Category Archives: Crap For Brains

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

Second Amendment Infringements in a Nutshell

Posted on by

This one, possibly from Daniel Nauenburg, together with this classic from the Half Hour News Hour, tell you just about everything you’ll ever need to know about the subject of gun restrictions.  Add one more, illustrating what governments have done to their disarmed populations, and you’d have all the bases covered in just a few minutes.

The moral depravity and intellectual bankruptcy of the anti-rights movement would be laughable so long as it never gained any traction.  As it is, there remains justice to be done, wrongs to be righted where possible, thousands of laws to be repealed, and government agencies to be disbanded.  When can the healing begin?

Violent Socialists

Posted on by

But I repeat myself.  Spending most of the article sarching in vain for a coherent thought, the author eventually slips in her take on the UK riots;

The failure of the markets goes hand in hand with human blight. Meanwhile, the view is gaining ground that social democracy, with its safety nets, its costly education and health care for all, is unsustainable in the bleak times ahead. The reality is that it is the only solution. After the Great Crash, Britain recalibrated, for a time. Income differentials fell, the welfare state was born and skills and growth increased.

Damn those pesky income differentials– they did it!  She had to hide her editorial in ~1,000 words of mish-mash.  That one paragraph would have sufficed.  See; that their socialist democracy failed to crush productivity overnight in the first half of the 20th century is proof that it is good and that we need much more.

This demonstrates a couple of my old catch phrases;
The socialists are angry because the socialists in power aren’t socialist enough.
When socialism fails, freedom is to blame, and the answer is more socialism.

When the Teaparty holds a peaceful rally, advocating liberty and denouncing tyranny, leaving the rally site cleaner than they found it, they are guilty of inciting violence.  When socialists riot, loot and burn, calling for revolution, it is because of the income differential– we should listen to them because they represent our future.

Meanwhile in the U.S., our Republican Party leaders, thinking themselves the oh-so-much-more-clever-than-thou pragmatists, are busy trying to figure out what it is they should pretend to believe during the upcoming election season, figuring out how to please this group, gingerly, without overly offending that group, taking polls, doing market analysis, organizing think tanks and hiring image consultants (in other words; there isn’t a shred of seriousness or principle amongst the whole lot of them).

Same planet but different worlds

Posted on by

As everyone knows by know S&P downgraded the U.S. debt rating after the debt ceiling was raised.

I then heard some pundits on the radio saying this was the fault of the Tea Party and Republicans. If they had raised the debt ceiling earlier instead of engaging in brinkmanship it would have happened. The increased interest rates the Federal government will now have to pay will cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of dollars each year and taxpayers can “thank” the Tea Party for that.

The major news media gleefully repeats this line:

Former White House adviser David Axelrod on Sunday pinned responsibility for the recent U.S. economic downgrade on the Tea Party movement, arguing that the group’s political “brinksmanship” during debt ceiling negotiations “brought us to the brink of a default” — and that, subsequently, “this is essentially a Tea Party downgrade.”

WHAT?!!! Where are their layers of editorial oversight?

Did anyone bother to actually read what S&P said was their reason for the downgrade? It was right there in their press release (emphasis added):

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see “Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,” June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government’s other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.

The rating was lowered because progress containing the growth in public spending is less likely that previous assumed. Who was it was trying to contain growth in public spending? Unless the media and the liberal politicians are living in a different world than I am that was the Tea Party. The Tea Party was not sufficiently effective in reducing spending so S&P downgraded the debt rating.

Thomas Sowell has it right. There is no point talking to them. These people are suffering from Peterson Syndrome. They do not have the mental tools to determine truth from falsity and with the pedal to the metal they are driving the U.S. into a financial abyss.

Invest in food, gold, silver, and copper jacketed lead.

Update: The Washington Times, although somewhat more obliquely, says the same thing.

Update2: WizardPc has a humorous take on it.

