Category Archives: Crap For Brains

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

Quote of the day–Thom Mannard

Posted on by

Finally, the Court’s ruling to extend the scope of the Second Amendment has
national implications. The gun lobby is using this decision to further its
real agenda, that they want anyone to have any gun, anywhere, at any time
regardless of the proven risk to police and the public. Their unstated motive
is to enhance the profits of the gun industry by encouraging individuals to
believe they need a multitude of guns and are seeking nothing less than the
complete dismantling of our nation’s gun laws for their own political and
financial gain. Lawmakers in state legislatures and in Congress must utilize
the Supreme Court’s decision to press for common sense gun laws for the safety
and security of the America people.

Thom Mannard
Executive Director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
June 28, 2010
Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence Issues Statement On Supreme Court Ruling Over Chicago’s Handgun Ban
[He is just repeating the same lies anti-gun people have been attempting to use for decades. Here is a quick scan of the obvious lies from just this one paragraph:

  1. I have had many “behind the scenes” conversations with multiple people placed high in the power structure of “the gun lobby”. I read nearly all their media releases. I have never heard anyone in power within “the gun lobby” even hint they want “anyone to have any gun, anywhere, at any time”. Mannard is either lying or is delusional.
  2. If there is “proven risk to police and the public” then Mannard (or anyone) should be able to answer Just One Question. Just One Question has been posted for nearly six years now. Still there have not been any answers which Mannard is likely to tout (I do have a nomination for an answer that I must investigate sometime soon–if I can just find the email they sent).
  3. The “gun lobby” that represents the gun industry and is concerned with their profits is the NSSF. They had an exceedingly small role in the Heller and McDonald decisions. The NRA (with, at best, minor roles) and SAF were the gun lobby organizations that won those decisions. The NRA and SAF are grassroots organizations that represent individuals, not the manufacturer and profits of “the gun industry”. Even five minutes of research would have clearly revealed these facts. That is, if Mannard had been concerned with facts.
  4. Mannard has motive for “the complete dismantling of our nation’s gun laws” exactly backward. If the NRA and SAF were to be totally successful, by Mannard’s criteria, then they would have destroyed their “industry”. And with it any further political and financial gain. In fact some gun rights activists accuse the NRA of not wanting to win because it would destroy their positions of power and money.

-Joe]

How’s that health care working out for you?

Posted on by

I heard two different stories on the “health care reform” yesterday. I had lunch with an old friend. He has his own small business and with the downturn in the economy he is slowing sinking. He is looking for a contract job writing software and may end up leaving the Seattle area for a few weeks to “go do some coding in Iowa”. The new health care regulations aren’t helping him any either. He pulled out his Group Health identification card and told me, “I was paying $1000/month for this until they passed the bill. Almost immediately it went to $1500/month.”

That evening I had dinner with some other friends. One of them told me about explaining to one of his employees just yesterday that he is now required to offer her health insurance. He told her, “I’m required to offer you health insurance. So I’m doing that now. But if you accept I’m going to have to cut your hours back to 20 per week. At that point I no longer have to pay your insurance. If you sign this other piece of paper saying you don’t want the coverage you can continue to work 40 hours per week.

She clarified, “So I could work 20 hours per week and not have health insurance or I could continue to work 40 hours per week and not have health insurance, right?” “That’s right”, he said. “Unless you can talk Ruth out of her raise. We just don’t have the budget for any additional expenses.”

As Sebastian rhetorically asks on a slightly different topic, “Who could have predicted this?”

And your point is?

Posted on by

The following is from Chicago so in some respects it’s understandable:

What is missing in the court’s decision and all the glee among its supporters is
recognition that this ruling accentuates and legitimizes and further establishes
our violent character as a nation. Its premise is that violence is best met with
and countered by violence, that the best way to fend off a violent attack is to
practice violence in turn, including lethal violence. It clearly supposes that
the way to reduce violence is to increase the capacity and means to inflict it.
Moreover, it authorizes the privatization of state-sanctioned violence; each can
now be given the requisite permission to own and carry—and in certain
circumstances, use—a firearm to injure or take the life of another.

