Category Archives: Crap For Brains

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

Projection or imagined telepathy?

Posted on by

As pointed out by others MSNBC cropped the video of the black guy with a rifle at the Obama protest down enough to not show his skin color. Then they talked about gun owners being white racists against Obama.

I have to wonder what the basis for that belief was and why they would put effort into falsifying the evidence to fit their, obviously, false beliefs. Do they think they have some sort of telepathy such they can read the minds of others? Or is it as Say Uncle pointed out:

So, you were assigning stereotypes to a broad group of people? Supposedly trying to address bigotry in this country while being bigoted yourself seems to lessen your point. It’s OK, they’re only gun owners.

Although there are a people who believe they have telepathic powers I believe projection is far more common and all the evidence appears to fit that diagnosis.

Projection is very common in the anti-gun camp and it’s one of the first thing you should look for when you encounter an anti-gun person. Do they say they are afraid of what someone might do if they carried a gun while at a school/church/restaurant/wherever? The evidence is overwhelming that people with guns in those places do nearly exactly the same things that other people without guns do in those places. It’s actually their fear of what they might do if they had a gun in those places. Never mind that a police officer with a gun in the same location is just fine for nearly all of these people–disregarding the fact that police officers accidently shoot innocent people at a much higher rate than private citizens do.

So in this case the media representatives feel, without a factual basis, badly toward gun owners. They then search for something that could justify their bad feelings. Racism is an easy “hook to hang their hat on” since there once was a great deal of racism against people of color in this country and President Obama has the necessary pigmentation to be a target of white racists. But it’s the feelings of the media that drove the conclusion that someone else must be racists rather than the evidence of racism that drove their feelings.

This can be generalized to freedom in general. People are afraid of making their own decisions and they attempt restrict others decisions via some “wiser” authority with the justification being that someone else might make a bad decision–regardless of the fact that government “one size fits all” decisions for nearly everything cost more and are less effective than private solutions. Hence because of their feelings of fear of their own decision making ability drove the demands that others not make decisions for themselves rather than actual fear of others making their own decisions.

I suppose another psychological model that could be applied is one of stress reduction. It’s more stressful to believe that you are bigoted than to falsify the evidence to indicate someone else is bigoted.

In the case of the generalized freedom issue the stress reduction model works there too. It’s impossible to predict the future in any detail so having someone else to blame for making the wrong decision relieves the stress of making the, possibly wrong, decision yourself–even if the situation of nearly everyone is worse than if they made their own decisions. It appears to be more stressful for many people to see a disparity of outcomes than for everyone to have the same bad outcome. As a friend, Susan K., told me many years ago there are people who would rather everyone earns $1.00/hour than for the minimum wage in a truly free market (no government imposed minimum wage) to be $100/hour if there were other people earning $10,000/hour. I found this hard to believe but I’m now convinced it is true as long as there is some method by which the person desiring this sort of outcome can put some sort of whitewash, such as using phrases such as “social justice”, over the ugly truth.

As a side note I’ve heard it said that Bill Gates earned, on the average, about $100/second or $360K/hour while at Microsoft. This may have contributed to the great pressure put on Microsoft by the U.S. Justice Department during the 1990s and the European Union legal action that continues to this day.

Human psychology is a strange thing. What we call rational thought and socialization is only a very thin veneer over something far, far different which it pokes its ugly head through the veneer far more frequently than we realize.

Gun ‘buy backs’ and destruction

Posted on by

I received an email from Rob B. that articulated some half-congealed thoughts of my own:

I consider it a “sin” to destroy operable items. This goes for the weapons destroyed and the Cash for Klunkers victims.

Certainly there is the occasional firearm that needs to be removed from circulation due to poor and irreparable condition or unsafe design or modifications. Certainly there are vehicles which are much the same.

This isn’t about that.

This is about materials made by the labor of man, which cost some fraction of man’s treasure to obtain being destroyed because they are unpopular.

This is roughly equivalent to burning books.

Destroying something made by the labor of an individual (or group of them) destroys some small portion of life, for that person (or group) spent their time and energy (life) making it.

Destroying anything useful diminishes the overall value pool.

This is not good, particularly when done for light, transitory or fallacious reasons.