Let them start with John Kerry

Posted on by

While I can understand the impulse if this were to be implemented I think it should be first applied to the likes of John Kerry who says stupid things like:

The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.

This was in regard to the Tea Party who he claims “held the country hostage” during the debt ceiling debates.

“Everybody knows”? I would like to suggest Senator Kerry reexamine the last election results in terms of how many people believe what the Tea Party candidates have to say.

Quote of the day—Democratic aide

Posted on by

I just remember the question. I sort of think it sort of speaks to a larger issue of guns in society. I guess the question is, if legislation affects people who don’t follow the law. I think, ultimately, more guns on the street isn’t the answer.

I guess the simple answer is, there is no place for them in society. What purpose do they serve?

Democratic aide
March 22, 2011
In response to the question, “How would more legal restrictions on legal gun-owners affect criminals and their illegal possession of firearms.”
Everything you need to know about the most recent gun-control debate (but didn’t have anyone to ask), Part II
[The word “simple” applies—as in “simpleton”.

Their entire world view was balanced on a house of cards and a gentle puff caused their universe to collapse into a black hole. And their response was, “We want to ban them all.”

That is behavior consistent with bullies everywhere. If you show them to be fools they will beat you up and take your property.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Donna Davis

Posted on by

There are too many guns around already; we don’t need more, and in a public place like that, I’d like to feel safe if I’m going to the park. If there’s a gun there, I don’t want to be there.

Donna Davis
August 4, 2011
Local Governments Have Until Oct. to Remove Gun Control Laws
[And just how many is too many? I suspect all she knows is that there is more than zero and that is too many for her. If that is the case then Ms. Davis needs to move to a different country because in this country what she wants is clearly unconstitutional.

It’s no different than her saying, “There are too many mixed race couples and blacks around already; we don’t need more, and in a public place like that, I’d like to feel safe if I’m going to the park. If there’s a black person there, I don’t want to be there.”

Ms. Davis, since you don’t even know how many guns are “around” yet you spout off like that anyway you must have crap for brains. And since you want to infringe upon a specific enumerated right you should move to some country which doesn’t recognize the natural right to keep and bear arms. You don’t belong here so rather than whine about it just move. We all will be happier for it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Carolyn McCarthy

Posted on by

I don’t understand why people can’t have common sense. Large magazines do not need to be part of it. The large manufacturers, they should even take a moral point of view in not selling them to ordinary citizens through the gun stores. The police and military can still use them. But I just morally think they should not look to sell them to the average citizen.

Carolyn McCarthy
July 28, 2011
Norway shooter: Ammo clips were from U.S.
[Yes, it’s “the shoulder thing that goes up” Carolyn McCarthy demonstrating her ignorance and bigotry again.

“Common sense” is a big issue with these folks isn’t it? It must be because arithmetic is beyond them and/or they know the numbers don’t support their conclusions.

And how does one “morally think”? I’m pretty sure that is one of the same argument used by those opposed to mixed race and homosexual marriages. That’s sure some good company you keep there McCarthy. I’ll bet you and Fred Phelps would get along just fine as long as you both consistently and appropriately swapped the words “gays” and “guns” during the conversation.

The entire article could be a case study in “layers of editorial oversight”. There are things like, “The Norwegian press has written extensively about how Breivik legally acquired his weapons and ammunition, but the mail-order purchase of his ammo from the United States has received little attention in the English-language press.” Apparently the author, Reid J. Epstein, doesn’t know the difference between ammo and “clips”. Although I was surprised that there were two instance where he appropriately used “magazine”.

And McCarthy must be reading the gun blogs because she wasn’t quoted as saying “clips” even once and she is quoted as saying “magazine” twice. Perhaps she is capable of learning. I wonder if someone were to introduce her to the “in common use” part of the Heller decision if she could grok that as well. But probably not. I pretty sure Dorothy Parker had people like her in mind when she explained about horticulture.—Joe]

Unintended consequences

Posted on by

When possession of firearms is discouraged it is inevitable that familiarity with them decreases. And even firearm safety training is discouraged. Just look at the resistance to the Eddy Eagle program where no guns are even present!