Are there any facts from anywhere, anytime, on this planet that counter the claim “violence is best met with
and countered by violence, that the best way to fend off a violent attack is to
practice violence in turn, including lethal violence”?

As far as I can determine this has been an immutable law of nature for about a billion years. For this guy to assume, without any supporting data whatsoever, something different and to expect everyone else to just nod their heads in agreement is arrogance or ignorance on a scale that is seldom seen outside of government.

Quote of the day–Barbara Griffith-Wilson

Posted on by

It’s going to be bang, bang, shoot ‘em up on the streets of Flint. In the end, mothers will not be able to do a thing except bury their children.


Barbara Griffith-Wilson
July 12, 2010
Flint City Council postpones gun control ordinance change
[Ahhh yes… The blood in the streets argument. Another person, A.C. Dumas (appropriate name) has this to say, “It’s going to get bad in the city of Flint as you’ve never seen it before. We’re going to open a can of worms that’s never been opened before.”


I’m reminded of something on a t-shirt, “The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.”


They are fully aware the rest of their state allows open carry yet they apparently believe the facts from outside their city limits do not apply to the people that live inside their city limits. This is mind boggling stupid.–Joe]

Like that will help

Posted on by

Sounds like a good time and place for rival gangs to set up an ambush:

Sanders, senior pastor at the Koinonia House of Worship in Bellevue,
said he hopes the Omaha Police Department’s gun-amnesty program –
scheduled for Saturday at 30th and Spencer Streets in north Omaha –
will help gang members and others end violence.

“One of the
things we’re working on is a gun ceasefire and a truce between the
gangs,” Sanders said. Gang members, he said, are “looking for a way
out.”

People who drop off their guns and ammunition at the
dropoff point between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. will not be questioned, and no
names will be recorded. Omaha police will perform ballistics tests to
determine whether the firearms had been used in crimes, but will not
check for DNA or fingerprints.

If they want “a way out” then why not just leave the area or not associate with other gang members? I don’t see how giving up their arms fundamentally changes their situation unless the “way out” means being defenseless when they get whacked by their rivals.

There is more than a little bit of truth to the bumpersticker that proclaims, “Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who didn’t.”

Those Racist Lefties

Posted on by

Michelle Malkin gets mail.


She has obviously struck a nerve.


I’ll keep reminding people that the KKK were virtually all Democrats, until it is taught in public schools nationwide, and Bill Clinton with Obama get together for a national public service ad and apologize to the world for the KKK/Democrat association.


I wanted make a bigger point about the slinging of insults, often including some rather well contemplated sexual insults, when you have no argument, but I just don’t have the energy.  Then there’s the even bigger point of that against which we are fighting.  It doesn’t reason and it doesn’t have empathy or compassion.  It doesn’t even want to be seen as reasonable, if spending the energy to appear reasonable isn’t necessary.  It longs for a situation in which all pretense of reason and compassion become unnecessary.  It’s hate with a life of its own, and it will flow from one person or group to another.  As such we should understand that this isn’t personal.  You can defeat this person or that group of people, and the monster lives on.  Hell, am I starting to sound religious?  You may call it that if it makes you feel better.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

 

 

 

The artist apparently doesn’t realize this has never been an issue at the level of the Supreme Court. Even the Cruikshank decision in 1875 and the Miller decision in 1939 supported the individual rights interpretation. And if they would have read the Heller decision they would have realized this was settled law two years ago rather than something new with the McDonald decision last week.

 

But, by definition, bigots have little need of facts to maintain their belief system.

 

[H/T to Reese who sent me an email with the link to this cartoon.]

Quote of the day–NRA-ILA

Posted on by

Most people who are familiar with the Violence Policy Center (VPC) know that the Court’s decision appears to doom the very thing for which the little anti-gun fringe group was formed–a total ban on handguns.


As it happens, this also appears to have sent Josh Sugarmann, Kristen Rand and their one or two fellow VPC employees into conniption fits. After the Court’s decision became known, at least the Brady Campaign pretended to address the decision’s substance, claiming it gave a green light to the states to impose every form of gun control short of a total ban on handguns. But VPC, used to living fat off the dole from the Joyce Foundation, hysterically claimed that “People will die because of this decision” and “areas of the country with the highest concentration of gun ownership also have the highest rates of gun death.”


