Category Archives: Crap For Brains

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

Cold Call

Posted on by

I just got off the phone with a rep who called us from one of the big optics companies.  He started the conversation by asking if we sold gun accessories.


Need I say more?


OK; any half-baked salesman would spend at least one whole minute researching the company he’s calling, you know, before making the call.  I point out this failure because it’s rare, but it keeps happening.  Along with failure “a” usually comes failure “b”; salesman wants to do all the talking and no listening.  He’s going down a list of phone numbers and reading a canned presentation.  That might result in some sales, but that’s not a salesman.


We knew a musical instrument salesman from the American affiliate of Big International Music, Inc. and he was the best in the business.  Here in the Northwest, the sales reps were generally given larger commissions due to the vast expanses they had to cover to make the same sales volume one of the big city reps could make within 20 square miles.  This guy did so well that he started to make “too much money” at the higher, Northwest commission rates.  Big International Music didn’t like that, so they cut his commission.  Mind you; no one had ever sold so much in the Northwest as this guy in all the history of the company.  THAT was the “problem” that was eating away at them, and they solved it alright.  When they cut his commission the guy quit and went to work for the competition, who suddenly started doing quite well for themselves.


That’s a salesman.  He knew about your business before he contacted you, for one thing.  This was before the internet, when it took more than a minute or two.  He’d talk to local professors and musicians– people most likely to know about you.  He’d go in with actual knowledge, and he’d talk WITH you rather than AT you.  Always looking for a deal, he’d also check all the local classified ad papers.  On one visit he left with a ’50s Oldsmobile he found here in town, figuring he could turn a profit on it.  I believe they’re more born (or bred) than trained in a month.  It’s a personality type.

Quote of the day–Beekeeper’s Apprentice

Posted on by

How DARE the NRA CHARGE for a program to teach children to never touch a firearm, when they have lobbied hard and long and pushed and prodded and screeched “constitution” and tossed money around to lawmakers incapable to turning down a freaking dollar to save their own putrefied souls and the NRA is a huge part of the problem of children dying in firearm accidents in the first place?


Beekeeper’s Apprentice
Apr 21, 2010
Question of the Week: How do Republicans Think?
[I think there is some sort of disconnect with reality here. Does he think teachers should teach for free? And where is the evidence that the NRA is “a huge part of the problem of children dying in firearm accidents”? And if you know anything about the NRA’s Eddy Eagle program and you read the whole thing you will discover he doesn’t know anything about the Eddy Eagle program. What he thinks he knows about it he learned from the Violence Policy Center. This is like learning about homosexuality from Fred Phelps.–Joe]

A threat to safety and democratic rights

Posted on by

An email from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:



Today, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced that the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act would be pulled from consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives because of the chamber’s inability to stop a National Rifle Association (NRA) amendment that would have effectively gutted the city’s gun laws. “The price was way too high,” said Hoyer, who indicated he made the decision along with D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.


The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) applauds Majority Leader Hoyer and Delegate Norton for making this hard decision and for acknowledging that the bill was a threat to D.C. residents’ safety and democratic rights. It is a tragedy that a bill that would have extended voting representation in Congress to American citizens who richly deserve it was undermined by the NRA’s insidious agenda.


A recent decision by a federal judge upheld the District of Columbia’s new gun laws as constitutional and torpedoed the NRA’s claims that these regulations are arbitrary and tyrannical. Nonetheless, the NRA pressed ahead and put their petty, partisan agenda ahead of the civil rights of 600,000 patriotic Americans. Their goal was to drive a wedge between D.C. residents, but in the end we emerged unified and more determined than ever.


CSGV has been committed to obtaining full democracy for the District for 40 years. Our president, Mike Beard, was the first executive director of Self-Determination for D.C., a national coalition that was instrumental in passing the Home Rule Act in 1973. In recent years, we have been proud to advocate for voting representation and political autonomy for District residents.


We would like to thank the many individuals and organizations who stepped forward to protect the principle of self-determination in the District. Among them were the 13 members of the D.C. Council, ROOT (Reaching Out to Others Together), the League of Women Voters, DC for Democracy, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the D.C. Democratic Party, and—most importantly—family members who lost loved ones in the March 30 mass shooting in Southeast Washington.