Simply put, this is wrong.

Rob

Sebastian has a different opinion:

My only moral problem with the programs is that it entices people to turn in items that have significant historical value, which are then destroyed and lost for history. If anti-gun groups and big city politicians want to raise the market floor on junk guns, I have no real problem. It’s their money, and I’d rather than dump it into worthless, feel good programs like this than actually use it to challenge gun rights.

Sebastian is a little ambiguous about who’s money is involved that he is okay with. If it’s anti-gun groups, then I don’t have much problem with it–other than that articulated by Rob. But if it’s tax payer money then I do have a problem with it. This would be a lot like tax money, paid by blacks, being used for schools that teach blacks are inferior and should not be allowed to hold public office or vote. Or tax money used to buy and destroy private libraries and churches. It is the government taking money from you to enforce a restriction on your specific enumerated rights.

We have long known the anti-gun people won’t win any prizes for their logic skills and destroying guns is just one more example. If there were a limited supply such as moon rocks or members of an endangered species then firearm destruction would have some significance from a reduction of supply standpoint. But guns aren’t like that. The best they can hope for is to raise the price on used guns, but $50 or $100 as a market floor just doesn’t do anything significant other than increase the likelihood that someone will get into the business of stealing guns (a “no questions asked” market for stolen goods reduces the total risk).

So one has to conclude the gun-buy backs are advocated by people that have one or more of the following characteristics:

  • Willing to use tax money to demonize and restrict the exercise of a specific enumerated right
  • Irrational
  • Desirous of increased theft of firearms

Did I miss any?

Everything you need to know about carrying guns in public

Posted on by

If I were to tell you that everything you needed to know about guns could be learned from T.V. shows and the movies you would, and rightly so, tell me I was full of crap. If I went even further and said you could learn what you needed to know about carrying guns in public from watching an ad for a video game you would, and rightly so, consider calling the guys from the funny farm.

It’s very clear that the Joyce Foundation needs to put more effort into making sure their guy is taking his meds. Because he just said:

This is without a doubt the embodiment of the gun lobby’s dangerous and irresponsible myth: that an “armed society is a polite society.”

But this old XBOX advertisement that was banned several years ago shows the complete opposite. Depending on your worldview and experience, viewers will undoubtedly have many different responses to this video. But we think it makes a dramatic and cogent argument for keeping all guns — concealed or openly carried — out of our public spaces.

Can anyone demonstrate where even a hint of this type of thing has ever happened? We have millions of people legally carrying guns in public each day and this type of thing has never happened. Not even close–except in his hallucinations. And he thinks it makes a “cogent argument”?

Wow. Did he get his logic training from a comic book?

Speaking of stupid

Posted on by

There has to be more to this query than is in the search terms. I can’t believe someone is so stupid to ask a question like, “Does the actual bullet go in you”?

Domain Name   (Unknown) 
IP Address   75.159.210.# (Telus Communications)
ISP   Telus Communications
Location  
Continent  :  Unknown
Country  :  Unknown
Lat/Long  :  unknown
Language   English (Canada)
en-ca
Operating System   Microsoft WinNT
Browser   Internet Explorer 7.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  

Resolution  :  1440 x 900
Color Depth  :  32 bits

Time of Visit   Aug 12 2009 3:01:08 pm
Last Page View   Aug 12 2009 3:01:08 pm
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.google.ca…et go in you&spell=1
Search Engine google.ca
Search Words does the actual bullet go in you
Visit Entry Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/01/02/where-does-the-bullet-go/
Visit Exit Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/01/02/where-does-the-bullet-go/
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-7:00
Visitor’s Time   Aug 12 2009 4:01:08 pm
Visit Number   564,176

 

I keep thinking of ways at demonstrating the answer in ways that would prove Darwin correct but unfortunately involve illegal acts.

Quote of the day–Sinfonian

Posted on by

It should come as a surprise to no one that gun permits and applications in Florida are on a record pace, as barrel-strokers with small penises* throughout the state react to an alleged threat that has virtually no chance of happening — and even if it does, they’re not going to immunize themselves by buying now. Wow, talk about stupid …

…

No one is coming to take away your guns. (Even though I personally wouldn’t mind if they did.) And you firearm fellators out there who think that getting your permits now will shield you? Granted, you won’t lose your guns, but a higher tax on ammunition is just going to get you even more. Didn’t think about that one, did ya?