The unintended consequence of this is accidents such as this:

A Banning woman accidentally shot her 12-year-old daughter after pulling the trigger of a miniature revolver she had mistaken for a novelty cigarette lighter, authorities said Thursday.

As soon as children go through puberty they will start experimenting with sex even if their parents keep them isolated and ignorant. There will always be recreational drugs around even if they are banned and there are police knocking down peoples doors in the middle of the night. And there will always be guns around. It is time to admit this and teach them gun safety as a standard part of growing up.

Via email from Donald W.

Quote of the day—jason

Posted on by

Now on the topic of guns, we must ban them. Plain and simple.

…

Ban them all.

jason
July 26, 2011
Comment to Even Democrats Oppose Obama On Gun Control Treaty.
[No mention is made of that little speed bump known as The Bill of Rights. The rest of the comment is just as disconnected from reality. I thought it was an interesting mix with a rant about the 14th Amendment causing us to become subjects of an elected monarch with a demand that all guns be banned.

As is probably the case with most fervent believers in the utility of gun bans he hasn’t been taking his anti-psychotic mediations recently.—Joe]

The Top Video…

Posted on by

…on this page is excellent.  I couldn’t have said it better myself, and that’s saying a lot.


John McCain should be out in a nice pasture right now, munching on sweet grass and chewing his cud.

Enhanced Penalties

Posted on by

Over the years, mostly in the 1990s IIRC, there has been a lot of talk about certain enhanced penalties for “gun crimes”.  Even some supposedly on the pro rights side have advocated them, presumably as a compromise to prevent some other, more egregious infringement.


I thought we had dispatched the whole concept years ago, but it came up again in comments here, so I figure it’s time to update some folks who might be new to this game of official, wholesale coercion and persecution of different groups, verses liberty.  Besides that, we all know by now that the leftist playbook is very short, and so they have to recycle the old ideas and find a way to make them new again every few years or so.


What you’re saying when you advocate special punishments for “gun crime” is that the same, or very similar, crime committed without a gun is somehow less criminal.  What you’re saying is that gun owners are to be treated the way black people were treated before civil rights.


Do you really want to go there?


My sister and her approximately three year old daughter were murdered in their own home by an invader.  The killer used a kitchen knife to brutally stab and slash my sister to death, in the presence of her daughter, and then the daughter was strangled to death with a shoestring as the murder weapon.


So you’re saying; “Oh, well thank goodness they were killed with a knife and shoestring, because being shot with a gun would be…just terrible!”  And you’re saying to the murderer; “Thank you, my good man, for using a knife and a shoestring instead of a gun.  That’s the way we like to see it. Now you’ll get off a little easier.”


WTF..Really?


One of our music store customers in his early teens was minding his own business one night when a carload of other kids stopped, got out, and clubbed him with a baseball bat.  He dragged himself some blocks to the steps of a nearby business, and died from the massive head injuries.


“His parents should count their lucky stars their boy wasn’t shot, ’cause that would have been bad news!”


Really?


That’s just as stupid and bigoted as saying that, as an alternative to slavery, we should just have enhanced penalties for black people who commit crimes, and referring to that as “pro civil rights advocacy”.  With friends like that I don’t need enemies.  I know the enhanced-penalty-for-the-presence-of-guns concept has been bandied about by supposedly pro gun legisladiots, and that you might have been fooled for a moment, but don’t let it happen again.  Now you know– such ideas come either from the anti rights movement or from people who can’t think straight and don’t understand what the words “rights” and “justice” mean.  We can all do much better without them mucking up the waters.


ETA; Maybe the slavery reference wasn’t the best one.  Maybe it should be, “…as stupid and bigoted as saying that, as an alternative to outright lynchings, we should have enhanced penalties for blacks who commit crimes…”  Makes everybody happy, right?  Everyone gets a little something.