I find it very telling CSGV calls the repeal of the oppressive D.C. gun laws “a threat to … democratic rights”. I didn’t know we had “democratic rights”. We have civil rights. We have voting rights. But “democratic rights” is something new to me. A quick Bing search indicates it is not a common U.S. phrase. My suspicion is that CSGV knew use of the more common “civil rights” would have yielded laughter and claims of ignorance and/or bigotry. And of course in the next paragraph they overlook the fact that the NRA is very concerned with civil rights. But despite all nine Supreme Court justices agreeing with the NRA that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected individual right CSGV is willing to push for the clearly unconstitutionally representative for D.C. in the U.S. Congress. Apparently the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant to their agenda as is safety. If they were concerned with resident safety they would recognize that violence crime is much lower just across the political boundaries on all sides of D.C. where gun laws are more relaxed and that in the last year after D.C.’s fun laws were found unconstitutional violent crime reduced rather than increased as the anti-gun people predicted.


It would seem to me that a rational person would observe that the correlation between restrictive gun laws and high crime is positive in D.C. and that the relaxing of gun laws coincided with reduced violent crime. A rational person would be willing to relax the gun laws even more yet at every turn they fight for more restrictive laws. I can only conclude CSGV does not have rational people or they are not concerned with resident safety as they claim.


I have to smile at them anyway because as they whine about people being allowed restricted access to firearms I’m preparing for over 100 ordinary people to play with guns and explosives for four days. My accomplishments in the next few days will be on television (and has been before and the show was even nominated for an Emmy) and reach thousands of times more people than their pathetic news release.

Quote of the day–Driftglass

Posted on by

Its leaders fought for the right to : to work them like animals and kill them at will.

Its leaders fought for the right to enforce the institution of slavery with state-sanctioned terror and murder.

Its leaders were known as “Confederates”.

To preserve and defend their monstrous institution, Confederates spent centuries constructing massive social, economic, religious and cultural fortifications around it.

Like hemophilia, Confederates passed that comprehensive social, economic, religious and cultural worldview down generation after generation.

Like syphilis, to this day Confederates continue to spread that social, economic, religious and cultural worldview everywhere they go.

About 40 years ago, the Confederates changed their name.

Now they are known as “Republicans”.


Driftglass
April 7, 2010
Just In Case
[Some might say it is because of the state of our educational system. Others might say it was a simple error. But I’m inclined to think of it as a mental defect.


How can they live in such a fact free environment? No wonder they want government assistance for everything. They couldn’t find their way to their food without help from someone.


I left the following comment on their post:



You got a couple things mixed up. The anti-slavery people were Republicans and the pro-slavery people (including the racist bigots with their Jim Crow laws up through the 1960s) were all Democrats.

Other than that minor error I think you are pretty close.


I wonder if this is going to be another instance of “Reasoned Discourse“.–Joe]

Spot the moron

Posted on by

As Ben said in email, “Spot the moron”:



From here.

Coolidge Almost Got It Right

Posted on by

In response to the QOTD;


Ah, but Mr. Coolidge, and the Republican Party leadership, apparently never understood the game.  The assertion that building up the weak is the Left’s goal is one thing.  Taking that assertion at face value is another.  It’s the Big Mistake of the 20th century, and has resulted in perpetual confusion (to say nothing of the stagnation, decay and destruction around the world).  The preponderance of the evidence regarding the Left’s goals points elsewhere.  Their objective is statism for its own sake, and the tactic, stated openly in some circles time after time, is to bring down “The System” so it can be remade– “Redistributive Change” in Obama’s own words, and it’s been said in other ways throughout the generations.


Republicans, as they occupy themselves trying to understand and argue the details, the costs and so on, of the “healthcare” bills, are demonstrating their utter cluelessness (or is it their complicity?).  “Why, this could end up funding abortions with taxpayer dollars, and that would be bad, and I’m not so sure we can afford this other bit over here…”


That’s not the point, Skippy.  The point is, the whole thing is a massive power grab.  What more do you need to know, for crying out loud?