…

All this from a gross misreading of the Second Amendment. It’d be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

——————————————————————————–
* Based on my assumption that the vast majority of gun owners have, um, endowment issues; the size of their gun is inversely proportional to their penis size. I think.

Sinfonian
August 10, 2009
Florida gun nuts: breaking records through paranoia
[My primary objective of quoting this guy is to let you know what the other side thinks of you.

My secondary objective is to demonstrate how wrong he is.

The first thing that comes to mind about this guy is, “Does he think women have infinitely sized guns?” Then I wonder how many penises he has measured and compared to gun sizes. If it were more than one or two my hypothesis would be it was because he was more interested in the penises than in the correlation with gun size. But my leading hypothesis at this time is that he has precisely zero data to support his claims. This is based upon the above collection of data about him. For example:

  1. Buying a gun now, such as a so called “assault weapon” that was been banned from new sale to private citizens the last time Democrats controlled Congress, the Senate, and the White House, does “immunize” said buyers. There is no registration of firearms in most states. Hence after a month or two it becomes very unlikely that a judge is going to issue a search warrant for said gun based entirely on a 4473 because without other confirming evidence the owner could have sold or otherwise disposed of the firearm being sought. So, at that point what can they do to remove the gun from circulation?
  2. In states where registration has been implemented, such as California, New York, and New Jersey, not to mention all the foreign countries with registration, there have been many examples of the government coming to take the guns. And even without registration guns were forcibly confiscated after hurricane Katrina. To say it won’t or can’t happen again, particularly when there are people, such as Sinfonian, advocating it is naive or duplicitous.
  3. The gun rights community has long been aware of and fought against high taxes on ammunition. For example just on my blog alone you can see concerns over it here, here, here, here, and here.
  4. Gross misreading of the Second Amendment? Did he read the Heller decision or just is he just parroting what the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy Center told him? See also my blog post if you just want a dramatically abridged version of what Scalia said. In other words the highest legal authority in the nation agreed with what us “barrel-strokers with small penises” have been saying about the Second Amendment for decades.

What would be funny if it weren’t so tragic is this guy confuses his imagination with reality.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Scott Bach

Posted on by

Trying to reduce gun crime by rationing guns to law-abiding citizens is as absurd as trying to reduce drunk driving by rationing cars to non-drinkers.

Scott Bach
President of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs
August 7, 2009
Corzine signs law limiting handgun purchases
[H/T to Jeff.

Straight thinking has never been a strong point of the anti-gun people. This case is just another in a long crooked line of abuses against gun owners.–Joe]

Good thing nationwide concealed carry failed

Posted on by

Apparently Paul Hemke is saying the defeat of the Thune Amendment helped prevent the Pittsburg shooting from being even worse:

Two weeks ago, gun violence prevention organizations helped defeat a bill in Congress that would have allowed this killer to carry his loaded weapon almost anywhere in the country.

Sooo… this killer was prevented from carrying his loaded weapon in other states because concealed carry license aren’t universally recognized, but he wasn’t prevented from murdering and wounding the women in Pittsburg by the laws against murder and assault?

Got it. I’m so glad Helmke told us that because I would have never been able to come to that conclusion on my own.

Quote of the day–Robert V. Thompson

Posted on by

According to the research, gun violence is most likely to occur in those places where guns are more accessible—small towns and rural areas. Given the stats, I can’t help but be grateful that I live in an urban rather rural location. Gun violence is a huge problem in some cities, notably Chicago. But to argue more guns equals more security makes no sense. Taken as a whole, however, gun violence is a greater threat in rural settings.

Robert V. Thompson
August 3, 2009
Guns and the dark side–Gail Collins gets it right
[“No sense”? How about that paragraph? He says gun violence (note that he talks about GUN violence, not violence as a whole) is more likely to occur where guns are more accessible but gun violence is a huge problem in Chicago (unmentioned is Washington D.C.) where guns are banned. He can’t remain coherent for three consecutive sentences.

