is your bold, patriotic idea of a dangerous venue in which to flaunt your precious Second Amendment pacifiers? Because laptop-wielding hipsters are soooo freaking terrifying? Because the baristers are armed with… scalding hot milk foam?

If your gun is a tool, it is something to be treated with the respect you’d show any potentially dangerous tool. Somehow I don’t see a spontaneous uprising of lumberjacks carrying chainsaws and construction workers flourishing jackhammers at the local Starbucks, because this is the real world, not a badly scripted porno movie. Semi-retired CPAs who listen to a lot of Rush Limbaugh, please copy.

Anyone who has to demonstrate his political allegiances by flashing a gun at a Starbucks has presumably decided that it’s too risky to “support the Second Amendment” at a Dunkin Donuts… where the professional security forces hang out. Or even at the local McDonald’s, where some safety-conscious mommy at the ball pit would be liable to give you a very hurtful talking-to.

Anne Laurie
March 3, 2010
Open Thread: Penis Substitutes At the Ready!
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

From the title to any hint of substance in the post itself Laurie demonstrates her total clueness of what the Starbucks conflict was about.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brandoch Daha

In real life, you solve problems by breaking them down into smaller problems that are trivial by themselves. But if you respond to crazy circular logic by refuting each step as you go along, you lose track of the fact that you’re actually talking to a crazy person, and you lose the argument. Because by the time you’ve proven to a anti-gunner that he’s not Napoleon, he’s already telling you, with equally invincible conviction, that he’s Jesus. So you ask him if he was in fact born in a manger, and he tells you that Buckingham Palace is in fact a manger, you redneck, and before you’re done explaining what a manger is, he’s already tired of being Mary Queen of Scots, at which point you’re like “Wait, Buckingham Palace was built after she died!”, and you know what he says?

“Kiss me, Josephine, I’ve beaten Wellington again!”

Brandoch Daha
February 16, 2012
Comment to Fear driven society
[Awesome!

It reminds me of one of the responses to Just One Question, “What colour is orange: True or False?”

Many of these people are truly nuts and cannot be reasoned with. They simply don’t have the mental capacity. We should be alert for the signs then change our method of engagement or stop entirely when the crazy becomes apparent.—Joe]

Mercedes Benz (revisited)

Janis Lyn Joplin, also known as Pearl, The Queen of Rock and Roll, The Queen of Psychedelic Soul, or The Queen of Rocking The Blues, made some good music, to be sure.  Mercedes Benz though was pure snark against capitalism– the straw man hypocrite, Christian American materialist that her generation thought defined “The (American) System”.  They still think much the same today.  They’re the Obama voters and the Madison protesters.  Their kids are the Occupy movement.

I wrote new words in response to the old tune, as snark against the socialists.  I call it Lifetime Free Ride;

Obama
Won’t you give me
A lifetime free ride
My friends all have trust funds
An’ it’s hur,tin’ my pride
Tax the productive
Until they die
Obama
Won’t you give me
A lifetime free ride

Obama
Won’t you give me
My own Occ,u,py crowd
I’m ig’n’r’nt and stupid
But I like bein’ loud
Never worked a day in my lifetime
I’m worth,less an’ proud
Obama
Won’t you give me
My own Occ,u,py crowd

Obama
Won’t you buy me
Uncondi,tio,nal love
I’m countin’ on you, Sir
There’s no one else above
I’ll need you on my side
When push comes to shove
Obama
Won’t you buy me
Uncondi,tio,nal love

(everybody)

Obama
Won’t you give me
A lifetime free ride
My friends all have trust funds
An’ it’s hur,tin’ my pride
Tax the productive
Until they die
Obama
Won’t you give me
A lifetime free ride

(That’s it…heh heh heh)

I have a picture of her pointing a finger of blame at the camera (at all of us), mocking us, while she was in the throes of self-destruction.  To me it’s iconic of the left.