Weigh down the economy with debt, entitlements and restrictions, then blame what remains of the private sector.  Take advantage of the chaos and the public demands for an altogether new approach that they hope will ensue.  They’re telling us every day; “Never let a crisis go to waste” is only part of it.  The other part is their understanding that they can manufacture the crises.  Chip, chip, chip, chip, and sooner or later even the hardest stone will crumble, after which (they believe) they can swoop in and take it all.


So far as I can tell, the Republicans have been playing along for decades.  “Oh, but you’re crazy, Lyle.  Look at the differences between Republicans and Democrats!  Are you willfully blind, or what?  Surely you must be mad!  Look!  Just look!  LOOOOOOOOOK, MAN!”


Uh huh, and there’s a world of difference between that “good cop” and that “bad cop” too.  The bad cop is a real, dangerously scary, out-of-control sonofabitch, but that good cop– why, he’s a sweetheart!  Look at him!  Just look!  He brings you coffee and food and he talks nice.  He doesn’t like that bad ol’, meany mean bad cop at all, either.  No Sir, not at all.  Such a nice fellow, and he really cares.  He listens.  He understands.  He’s my advocate in this time of uncertainty.  I want to work with him, by golly gosh oh gee.  Yessiree.  No doubt about it.  Without him, that bad cop would have beat the living shit out of me by now, for sure.  Man, am I lucky to have Good Cop!  Wow!  Thank God!  This must be an angel sent from Heaven to deliver me from despair!


Right.  Both cops are working to take you to the same place after they’re finished with your sorry, dumb ass.


OK; got that out of the system.  Now I’m all ears.

You got that right

Posted on by

From Canada:



She says she doesn’t want to think about the consequences if the gun registry disappears.


I see no evidence that she did any thinking up until now so I think the risk of her starting now is pretty low.

Methinks the poster doth protest too much

Posted on by

Sometimes the responses write themselves. The response to this is a case in point:



Guns are useless, especially handguns. But I’m not that ignorant: I know that gun control is a lot like health care–everyone knows it’s a good idea, but we really don’t want it to cost anyone their “freedom” (or worse, their money!).


Apparently he is that ignorant.


I would like to suggest he ask the next police officer why he or she is carrying a useless handgun and then read up on what “everyone knows”.

Unclear on the concepts

Posted on by

My previous post was a link to the most clear presentation of McDonald v. Chicago that I have read. This one is the most unclear I have read. It appears they know all the words but don’t know how to use them in a complete sentence.

DNA sequencing Fe based life forms

Posted on by

One could get snarky with this one and revive the joke about the anti-gun people thinking guns are living things that kill on their own. Apparently some people think guns have their own DNA:

As a countermeasure, Magnus has proposed a plan to trace every weapon recovered on the street using DNA technology available through state and federal agencies. The county’s crime lab does not possess the technology needed for such testing, he said.

Or snark about science hasn’t yet sequenced even one Fe based lifeform yet so it will be a great many more years before the crime lab possesses the technology.

But probably it was just a lazy and/or stupid reporter than didn’t bother to get the story straight. The ones that could have figured it out were probably fired long ago for “holding on to the notion there is an objective reality”.

One of the most significant factors

Posted on by

Sometimes you just have to wonder about their brain functionality. Sure, they are Canadian, but this is really over the top:

While rates of spousal violence and spousal homicide against women have dropped by 15 per cent over the past decade, the report slams the government’s determination to scrap the long gun registry, which it credits as “one of the most significant factors” in reducing violence against women.

Registration of long guns reduced the rate of violence against women? Do they actually believe someone that is going to seriously injury or kill their spouse is going to obey the law about registering their rifle?

No Internet connection

Posted on by

Just a FYI.

My hidden, hardened, underground bunker lost it’s Internet connection yesterday afternoon and I haven’t bother to use alternate methods of checking my email. I did check the comments and add one here on the blog but generally don’t expect anything from me until I restablish normal communcations. This is expected to be sometime this evening after I get off work.