In any case, when we stick to the basic truths, we win.  When you compromise the basic principles, you’ve relegated the concept of rights to the back of the bus.  You’ve just lost.  Creating enhanced penalties for one group verses another is outright dumb, and evil, regardless of the political/tactical environment.  If you can’t stand on the principle of basic rights, equality, liberty and justice, well thank you for applying but no– we just can’t use you at this time.  Coward.

Quote of the day—Otis Rolley

Posted on by

It is undeniable that we have to do more to reduce the devastating impact gun violence is having on our community. While the courts have consistently ruled against significant gun control legislation, there is still a way to decrease crime: substantially increase the cost of its’ commission.


Increasing the cost of guns won’t work because many criminals don’t purchase new guns and they can be borrowed or even rented in some areas. Therefore, as Mayor, Otis will move to impose a $1 per bullet tax (or about $50 per pack). That will increase substantially the financial cost of committing a crime and, unlike guns, bullets cannot be shared after their initial use. This will also dramatically cut back on the random firings that too often happen around holidays and celebrations.


Otis Rolley
Candidate for Mayor of Baltimore
July 19, 2011
THE ROLLEY PLAN TO MAKE EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IN BALTIMORE SAFER
[It would appear that Rolley is arithmetically and logically impaired. There would be constitutional challenges to this which almost for certain he would lose because he openly admits, “This is not a revenue enhancement tool”.


But ignoring the constitutional issue with high taxes you would get smuggling with this proposal. Just think about it a bit. What is the tax on recreational drugs in this country or the tax on bullets and guns in the U.K.? Oh yeah! It’s a few years in prison and those items are still readily available. And with the tax on ammunition purchased inside the city limits all he will accomplish is to create a virtual ban on the legal sale of ammunition within the city. This will create a new black market. In other words a Mayor Rolley would increase crime instead of decrease it.


Now the arithmetic part. I don’t have the numbers for just Baltimore but I do have them for the U.S. as a whole. Each year private citizens purchase, and presumably consume, something on the order of 9 billions rounds of ammunition. There are approximately 70,000 injuries or deaths each year due to criminal use of firearms. Suppose that on the average, each of these injuries and deaths were the result of two shots fired. This would mean that his proposed tax would cost people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms nearly $9,000,000,000 while costing the criminals only about $140,000. Or a ratio of about 64,000 to 1. This is not a “tax” on criminal use of firearms. It is a “tool” for infringing on people exercising a guaranteed right.


Furthermore looking at it from the standpoint of per criminal use his proposal would increase the cost of the crime, assuming the criminals actually purchased the ammo instead of stealing it or smuggling it in from outside the city, by about $2.00 per crime. When the “cost” of the crime is already many months or years in jail how can anyone think that increasing the cost another $2.00 is going to make a difference?


This guy has crap for brains. No wonder he is running for mayor. He isn’t qualified for a real job.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann

Posted on by

When it comes to gun control, the American public is way ahead of our elected officials. Americans overwhelmingly want health and safety regulation of the gun industry. A significant percentage, in some areas a majority, favor a handgun ban and, in virtually every part of the country, more Americans favor a handgun ban than own handguns.

Josh Sugarmann
March 15, 2000
New Survey Reveals More Americans Favor Handgun Ban Than Own Handguns
[The actual number, according to Sugarmann’s own numbers is that 36.6% of the people in the U.S. asked said they support a handgun ban while 24.8% own handguns. I’m not sure why the number of people who own handguns is relevant here other than for Sugarmann to pretend to have something to crow about. Does he think that the 36.6% of the people wanting to ban handguns would be able to take them away from the 24.8% that own them? Let’s explore that a little bit.