Markley’s Law defacement

I don’t know exactly when or where it happened but someone defaced the bumper sticker on my vehicle:

MarkleysLawBumperSticker

It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Quote of the day—Marc Rubin

There is not a shadow of doubt, none whatsoever, that the 2nd amendment as written and as intended by the Founders has nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun. That is absolute and not open to the slightest interpretation.

Marc Rubin
August 2, 2010
Supreme Court Ruling on 2nd Amendment Proves Conservative Hypocrisy and Dishonesty
[I wonder if Rubin thinks Alan Dershowitz are Laurence Tribe are conservatives and lesser constitutional scholars than he?

My hypothesis is that Rubin has crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert Mahler

Didn’t they fall to the ground?

Robert Mahler
Assistant Crown attorney in Ontario, Canada
January 31, 2012
Court adjourns homeowner’s self-defence trial to clarify confusing gun control law
This was referring to the shell casing from a .38 caliber revolver. Mahler was prosecuting a man for firing three shots to scare off masked men who were throwing “firebombs” (Molotov Cocktails) at his house.
[Not only is the prosecutor so ignorant of firearms that he believed revolvers automatically eject spent shell casings but the government initially attempted to prosecute him for defending himself and his home. The video of the three guys calmly walking around throwing the “firebombs” apparently was going to hinder the case of the prosecution so they dropped that charge. They then charged the victim with “careless storage of a firearm”.

I am of the opinion the prosecutor should be charged with crimes against humanity. Everyone knows you have a right to defend yourself against a violent attack. For the prosecutor to use the force of government to intimidate people who exercise such an obvious natural right warrants an extremely harsh response. And for the prosecutor to base a significant portion of his case on the belief that a revolver automatically ejects it’s shell casings qualifies him for a “Crap for Brains” mention.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ken

The peasants who told the fairy tales were superstitious people who were not critical thinkers, and it shows in the stories. Joan Peterson is like that: you expect at least a pseudo logical argument, but instead you get the weird ramblings of a woman with the critical thinking abilities of an 18th century peasant.

Ken
Comment to That is what I am afraid of.
[If the lack of critical thinking skills was something that common it makes me wonder how we ever made it out of the dark ages. And much more important is the answer to this question, “Is the prevalence of Peterson Syndrome evidence we are headed into dark age?” Freedom and enlightenment may have been just a short twinkle in the big picture of human history.—Joe]

That is what I am afraid of

Joan Peterson writes, “Rights of gun owners will be placed right along side of the rights of Americans to be safe from senseless shootings.”

You have zero rights “to be safe from senseless shootings” or be safe from someone beating you with a baseball bat, or be safe from someone cutting your liver out with a sharpened credit card.

What you can reasonably expect is such criminals will be punished by our legal system.

Peterson thinking is so scrambled that I don’t think she even understands the concept of a right but this time I think she said something refreshingly honest and almost profoundly revealing. She wants people to have same right to own a firearm as “to be safe from senseless shootings”. That is saying she wants you to have no right to own a firearm.

Thank you Brady Campaign Board Member Joan Peterson for finally saying what we have long claimed and you and your organization have long denied.

Update: Mostly off topic but I left the following comment on her post. I post it here out of fear she will not allow it to be seen on her blog.

Last September at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous I spent many hours talking to Paul Barrett and have continued discussions with him via email since. And he will be attending a shooting event I am hosting in April. He readily admits he is a novice in the field of firearms and still has a lot to learn.

He has also agreed with me with there is no data to indicate a legal limit on the capacity of firearm magazines would result in a net increase in safety of the public. And even in his book he states that efforts to pass such a law would fail and would hence be a waste of time and effort.

This is what they think of self defense

Via email from Brennan at work we get this story from “an award-winning writer”. As Brennan pointed out, “Like all good gun-grabbers the writer knows that there is no such thing as a justified shooting, only ‘extreme self-defense tactics’, ‘settling scores’, ‘vigilantes’ etc.”