If something urgent comes up give me a call on my cell phone: 208-301-4254.

Update: After wasting about two hours of my life I have an Internet connection at my bunker again. I wish I could bill Comcast for my time.

Kelsey says, “Comcast is a Dick!” James had a longer explaination which is not worth repeating here.

And a word of advice to $@#!%^& people at Comcast from security professional…

Do not insist I turn off my firewall and connect my computer directly to the cable modem!

My inclination after doing this is to wipe the hard disk and reinstall the O/S.

Knocking down straw men

Posted on by

The Brady Campaign set up a straw man to knock down again yesterday:

While trying really hard to pose as a “victim of bigotry” with his best Rosa Parks impression (someone who faced genuine discrimination), Mr. Pierce forgot to blur the distinction between gun owners and gun carriers.  Whoops.

They are still pushing on the “immutable characteristics” defense against their bigotry. What I find interesting is that they consider religious affiliation “immutable”. And of course they don’t even mention interracial couples.

They make a big deal about “guns are things” and claim people with those things cannot be discriminated against.

They are just so incredible smart to have thought of that. They sure got me on that one. I never would have thought of a defense like that.[/sarcasm]

Let see how well that assertion plays out in general:

  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your burqa and ḥijāb, outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your turban outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your sari outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your Star of David outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your cross necklace outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your NRA/SAF/CCRKBA/JPFO/Brady-Campaign shirt outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your Bible/Torah/Koran outside.”

Is that still not discrimination?

I can only think of two possible explanations for the Brady Campaign to make the claims they do:

  1. They think the general population is so stupid as to believe that gun owners magically materialized a holstered gun on their belt or in their purse just before they walked into the store. And therefore they could just as easily not materialized it just prior to entering the store. That’s not the way it works. Many of us put on a gun just like we put on our shoes, pants, and shirt.
  2. They are so stupid or blinded by their own bigotry that they were unable to think it through.

[Mostly off topic–Does the Brady Campaign even have apparel for sale? I didn’t find anything on their website and none of the Brady Campaign items I found on Cafepress would be endorsed by them. I suppose that makes sense. After all, who would willingly put a “I’m defenseless” sign on themselves while in public? And if I did that I would likely get charged with “hunting over bait” or some such thing.]

Update: Sebastian put up a very well written post on the topic an hour before I started mine.

Just a Reminder

Posted on by

In case anyone has forgotten;

 

That in response to this story.

Bigotry examples

Posted on by

In the past I have had the impression that Sebastian has not wholly bought into my advocacy of portraying anti-gun people as bigots. But this post by him has him landing on the topic with both feet and getting into a word fight with the Brady Campaign.

I can understand people being of the opinion that pushing the bigotry meme is not productive. But I don’t think any rational person can defend the claim that the following post by Mark Morford is anything other than the words of a bigot:

Hello and welcome to our store! Please, feel free to look around, make yourself comfortable, enjoy our fine offerings and, oh yes, by the way? Please, no murdering.

Also, no raping, gang-banging, popping off, stabbing, mauling, stealing stuff, or walking around in a confrontational macho huff, ready at a moment’s notice to harass any of our normal patrons with a snarl and a vague threat of violence because you feel it is your God-given right, given how you are a card-carrying member of a pro-gun “Open Carry” sect that likes to strap unloaded handguns to your Wranglers, walk around in public places and freak people out. Thank you so much!

I’m sorry, I see you are still wearing your little weapon and strutting about like you are the rather doughy, bad-skinned king of the sand castle. Perhaps we were not clear? Shall we try it again?

Clearly, you are not a police officer. Therefore, the management, our employees and pretty much everyone within a 100-mile radius would very much appreciate it if you would put away that ego-fluffing man-toy that is designed solely to kill other living creatures and induce fear and ignorance as it regresses every hesitant advancement in the human soul back to caveman grunting lunkishness. Thank you again!