Assuming one shot is required per person that attempts to take a handgun away. That means on the average each handgun owner needs to have about 1.5 rounds of ammo to not even need to set their beer down and get up out of the easy chair when dealing with those criminals. Of course if it were me and I had to defend my property against criminals attempting to take it from me by force I would sue the survivors and/or their estate for the cleaning service for both my home and my gun, the time lost, and the ammo I used. It’s a lot more effort that just pulling the trigger a few times and calling the cops but I think it sends a message when they have to pay for the dispatch as well as disposal costs.

In a more serious frame of mind the number of real interest that Sugarmann avoided reporting is that 63.4% did not support banning handguns. And unless you are talking about a Constitutional Amendment what does the number people wanting to infringe a specific enumerated right matter at all? If there were more people that wanted to enslave people with black skin than there were people who had black skin does it really matter on any scale you want to measure it by? In either case if someone tries to implement something that clearly over the line it’s “game on”.

Keep in mind this was over 11 years ago so it’s possible that Sugarmann has raised his estimation of the I.Q. of those that read his garbage and this now longer represents the quality of his work. But I wouldn’t count on it. He’s been in the business of deceiving the public for so long I doubt that he even knows how to be ethical.—Joe]

Ruben Navarrette Jr. thinks he lives in a dictatorship

Posted on by

Sometimes you just have to shake your head and suggest people like Ruben Navarrette, Jr.  should go live in North Korea or something:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has decided to try to clean up Dodge City by requiring gun dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to report bulk sales of semi-automatic weapons. That requirement already exists for handgun purchases. If an individual walks into a gun shop on the border and buys two or more guns within a five-day period, the agency wants to know about it.

That makes sense. Some of those are likely headed to Mexico. And if you want to go after drug traffickers, start by taking their guns. If you can seize the drugs, fine. But without guns, the bad guys can’t protect themselves or defend their product. So they’re out of business.

Who could find fault with this approach by law enforcement? The National Rifle Association, which claims the reporting requirement infringes on the Second Amendment and the right of individuals to bear arms.

Do you remember the part of the Constitution where it says that people have the right to buy two or more automatic weapons within five days without law enforcement knowing anything about it?

Someone should remind Ruben Navarrette Jr. that there is nothing in the constitution that says the ATF or even President Obama get to make law all by themselves. The existing law explicitly says the reporting requirement the ATF and Navarrette desire is not allowed. Little things like changing Federal law require the change be voted on by both the House and the Senate.

But then it’s pretty easy to tell that Navarrette isn’t a big fan of the constitution and probably not even the existence of the House and the Senate. North Korea should suit him well.

Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann

Posted on by

First the NRA’s leadership murdered its parents. Now it’s eating its children. The extremist positions staked out by the NRA’s leadership are taking their toll in dollars and cents. It is clear that even the NRA’s own members can’t stomach the leadership’s extremist anti-public safety, anti-law enforcement rhetoric and actions.

Josh Sugarmann
Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center
March 19, 1997
National Rifle Association Has Been “Technically Insolvent For Several Years” New Internal Document Reveals
[And 14 years later how do the balance sheets and membership numbers of the NRA and the VPC look now? I guess Sugarmann was wrong—as is nearly always the case.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Shootin’ Buddy

Posted on by

Rocks in the Great Smoky Mountains are smarter than Paul Helmke. He is the dumbest man in the history of Indiana politics (and that is quite the accomplishment because of the heavy competition here).

Shootin’ Buddy
July 7, 2011
Comment to the post Clueless.
[I’m sure there is a great deal of truth in this statement but I’m more in alignment with Lyle on this one.—Joe]

Knowledge has limits, ignorance does not

Posted on by

The anti-gun people are sometimes their own worst enemy. Even the title, Gun Control: A Long Over Due Argument Still Unresolved, displays Robert Waddell’s profound ignorance. Here is more:



For all the gun enthusiasts who get the Second Amendment wrong by ignoring “a well regulated militia…” portion of the amendment thinking that all Americans have the right to bear arms and that anyone can get a gun without a waiting period or a back ground check or who can just buy a clip that was intended for hunting, maybe hunting people, which is what Congresswoman Giffords’s assailant was aiming for.