Scary sound bites indeed. But VPC’s religiously-held belief that increasing the number of privately-owned guns necessarily causes firearm-related deaths to increase is proven false by the fact that, since 1991, as the number of firearms in the U.S. increased by about one-third, the firearm-related death rate decreased by more than one-third. The best estimate is that guns are used for protection 3-4 times more often than to commit a crime, and the disparity between defensive uses and criminal homicides with guns is much greater.


NRA-ILA
July 2, 2010
VPC’s Self-Induced Plunge Into Irrelevancy Continues With Knee-Jerk Reaction To McDonald Decision
[Conniption fits indeed! And maybe some sort of psychosis. In addition to the delusion that increased gun ownership means increased violent crime the people at the VPC have a hallucination that the NRA is a lobbyist for gun manufactures rather than a civil rights group for individuals.


Someone should remind them to take their meds on a more regular basis.–Joe]

Ear-based ‘virginity test’

Posted on by

There are times when I think people, in general, intuitively know how to determine truth from falsity. Then reality comes crashing in on me:

An acupuncturist in Vietnam who claims she can detect a man’s virginity based on a small red dot on the ear is credited with helping to free three convicted rapists from prison, the Associated Press reports from Hanoi.

…

“They all had small red spots on the back of their ears,” said Hong, 54. “The
spots should have disappeared if they had had sex. My many years of experience
told me that these men did not have sex before.”

Investigators who revisited the case found other flaws, leading to the
release of the prisoners.

Hong says she was first taught how to determine if a man has ever had sex by
feeling his pulse. She later developed the ear-spot method on her own, the AP
says.

She says the red spot only disappears after heterosexual intercourse and is
not affected by gay sex or masturbation.

Update: Now if she had said the red spots were an indication of not being a virgin in their ears I could see the possibility of some truth in her conclusions.

Quote of the day–Carneades

Posted on by

There is absolutely no criterion for truth. For reason, senses, ideas, or whatever else may exist are all deceptive.

Even if such criterion were at hand, it could not stand apart from the feelings which sense impressions produce. It is the faculty of feeling that distinguishes the living creature from inanimate things. By means of that feeling, the living creature becomes perceptive of both itself and the external world. There is no sensation or perception of anything unless the sense is irritated, agitated, or perturbed. When an object is indicated, then the senses become irritated and somewhat disturbed. It is impossible that there be an unperturbed presentation of external things.

The subject is more or less persuaded by the image it perceives. The strength of that persuasion depends on the disposition of the subject and on the degree of irritation produced by the image. It is not the distinctness of the image that constitutes its credibility.

The only way we can ever obtain certitude is by the difficult process of examination. We cannot be satisfied with evidence that is incomplete and only probable. Our certitude is always a precarious one. Science relies on probability, not on certitude.

Carneades
Greek philosopher 214-129 B.C.
The Fallacy of the Criterion of Truth
[As near as I can tell a very high percentage of the population subscribe to the first sentence and then their subscription ran out or they turned on the T.V. to have their brains sucked dry. My discussions with many anti-gun people provides a large base of evidence to support this conclusion.

A vastly smaller percentage thought through things enough to arrive at the conclusion articulated in the first paragraph.

It is but a very small percentage of the population that make the difficult journey to the finish the last paragraph. And even those that do sometimes still conclude that because science is not certain it must be wrong and hence their certainty of something at odds with the evidence is just as valid as the science on the same topic which says else is very probable.

As son James learned, people will literally say and believe, “Because something is irrational doesn’t mean you don’t have to believe in it.”

This insistence on certainty of belief in the absence of, or in spite of, evidence drives politics and enables politicians to herd the masses like cattle. I wish there were a cure for this terrible disease. But I fear that at best there will, someday, be an adjustment in the percentages when Darwin laughs as billions struggle and fail to learn the lesson before they inevitably fail the pop-quiz of some global catastrophe.–Joe]

So I’ll Quote Myself…

Posted on by

…It’s not against the law yet, is it?