Here is a sample:

What didn’t grab the headlines, though, was that more citizens are settling their own scores with criminals.

The unabated crime spree even has more residents resorting to extreme self-defense tactics. In 2011, Detroit reported 34 justifiable homicides, according to Fox2 News Reporter Charlie LeDuff – a whopping 80 percent increase over the previous year.

This rush to arm and self-administer justice would not be encouraged or condoned under normal circumstances. But in the current lawless environment, it is easy to believe these options have broad public support.

Many residents are apt to nod their heads in approval, glorifying potential victims who get off the first deadly shot against a predator. More than a dangerous precedent for society…

The chief’s optimistic crime report does little to restore public confidence in his less than vigilant crime-fighting commitment. So don’t be surprised that frightened, increasingly vigilante-minded residents continue to send the message to City Hall that safe neighborhoods will be restored by any means necessary.

In the comments Sean Sorrentino does an awesome job concluding with, “The writer may be an award winner, but he is clearly incapable of the most basic distinctions between lawful self defense and murder. No one who is that confused should be taken seriously.”

But what really drew my attention in articles was this:

Protection of human life and safety and making neighborhoods safe is the first duty of government.

As pointed out by Frank Clarke in the comments, “Not according to scores (if not hundreds) of cases from every circuit as well as SCOTUS. The police have NO duty to protect any individual before the fact of crime. Their duty is to draw a chalk line around your supine form.”

Furthermore this “award-winning writer” (I keep thinking of Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead when I read this line) should be encouraged to look up the dates of when cities first hired full time police officers and compare those dates to when we first had governments. A study of Federal and State constitutions for “the first duty” of governments might prove enlightening to him as well.

But with all the evidence presented in just this one article I’m nearly forced to conclude he has crap for brains and is incapable of being enlightened.

Blind faith

I’ve met and talked to a lot of anti-gun activists. With perhaps one exception I always got the impression they were generally nice people. Misguided, sometimes ignorant, and frequently not very bright but they were nice and I wouldn’t have minded having one of them as a neighbor or socializing with them if the topic of guns didn’t come up.

That said we sometimes ascribe evil intent to the anti-gun people. In the case of certain politicians such as Chuck Schumer, the Clintons, and President Obama (none of which I have ever met or talked to) this may be true. But generally there is something else going on. The people just aren’t the “evil type”.

But of course just because someone is a “nice” person doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t inadvertently advocate for and enable something terribly evil all the while believing they were doing good. Like I said, a lot of these people aren’t that bright.

Lorne Gunter said something on this topic that struck me as highly likely (emphasis added):

There are around 340,000 violent crimes reported to police in Canada each year. Just over 2% of those (around 8,000) involve firearms. (There’s another reason to question the initial wisdom of the gun registry: Why was Ottawa expending so much time, effort and taxpayer money on such a tiny percentage of violent crimes, while doing comparatively little to prevent the 98% of murders, robberies, kidnappings, rapes and beatings not committed with a gun?)

Typically, gun crime is committed by street criminals using stolen or contraband weapons. The gun registry never had any effect on this class of thug. Some of the 8,000 violent gun crimes no doubt were committed by licensed owners using registered guns — people who might be tracked or even deterred using a registry system. But since no one in Ottawa ever had any idea how many people are in this latter group, they had no way of determining the usefulness of the registry.

A cynic might say that not knowing was the point all along. Backers of the registry knew it would produce very little impact, so they deliberately didn’t bother collecting data that would confirm the database’s uselessness.

I think the truth is less conspiratorial (and far more arrogant): Backers were so sure the registry would produce tangible benefits, they never thought they might need to show proof. After all, they were experts and they had thought it up, so how could it not work?

It was purely on blind faith that supporters of the registry — police chiefs, victims’ rights groups, women’s shelter operators and grandstanding politicians — assumed that making Canadians register their guns would magically cut down on violent crime.