Oh, please do not misunderstand! We are all terribly impressed. It is so very patriotic of you to show off your little popper! Are you in a gang? Are you a drug dealer? Are you going to shoot some scary terrorists, Mr. pallid paranoid Constitution-misquoting videogame-addicted guy? Protect all of us here in the casual neighborhood coffee shop from those crazy liberals and their health care reform and organic pretzels? Thank you so much! But really, I think we’ll be OK without your little display. Enjoy your frappucino, won’t you?

What, no drink? You now wish to order nothing at all and instead plop yourself down in the corner, plug in your laptop and angrily scour Facebook all day for evidence that your ex-girlfriend, the one who left you two years ago at a full, what-the-hell-was-I-thinking sprint, is now dating a liberal or a pacifist or an atheist and is far, far happier than she ever was with you? We understand. We appreciate your desire to partake of our free Wi-Fi, buy nothing and not give a damn that we can’t really stay in business that way.

Why, look at you! Refusing to step away from the counter and instead choosing to read aloud from your little card that says how it’s completely legal to carry an unconcealed, unloaded firearm in a public space! Way to stand up for your rights! God bless America!

Turns out you are right. It is legal, sort of. Then again, so is eating gravel, wearing a giant hat made of cow manure and squirrel tails, and slapping yourself in the face repeatedly while ranting semicoherently about Jesus, masturbation and Shania Twain. And you don’t see anyone doing that, do you? Except Carl over there?

We realize it might seem unfair. Far be it from us here at the neighborhood cafe, where families and small children and book readers come to chat and feel slightly better about their day, to ask you to leave because your energy is so low and repellant and also downright silly.

But nevertheless, I’m afraid that’s exactly what we’re going to do. We would appreciate it if you would take your business elsewhere. Right now. No? Very well.

We had hoped it wouldn’t come to this. We had hoped to find a better resolution. However, in response to your insistence on carrying a firearm into our premises, we have no choice but to change our official policy, right here and now, on the spot.

Again, we mean no offense, you jingoistic lump of mancrazy. You are indeed well within your rights to be a thoroughly paranoid coward who has no real inner strength, confidence or social skills, to a degree that you feel you must carry a deadly weapon around to feel like you even exist. We understand your thinking completely. It’s basic psychology. Very, very basic. Childish, even.

So then. Like any business, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. But we realize there are some people for whom this is not specific or clear enough. We realize some people have to have it, you know, spelled out and publicly displayed.

Therefore, we have revised our list. Please note the new sign we have just posted on the front door. We have expanded and clarified a few things. We hope it helps.

Effective immediately on these premises, there will be:

  • No murdering
  • No raping
  • No pillaging
  • No gun slinging, pistol-whipping, sucker-punching
  • No mauling, jabbing, stabbing, hating or undermining
  • No screaming bloody murder
  • No morons
  • No panicking
  • No testing on animals
  • No jumping for Joy. While she appreciates your enthusiasm, our cashier is happily married. Thank you
  • No live birthing
  • No dumping
  • No livestock
  • No smoking
  • No smoking the livestock
  • No exit
  • No way out
  • No diving
  • No spitting
  • No way!
  • No Crusades
  • No “Star Trek” re-enactments
  • No skinny-dipping in the half-n-half
  • No doubt

Thank you so much for understanding. Free sample biscotti on your way out?

And what does Paul Hemke the Brady Staff (correction by the Brady Staff in this post) in a post on the Brady Campaign blog say of this bigotry? “Best. Answer. Ever.”

Had this been about interracial or homosexual couples holding hands and kissing the outrage over a such a post would result in demands that the San Francisco Chronicle fire him. Hemke defends Morford and his support of Morford with:

The key reply is that clothing which some find offensive is different from firearms that others — justifiably — find frightening.  That is: pants aren’t guns, and being gay doesn’t kill people.  Not sure if CDC counts how many Americans die by strange-looking pants each year, but if they do, chances are the number will be a lot less than 30,000 (the number shot to death every year in this country).

In the paragraph above let’s substitute “ni**er” for “gun” and “firearm”, correct the numbers to match, and see how that plays:

The key reply is that clothing which some find offensive is different from ni**ers that others — justifiably — find frightening.  That is: pants aren’t ni**ers, and being gay doesn’t kill people.  Not sure if CDC counts how many Americans die by strange-looking pants each year, but if they do, chances are the number will be a lot less than 6,000 (the number murdered by “ni**ers” every year in this country).