…


Ridiculous, but seriously for the gun enthusiasts, the framers of the Constitution never intended that Americans arm themselves to the teeth. In fact, any group that hides behind the barrel of a gun and the skirts of the Bible must have a deep sense of inadequacy. A gun after all is a powerful phallic symbol.


…


Vehemently up holding the right to bear arms, without thought, rhyme or reason kills Democracy every time someone steps up to defend this particular right. Isn’t it the right of the people to be safe from harm?


The Supreme Court ruled in Heller and McDonald that, essentially, all Americans do have the right to bear arms.


The “clip” used in the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford would not be claimed by the manufacture or any gun owner that I know as being particularly well suited for hunting.


I doubt Waddell has bothered to read any of the framers thoughts on the utility of possessing firearms. Or else it is a deliberate lie when he makes claims about their intent. Waddell also demonstrates the validity of Markley’s Law.


“Without thought, rhyme or reason”? Even if you were to ignore the Supreme Court extremely well thought out and reasoned ruling my bookshelf alone would keep Waddell busy reading full time for several months.


He is apparently ignorant of the fact that we do not live in a democracy and that arms in the hands of the individual defend against our right to vote being taken away.


And finally he exposes his most profound ignorance by asking if there isn’t a right to be safe from harm. The answer is an empathic, “No!”. You, and society, have a right to seek justice from those that inflicted harm. But you don’t have a right to be safe from harm. There are very strict laws and sound reasoning behind prohibitions against prior restraint and it is time ignoramuses such as Waddell, Brady Campaign supporters and others to become familiar with the legal barriers to prior restraint because that’s what is coming down the tracks like a freight train. “Prevention of gun violence” is going to get squished like a bug under this locomotive.

Quote of the day—Mike Summitt

Posted on by

You’re violent, primitive, procrustean, and mentally ill, for the most part, and I want a psychological test administered before any of you are allowed a deadly weapon, which I predict would disarm over half of you.


Mike Summitt
July 4, 2011 on Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Facebook Wall.
[It’s an attempt to dehumanizing gun owners. It’s a lot like what the white supremacists say about people of color. It’s totally without factual support and more accurately could be described as projection on his part.


It’s one of the prerequisites to genocide but don’t let that bother you. Liberals aren’t all violent all the time.


Via a reTweet by SebastianSH of GunFreeZone about their blog post.—Joe]

Quote of the day–Barbara Scott

Posted on by

You enjoy this way too much.


Barbara Scott
July 2, 2011
[No. She wasn’t talking about sex but almost.


I was mapping out my game plan with the ATF after they said something stupid. Except I think maybe they aren’t as stupid as they appear at first glance. I asked them one little question in response and instead of getting an answer back they went silent. I suspect they realize no matter what they say next it’s going to be embarrassing for them. More details if I ever get a response from them.–Joe]

Helmke is incoherent

Posted on by

Paul Helmke does not know what he is talking about:

Congress allows dealers to destroy criminal background check records after 24 hours, preventing the ATF from learning how well shops are following the Brady background checks requirements.

Dealers don’t have background check records. The FBI does. The dealers aren’t “allowed” to destroy the records, the FBI is required to. The rest of the sentence becomes nonsensical with the corrections applied.

But that doesn’t matter because I can’t even make even sense of some of the things the Brady Campaign (soon to be ex-) President says when there aren’t any factual corrections to be made:

It is time for Washington’s politicians to look out for average people who do not deserve to have unethical gun dealers – and the gun lobby that shields them — pushing illegal guns into their neighborhoods.

Which guns are illegal? Guns the spontaneously disassemble by the time you fire your 100th round? Guns that go full auto and don’t stop when you release the trigger?

And how does a gun dealer push them into a neighborhood? Does this mean the dealer pulls up in your cul-de-sac and pushes a pallet of guns without serial numbers out of his truck onto the pavement? No gun dealer does that—that’s more like something our government would do.