Imagine a gun club shooting range that’s set up so the shooters are pointed in opposite directions– one shooter sitting or standing right next to a target, while a second shooter is also standing right next to the first shooter’s target. They shoot in opposite directions, at targets right next to the other shooter.


That’s the analogy for a common, two-lane highway.  Vehicles of up to 80,000 pounds or more, travel at up to 70 MPH (often faster as a lot of people exceed the limit) in opposite directions, mere feet apart with nothing in between but a painted line, day or night, in nearly all conditions.


Could someone do a nice graphic on that?  Joe’s been on a gun cartoon kick.  Maybe we can get this one published herein.

Your Safety and the Rights of People You Hate

Posted on by

This started as a comment to this post of Joe’s, but Joe has told me not to bury so much in comments.


Getting to basics; rights (or equal rights) have a long history of being extremely unpopular.  The American Founders knew this. They knew our rights would be constantly under attack, and tried as they could to protect them.


I spent some time, during the Cold War, listening to Radio Moscow, Radio Havana, and several other English broadcasts from not-so-friendly countries.  These programs were aimed at Americans, and attempted to malign, impugn, and smear the capitalist, libertarian ideals upon which the U.S. is founded.  The people they had as speakers were extremely good at sounding like your favorite, American-born uncle.  Very nice, well spoken, friendly, and (drum roll) they sounded exactly like today’s more reasonable sounding pundits of the American Left.


The posted quote instantly reminded me of listening to Radio Moscow back in the day, except that it is much more vitriolic than the Soviet broadcasts.


Yes; the protection of rights makes many more things possible, however, a potentiality is not actuality.  One of those things made possible by rights protection is a prosperous, dynamic society in which people can live their lives and pursue their dreams without looking over their shoulders all the time wondering when and why they might get arrested, fined, audited, stopped at a checkpoint, harassed with no recourse, et al.  Without rights protection, that vibrant society is impossible, mainly because doing less makes you safer from the above harassment, doing more makes you a target, and doing far more, and being good at it makes you the target…at some point Atlas shrugs.


As for the safety that the left pretends it wants to force on all of us;
Just as a matter of general practicality, are you safer with your rights protected, or without?  “Safe from what” would be the next question, or “from whom”?  As we’re discussing “safety” in the public arena, keep in mind the question of whether your and your neighbor’s rights are safe.


Human rights protection means that, no matter who you are, a lot of people are going to be doing a things that you absolutely hate, but are perfectly legal anyway.  A lot of other people are going to hate what you’re doing too, but they won’t be able to stop you without committing a crime of some sort.  That’s what it means, People.  It means all the good things that go along with liberty, but it also means you have to actually be tolerant, along with being tolerated, and not just talk about tolerance to make yourself look good in public forums.


Try this mind experiment, next time you see or think of someone or some activity that you hate, or that someone else hates.  Ask yourself; “who’s rights are they violating, or trying to violate?”  That’s a very clarifying and even liberating question.  If the answer is “no one’s” then move along.  Nothing to see there.  It’s time to dig in and start minding your own business, and hopefully you’ll have the freedom to mind your own business without someone trying to mind it for you.


ETA; I was once in a very long debate with my communist brother-in-law.  He was reciting the litany [as he saw it] of horrible, evil things that Wal Mart [a big target because they do so much so well] had done over the years.  When I asked that magic question; “Who’s rights are they violating?” he shut right the hell up.  In his mind I was just “tricking” him with clever rhetoric, but in fact he had never considered rights in his extensive evaluations of Wal Mart [or, presumably, in most other areas of consideration].  Again, I blame education [or what used to be referred to as Soviet propaganda] for the mass ignorance with regard to America’s Promise.

Do people really believe this?

Posted on by

From the Rachel Maddow show transcript (H/T to Warthog’s Rachel Maddow compares NRA mission to Prohibition):

[T]he NRA is focused like a laser-guided scope on gun rights. They want people
on the terrorist watch list to have un-impinged gun rights.