Faith, in this context, means believing in something without, or even in spite of, evidence. It was, and is, blind faith motivating these people to continue advocating for gun control. As I have pointed out before and some of them have even agreed, they do not know, or care, how to determine truth from falsity.

As an engineer this is abhorrent to me. When I design a filter using an op-amp, a couple capacitors, and resisters I can predict the frequency response within a fraction of a decibel. But I still test it because it’s possible I made a mistake someplace or a part doesn’t meet the vendor’s specification that I used for the design.

When I design an algorithm for estimating the location of a phone based on the presence of visible Wi-Fi access points and cell towers I know pretty darned close what the accuracy is and how long it will take to do the calculations. But I still test it and there is a test team doing their best to shoot my design and implementation down.

I recognize that human behavior is far more complex and less predictable than electronics and software algorithms. But that just screams that tests have to be done on social experiments. Yet, these people are so stupid (or, granted, in some cases malicious) they not only don’t even bother trying to predict the results or think to do tests but cannot imagine why tests would be needed.

These people deserve all the “respect” of a cargo cult or Heaven’s Gate followers.

Unfortunately this faith is not confined to just gun control. It is my hypothesis that this same blind faith template would match most U.S. government program of the last 100 years.

Quote of the day—Vic Frasier

It’s like having a .60 caliber penis in your pants. Only you can kill a person with it.

Vic Frasier
June 21, 2009
Five Guns That Are Clearly Compensating for a Tiny Penis
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

And if he thinks .60 caliber is a large for a human penis then he needs some anatomy lessons as well as psychological help.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Miguel

Dear Lord: Please keep them that stupid until they disappear.

Amen.

Miguel
January 20, 2012
Comment to What That Flushing Sound Is…
[While carefully controlled experiments have failed to demonstrate the efficacy of pray I remain confident the stupidity of the Brady Campaign will continue for quite some time. Whether it will be sufficiently severe in depth and duration to cause them to disappear will require the experiment be run to completion.—Joe]

Some People Just Cannot be Helped

Getting ready to make the left turn into our industrial park this morning, I find that the snow berm in the middle of the road is much too large to try to hop overt, even with a large 4 x 4, so I have to continue on, find a place to turn around and come back from the opposite direction.  In so doing I come across a guy in a sedan with a handicapped tag in his window, and he’s hopelessly stuck in the cold, loose snow, with ice under it, at the edge of the road.

It turned out he’s driving for the handicapped person, and he’s a young, healthy guy.  First problem; get a shovel and learn how to use it, Dude. Second Problem; he’s running street tires– great in the South on a hot, dry day, but worthless here in the winter.

I ask him; “Do you have a tow hook on this thing?  I have a tow strap and I can pull you right out.”

Third problem; “I don’t know” he says, so I crawl down in the snow to look for one.  Fourth Problem; his rig has a stupid f-ing air dam.  It acts as a plow blade, working against his forward progress in the snow.  Fifth problem; no tow hook– everything under the front end is plastic. So I tell him to back up some distance, get a run at it, and try to get up enough momentum to crash through the deep stuff and onto the road.

Sixth problem; I have to alert him to the fact that there’s a car coming on the road, and so wait a second, Skippy.  We make a couple of tries at it, and it becomes obvious that he’s never done this before.  “Stay in your old tracks each time and you’ll be able to get up more speed” I tell him.

“I can’t see my tracks.”  Oh boy.  He’s for sure never done this before.  Ever heard of hanging your noggin out the window so you CAN see, if that’s what it takes?  He keeps closing his window so I can’t communicate with him.

“Do you have tire chains?”

“Yeah, but they’re on so-and-so’s car over there…”  Oh boy…

Then; “Thaaaanks!” comes the voice from the passenger seat.  I’m in the middle of trying to explain how easy it would be, still and all, to get them out and on their way, and again; “Thaaanks!”

OK then.  You’re welcome.  Bye.