That sounds a lot like an argument I would imagine someone from the KKK or some other white supremist would make in supporting restrictions against non-whites. Yet they appear to be blind to the parallel.

That some people are frightened by others exercising a specific enumerated right is not justification for infringing that right. As one judge said in regards to the First Amendment, “… free speech cannot be limited on the basis of ‘undifferentiated fear”. It is a severe and unjustified infringement on liberty to engage in prior restraint based on the imagination and paranoid fears people like Helmke and Morford have about gun owners.

It’s not just Morford and Helmke that want to put up the equivalent of “No Coloreds Allowed” signs on businesses they frequent. Here is another bigot having his say on the topic:

Many intelligent educated and reasonable people feel that the presence of openly-displayed guns in a coffee shop like Starbucks is disturbing. Some of them may feel the gun owners are not to be trusted. Others may feel that guns in a crowded public place are too easily within reach of kids and criminals. Some may feel a tacit threat from those carrying weapons, which gets back to the trust issue. But, whatever they’re thinking, aren’t they free to think it? Don’t they have a right to feel any way they want? Aren’t they entitled to request Starbucks to institute a no-gun policy?

How many “intelligent educated and reasonable people” need to feel the presence of ni**ers in a coffee shop like Starbucks is disturbing before it stops being bigotry? How many people have to feel ni**ers are not to be trusted before it is acceptable to enact regulations and push businesses to ban them?

Certainly they are free to think and feel whatever they want. And they can petition Starbucks to institute a no-gun policy with legal intervention to back them up. No one is advocating otherwise. But that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t feel the outrage from the public for their bigotry. But should they take that bigotry to the next level where they injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate people for exercising their right to keep and bear arms then they should be prosecuted.

I’ve taken Paul Helmke to task on this before but he just doesn’t seem to get it. But I shouldn’t be surprised. Bigots have a tough time learning.

Update: The Brady Campaign has directly responded to this post. They claim that if it is not an immutable characteristic such as skin color then it isn’t bigotry or a civil rights issue:

In order to think this way, the key assumption such gun advocates have to make is that their guns and gun use are functionally identical to race, or sexual orientation — such that one’s status as a gun advocate is essentially an immutable characteristic.

By that logic banning interracial couples, Catholics or Muslims from Starbucks or Woolworths wouldn’t be bigotry either. I’ve got news for the Brady Campaign Staff–they’re wrong and I think they know it.

As long as they held on to the falsehood that the 2nd Amendment did not protect an individual right they might have made a thin case for that. But as soon as the right to keep and bear arms was on the same level as the freedom of association and freedom of religion they lost that crutch. Via D.C. v. Heller we have, and the Brady Campaign acknowledges, a specific, constitutionally protected, right to keep and bear arms. With that decision they became a gentler version of the KKK. No white sheets or burning crosses in our yards but they still attempt to segregate us and ban us from parks, buildings, and businesses. The only difference between them and the KKK is the KKK was sometimes willing to take the law into their own hands. The Brady Campaign attempts to get the government, Amtrack, and Starbucks to do the yucky work of infringing on the rights of others for them. They are now on a slippery slope into obscurity and revulsion and they are grasping at straws with their denial of bigotry.

And their advocacy for public bans of us exercising that right is more than just bigotry. It is just a hairs breadth away from a felony:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Quote of the day–Dennis Henigan

Posted on by

Don’t expect the NRA to abandon its reliance on the fear of gun bans – it is not clear that the gun lobby knows any other way of arguing its case. And, admittedly, it may take years before the impact of the Heller decision on the gun debate is fully felt.

Dennis Henigan
February 3, 2010
Frank Luntz: “Culture War” Over Guns Is a Myth
[Half Truth Henigan is at it again. It will take years before we finish clearing the books of all the unconstitutional gun laws. But the “gun lobby” makes lots of arguments without “the fear of gun bans”. If Henigan believes what he just said then I guess he didn’t notice the some of the things the gun lobby has accomplished recently. Examples include Federal legislation allowing people to check guns with luggage on Amtrak, allowing concealed carry in National Parks, and blocking progress on restrictive gun show legislation. This doesn’t include the progress made in the previous 20 years on enabling concealed carry.