They want
felons to have gun rights. They want crazy people to have gun rights. If you
want an assault rifle with a magazine that holds enough ammo to take out a whole
American school yard or a 50-caliber gun that shoots a bullet as big as a carrot
and can take down a pretty good-sized aircraft, if you want the right to carry
weapons like that and you don’t want a background check and you want to wear
those weapons to your neighborhood bar, the NRA has got your cold, dead back.

What is the basis for saying the NRA wants felons and crazy people to have gun rights? Has she even read the NRA web site? Or does she get all her NRA policy information via the rants of lunatics? Or is she one of those lunatics? I have to conclude the later because she implies the NRA is ineffective in it’s goals, should change it’s strategy, and furthermore goes on to compare the NRA to the prohibition movement.

What?

The VPC would be the analog to the prohibition movement. The NRA is closer to the NAACP (in the early days) or the ACLU.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

The anti-gun people frequently claim this but that is grossly inaccurate and is actually nothing but projection.

Look at the responses to Just One Question, “What color is orange? True or false?” What kind of a response is that? It is totally nonsensical and people claim it is some sort of brilliant insight.

Or MikeB302000 who recently proposed the VPC report on the low “gun
deaths” in Hawaii, while ignoring violent crime and murder in general,
was an adequate response to my question. I responded in his comments by
pointing out the question is concerned with safety, not the total
number of deaths (including justifiable and praiseworthy homicide)
inflicted with the use of a firearm. This sort of thing has been
pointed out to him so many times and his ass handed to him so many times
that this morning when he came back with another post claiming my
response made him wonder if my response was “an elaborate con job” it
reminded me of a joke:

A man goes hunting with his buddies, although he’d never been hunting and barely knew how to hold a rifle.

On the first day out of camp he’s walking through the woods and he comes upon a big ass bear. “Great!” he thinks to himself. But he’s so excited and nervous that when he raises his gun and fires he misses the bear by 10 feet. The bear looks at him and stands up, and shockingly speaks. “Excuse me, but you just shot at me and missed. I’m afraid I’m going to have to rip your throat out.” says the bear as he takes out his claws and ambles towards our hero.

“You’re a talking bear! Wow! I’m really sorry for shooting at you, please don’t kill me.” The bear looks at him and says, “You know I should kill you, but I’ll tell you what, if you perform oral sex on me I’ll let you live.”

Now our hero was torn between life and death, so he chose the only option he could. That night, as he sat in camp, he heard the bear walking around jawing about how he got a human to give him a mouth hug.

So the next morning he woke up knowing that he had to kill the talking bear. He walked through the woods, and suddenly came upon the bear. This time he was very tense, the adrenalin coursing through his veins. He shot, and once again missed.

The bear looked up, stood up and walked over to him. “This is the second day you’ve tried to kill me. I’m afraid I’m going to have to tear your throat out.” said the bear in a kindly fashion.

“Please Mr. Bear, I didn’t mean to do it, please don’t kill me.” our hero whimpered. “Tell you what, you bend over and let me get Gentle Ben on your buttocks and I’ll let you live.” said the bear.

Having no choice our hero did as instructed. Later on that night as he drank himself silly in camp he heard the bear walking around chanting, “Now this human took it bear style. Once you go black bear you never go back bear.”

Thus the next morning our man woke up and knew only one thing; he had to kill the talking bear. So once again he trod out to the woods. Low and behold he came upon the bear sitting on a log. He was terrified this time, more so than before. He raised his gun and BANG!!! He missed.

The bear stood up and walked slowly over to him. And when he spoke he seemed to have gotten a French accent. “Ah, it is you again.” At this point he took out a cigarette and began smoking. “But alas, do not fear me. For I think we both realize that you are not here for the hunting.”

And so it is with MikeB302000. He is so incompetent with his apparent goal of being an advocate for gun restrictions there are only three possibilities that I can think of to explain his actions:

  1. He really is that stupid.
  2. He is on our side and wants to make anti-gun people look stupid.
  3. He is a troll that enjoys sucking up our time.