Not to brag, since it isn’t bragging if it’s true, but I’ve been in a freaking sedan in the freaking mountains on a freaking logging trail, with more snow than this.  We used to do that sort of thing just for fun, because that was the sort of thing kids did– you go out and see just how far you can push it, then you go a little more, get stuck, and figure out how to get un-stuck and back 15 miles down the trail to a plowed road.  In the dark.  It made for some great adventures.  So yeah; I know how to get this guy out, for a fact, even though he’s made no effort, and no pre-planning on his part.

The conditions are dangerous right here and now, but it’s still what I call Karmann-Ghia weather.  A friend once had one of those rigs, and he’d drive that thing no matter what, because it was all he had.  He made it work.  If you can get around in a Karmann-Ghia with some modicum of planning and experience and some willingness to work a little when it’s required, I figure the roads are fine, they don’t need plowed, and there’s just no excuse.

But as it often happens, the most knowledgeable and capable person present is the very one you endeavor to ignore or actively try to get rid of.

Quote of the day—CanadianGuy

It sounds like the shape of the weapon works like Viagra for gun owners.

CanadianGuy
January 6, 2012
Comment to RCMP to seize more ‘scary-looking’ guns before registry dies.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Insanity defense

As I understand it a person charged with a crime can plead legal insanity if at the time of the crime they lacked the mental capacity to determine that what they were doing was illegal.

I keep wondering if the Joyce Foundation allows a plea of that type with the people who spend their money. Some of the things the anti-gun people have been saying and doing lately is just nuts.

Of course if the parallel to our legal system were to remain true they would still be required to spend time in a mental hospital and that isn’t going to happen. A more likely result is that once the Foundation money runs out they will get jobs in the ATF as gun experts.

Quote of the day—Dennis Henigan

The fatal shooting of Park Ranger Anderson was a bitter reminder of the human cost of appeasing the gun lobby – the Coburn Amendment passed two years ago legalizing loaded guns in national parks.

Dennis Henigan
January 11, 2012
Thousands Lit Candles Against The Darkness of Gun Violence
[Thirdpower already covered the lie about the numbers so I will ignore the lie in Henigan post title.

Let me get this straight… it was because it was legal to have loaded guns in national parks that Anderson was murdered? If that were true then doesn’t it follow that because it was illegal to have loaded guns at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech that those murders could not have occurred?

As was pointed out to me years ago by Rolf; If crime goes down after some gun law goes into effect the anti-gun people will claim it as proof we need even more strict laws. If the crime rate goes up after the law goes into effect then that is proof, to them, that stricter laws are needed.

As near as I can tell there are no facts that can be presented to anti-gun people like Henigan which will convince them any gun restriction should be repealed.

I must therefore conclude Henigan and his kind have crap for brains.

This is actually a good test to discover whether someone is worth your time to discuss the subject. Ask, “What would it take to change your mind? No matter how improbable, what data would convince you that some law restricting firearms should be repealed?” You will be surprised at how many people say there is nothing that will change their mind.

As you walk away suggest to such people that they look up the definition of “bigot” in the dictionary.—Joe]

Quote of the day—ColeenMonroe

Guns are good for one things and one thing only: Murdering.

ColeenMonroe
Tweet on January 9, 2012
[I guess that is why the police, military, body guards, armored car drivers, and my daughter carry guns. That means she either is profoundly ignorant or hasn’t thought things through.

She also says she is a pacifist. That makes her a freeloader.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jami Regs

Nothing like a bunch of beer guzzling, uneducated hillbillies playing with deadly weapons to prove just how ridiculous the 2nd amendment is.

Jami Regs
January 9, 2012
Comment to a post by Coalition to Stop Gun Violence about our video.
[I can’t speak for everyone in the video but I know that daughter Kim has nearly completed her accounting degree, Barron has his BSEE, I have a BSEE and a MSEE, one of our shooting buddies is the chairman of the University Chemistry department, and I don’t even like beer.

There is nothing like an anti-gun person talking about something they know nothing about.—Joe]