Even ignoring those items the entire premise of his post is obviously false. There is a huge cultural war going on. How else can you explain observations like those made in the second half this post?

But what makes this particular half-truth so interesting is that all of those items, which have nothing to do with “gun bans”, are in the 2009 Brady Gun Violence Prevention Report Card. I can only think of the following possible explanations:

  1. Henigan didn’t read the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
  2. Henigan forgot the contents of the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
  3. Henigan didn’t believe the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
  4. Henigan thinks no one else remembers the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
  5. Henigan does not limit himself to rational thought.

I’m inclined to go with #5.–Joe]

Nanny state fails again

Posted on by

Via daughter Kim:

Laws that forbid motorists from using hand-held phones or texting while driving don’t appear to result in a significant decrease in vehicle crashes, according to a new study by the Highway Loss Data Institute expected to be released Friday.

The study, expected to be released at a conference in Washington, D.C., Friday, comes amid stepped-up efforts by federal highway-safety regulators to ban texting while driving and curb other forms of driver distraction. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood earlier this week announced rules to forbid commercial truck and bus drivers from text messaging while driving. Mr. LaHood has said he would ban all texting while driving if he could.

…

The HLDI, a research organization sponsored by the insurance industry, studied data on monthly collision claims in four states that banned the use of hand-held phones by motorists before and after the bans went into effect. The HLDI also compared collision data from states that enacted bans on driving while texting or phoning to accident claims in states that didn’t enact such bans.

I find the Department of Transportation response “interesting”:

The Transportation Department in a statement Friday criticized the HLDI findings, saying “it is irresponsible to suggest that laws banning cell phone use while driving have zero effect on the number of crashes on our nation’s roadways.”

Typical of the nanny state mentality — in their minds the use of actual facts and data is “irresponsible”.

Quote of the day–Charles Caleb Colton

Posted on by

It is almost as difficult to make a man unlearn his errors as his knowledge. Malinformation is more hopeless than noninformation; for error is always more busy than ignorance. Ignorance is a blank sheet, on which we may write; but error is a scribbled one, from which we must first erase. Ignorance is content to stand still, with her back to the truth; but error is more presumptuous, and proceeds in the wrong direction. Ignorance has not light, but error follows a false one.

Charles Caleb Colton
[I was reminded of this by:

Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, sponsor of the bill and chairman of the Judiciary Committee that was hearing it, said the bill includes descriptions of features on firearms such as pistol grips on rifles and barrel shrouds that make a gun “more lethal than your average deer rifle.” That prompted laughter in the hearing room…

I also considered the following as QOTD in response but I had already used them. Anti-gun people suck up my supply of ignorance quotes at a prodigious rate:

I have news for Mr. Kline. The days of ignorance by the people at large is over. It’s not going to work this time.

The sponsors of this bill have, and spread, malinformation. It’s sometimes tough to deal with. But public laughter is a far more effective cure than anger and is better for your blood pressure too.–Joe]

Another cops with guns story

Posted on by

This is so bad I’m not sure I believe it.

Shooting into the ceiling after hours when the bar is closed?

Via Ry.

Quote of the day–Alastair Reid

Posted on by

Looking for temporary Edens is a perpetual lure certainly not confined to writers, who sooner or later discover that the islands of their existence are, in truth, the tops of their desks.

Alastair Reid
Whereabouts–Notes on Being a Foreigner, Page 73.
[The same applies to socialists, progressives, and liberals (but I repeat myself). Anti-gun people also attempt to set sail for their imaginary island oblivious to or deliberately ignoring the fact that so many similar voyages ended in genocide. And those voyages that have not yet ended in genocide did not find Eden or even a better place than the one they left. I wouldn’t mind it so much if they didn’t insist, at the point of a gun, that others join them on their own version of Voyage of the Damned.–Joe]