But although sticking it to him a few times is entertaining there comes a point when getting your rocks off at his expense just isn’t that much fun and is a waste of time. (Again) I have reached that point in time.

It Bears Repeating

Posted on by

A kind, compassionate, thoughtful, responsible, caring member of Congress, looking out for the rights of “the little guy” interacts with his beloved constituents;





Is it an isolated incident, or part of a culture that has metastasized throughout the halls of American government?  Little do we know that often we are actors in a grand play, the script being many thousands of years old.


All the guy had to do was answer the question; “Well, he is our president, but I can’t imagine I would “totally” support any administration.  That’s a bit of a stretch, son.  Now if you’ll excuse me…”


“Course then, the kid might have asked; “You don’t totally support Obama?  So you hate black people then, right?  You just can’t stand the thought of a black man in the Whitehouse?”  That’s probably what our good Congressweasel feared.


At a little over 400 thousand views on Youtube, last I checked, I figure it’s not near enough.


HT to Say Uncle and Snarkybites

‘Get the Hell Out of Palestine’…

Posted on by

…says Helen Thomas to the Jews in Israel.


Doug Powers posted it.  I’m amplifying it.  Watch the video.  Helen Thomas is one of the most revered journalists in all of Leftopia.  She’s been in the front row at Whitehouse press conferences since the Grant administration, and she’ll be there, just as revered, at the next one.


Let’s see; it’s been nearly 10 years since I began linking the motivations and goals of the jihadists with those of the American and European left.  In examining the various “peace talks” between Israel and Hamas, et al, brokered by American presidents, keep that in mind.

A potentiality is not an actuality

Posted on by

Yesterday I posted a quote from someone opposed to open (and I would imagine any type of) carry. He was responding to someone else in the comments to a newspaper article:

“How many open carry citizens have committed crimes with their weapons?
Answer – none”.

You are incorrect. Open carry laws make it easy for psychos to tote
around LOADED weapons, which are responsible for a lot of the crime and gun
deaths each year. The law may be designed for the “law abiding” citizen, but if
you think only “law abiding” citizens utilize the law you are an idiot.

It is my belief that we are so frequently exposed to irrational and nonsensical thinking and behaviors that we frequently cannot see it for what it is. We accept it as normal and attempt to confront them on their own territory using their own “rules”. This is like mud wrestling with a pig. They are going to be an extremely slippery opponent, you are unlikely to win, and even if you do there is no hope of any dignity or great reward.

I didn’t notice that I had ignored this guy’s subterfuge until sometime after I had posted it and rather than update the post I decided to see if anyone else noticed and pointed it out in the comments. About a 1000 people have seen that quote here and no one has said anything about what the guy did. I doubt that he himself realized what he did. It is what these people do naturally. Their thinking process is so messed up that it just comes out.

The two points that need to be made are:

  1. The responder changed the question. The question was, “How many open carry citizens have committed crimes with their weapons?” The responder changes this to, the implied, “Does the ability to openly carry enable crime?”
  2. A potential to do harm is not the same as actually doing harm. In nearly every instance of a push for greater gun control (and, if you think about it some, nearly all government programs) those advocating more government control focus almost entirely on the potential harm if action is not taken and the potential good if the action is taken. Actual harm and actual benefits appear to be (and in many cases I’m sure it is deliberately) ignored.

This second point is very important. A potentiality is not an actuality.*

For the most part when we debate against gun control (or socialism for that matter) we use actual facts. We accuse them of using emotionalism but it goes deeper than that. They frequently argue about “what could happen”. When they do this there is almost no limit to what conclusions will be reached.

They end up arguing that .50 caliber “sniper rifles” can bring airplanes down out of the sky. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a case of a semi-auto or bolt action .50 caliber rifle taking down an airplane. Potentiality versus actuality.

They end up arguing criminals will buy guns at gun shows with “no questions asked”. Criminals obtain their firearms at gun shows less than 1% of the time. Potentiality versus actuality.

They end up arguing if you carry a gun it can be taken away from you and used against you. Defending ones-self with a gun results in less injury to the defender than any other course of action. Potentiality versus actuality.

They end up arguing that if there were strict, “common sense” gun laws in place crime would go down. At the very best the facts show heavy restrictions on private citizen access to firearms is not positively correlated with an increase in crime. Potentiality versus actuality.

Keep your eyes and ears open and your brain working. Don’t let them get away with arguing potentialities. Make them argue actualities. A potentiality is not an actuality.

*The title for for this blog post comes from Susan K. (Cherry Tree–Susan will know) who, about 25 years ago, used this phrase to emphasis a point in a debate I had with her. This post was inspired by the book I’m currently listening to, The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand. Susan was a huge fan of hers although I didn’t hear that exact phrase in the book (so far anyway) similar wordings and phrases caused me to remember the debate I had with Susan. It turns out, that if you do a web search for that phrase you will find that Ayn Rand did in fact use it–but in a totally different context.

Quote of the day–Dennis Henigan

Posted on by

We are going to vigorously attack the law in courts, … Congress has no power to retroactively deprive people of their rights.


Dennis Henigan
October 21, 2005
Houses Passes Ban on Gun Industry Lawsuits
[One would assume from the words Henigan uses that he would be opposed to the Launtenberg Amendment. Somehow I don’t think he is capable of being that consistent.–Joe]

Quote of the day–GuessWho

Posted on by

“How many open carry citizens have committed crimes with their weapons? Answer – none”.


You are incorrect. Open carry laws make it easy for psychos to tote around LOADED weapons, which are responsible for a lot of the crime and gun deaths each year. The law may be designed for the “law abiding” citizen, but if you think only “law abiding” citizens utilize the law you are an idiot.


Why does someone need to carry around an unloaded weapon anyway? To cure their small man syndrome? To “get chicks”? To make-up for their small endowment?


GuessWho
June 1, 2010
Comment to Ban on ‘open carry’ of guns passes Assembly
[For some reason GuessWho believes “psychos” will not think of concealing LOADED weapons in violation of the law when they go about violating the laws against robbery and murder. Facts, such as nearly all other states allow open and easy to obtain concealed carry licenses, are apparently irrelevant to them so they make dick jokes.


What is this about “Utilize the law”? The same rational would be just as applicable to the First Amendment with the right to worship as you please, associate with you please, and to speak as you please.


GuessWho should be less concerned with the endowment between my legs and more concerned with the endowment between his ears.–Joe]

Quote of the day–sweatypie

Posted on by

Carrying a gun for self defense is stupid. If you are being robbed, just give the robber what he wants. Your life or any life is not worth money. Very seldom does a robber want to kill you. And there are many women who are raped that go on to live normal, productive lives. Resisting during a rape will just get your face bashed in or worse. Self defense in reality does not work. A gun only increases your or a loved ones chances of getting hurt or killed by that stupid gun you got to protect yourself with.


sweatypie
May 28, 2010
Comment to Dueling emotions on gun control flare anew.
[Ahh… yes. Just lie back and enjoy it little lady. Facts are irrelevant.


What this approach does is lower the costs of a criminal “doing business”. It’s like a welfare program. You don’t really want people on welfare but once you have created such a program some people will decide that is a better/easier way of life than working for a living and figure out a way to take advantage of the system. You want to raise the costs of being a criminal. Sure, the police, courts, and penal system impose a cost on the criminal but only if they get caught and convicted. We supply free legal representation so the cost is essentially only imposed if they are convicted. And what are those odds? One in a hundred for every crime committed? And then what happens? They spend some time in prison. That is a gamble the criminal is willing to take–and we have the criminal facts to prove it.


If the criminal has to consider that one out of ten of their victims is capable and willing to splatter their brains all over the sidewalk the odds look considerably different. The criminal facts from places outside of Chicago and Washington D.C. also prove this.


If someone should actually encounter sweatypie I would like to suggest taking Greg Hamilton’s lead on dealing with people like this.


Update: Another approach to dealing with someone such as sweatypie is to suggest they convince their local police force that, “Self defense in reality does not work.” Once the local police have agreed and complied for a year or more you will give it further consideration.–Joe]