I’d love to see the research showing violence (not just “gun violence”) is a greater threat in rural settings that in urban settings. I doubt that it is a oversight that he doesn’t mention it. I don’t think it exists.

And even in the article he links to (registration required) Thompson apparently overlooked this sentence or read it completely backward, “In general, homicide gun deaths in the United States are more of an urban than a rural problem.”

As for claiming there is no sense in guns enhancing security perhaps he can convince our police and military to turn in their guns. Would he, or anyone else sharing our reality, think that would make the U.S. a more secure place to live?

Thompson is either living in an alternate reality or has some strange version of dyslexia where facts are reversed by the time they are registered in his brain.–Joe]

Quote of the day–thinkagain2

Posted on by

“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”

I think that’s a good argument for keeping people away from guns. The two just do not mix well.

thinkagain2
July 31, 2009
Comment to Taking Gun Laws Seriously.
[I’m of the opinion “thinkagain2” is unable of thinking or making a good argument.

His, or her, thesis overlooks the possibility that some people need to be killed. Those men herding the naked women and children to the trenches prior to being shot… they needed to be killed. Right then and there. Keeping guns away from the people that needed them enabled evil.

It also overlooks that guns are used to stop violent attacks on innocent people–most of the time without anyone getting killed.

And just who is going to keep people away from guns? I’m betting it will be other people with guns.

No thanks. In addition to having a serious logic flaw that would violate my Jews in the Attic Test.–Joe]

Fearsome firearms or crap for brains?

Posted on by

I don’t really know where to begin on this mess. They messed their pants so badly even hip waders couldn’t hold it all. This is not reporting. This isn’t even editorializing. They don’t check their facts and I have doubts if they even know how to recognize a fact. It’s the rantings of people with severe mental problems. It starts with the title “Brazen weapon fire chills police“. It doesn’t let up for an instant:

The gang shoot-out that rained gunfire and smoke on a quiet Dorchester street this week disturbed police on many levels: the seemingly new height in disregard for neighborhood safety, the fact that a 12-year-old girl watching TV inside a nearby house was shot through the leg.

Since when do gangs have any regard for “neighborhood safety”? Do they expect them to meet at a gun range to have their shoot-out? Gangs, in the common usage of the word, are criminals. Do they think criminals care about memorizing and following the gun safety rules that the rest of us do?

But even more alarming: At least one of the weapons used in the gunfire was an AK-47 assault rifle, the fourth time in three weeks that one had been found or used in Boston and the seventh time since last July, when a 32-year-old man was shot dead with one.

Police say they are noticing more of the fearsome firearms on Boston streets than last year and, in particular, are concerned that there have been so many in the past three weeks. Tomorrow afternoon, Mayor Thomas M. Menino will meet with ministers in Roxbury to discuss crime in the city and the sudden proliferation of the rifles.

But more alarming than there are criminals among us is that there are “fearsome firearms on Boston streets”. Well then, why doesn’t someone go out there and pick them up and take them home? Oh, that’s right. That’s not what they meant. They meant criminals are using the firearms on the streets. And, I say this having not lost a single bet in the last 35 years, I’m willing to bet than none of those rifles were actually assault rifles. They are intentionally using words to inflame emotions.

“This [weapon] can lay down a lot of fire in an urban area where there is basically no cover from it,’’ Commissioner Edward F. Davis said yesterday. “You can conceal yourself from these weapons, but they’ll rip through a car. They’ll rip through a telephone pole. They can rip through just about anything in an urban environment.’’

What he doesn’t say is that common hunting rifles such as a 30.06 have far greater penetration than these rifles.

“Everybody understands when they read the morning paper that you have to push as much as you can to get these guns off the street,’’ he said.

Only those that believe the morning paper. And this article is a very illustrative example of why more and more people don’t believe the “morning paper”.

Nine assault rifles have been confiscated so far this year, compared with four seized in 2008. Eighteen assault rifles were found in 2007.

Want to bet?

But police worry about the attractiveness of assault rifles to gangs. AK-47s are much more powerful than handguns, capable of firing at least 100 yards, and can be easily converted into automatic weapons.

The range of the AK-47 on human sized targets is much greater than 100 yards. With common ammo it’s about a 4 MOA gun. This makes it capable of first round hits, with a skilled marksman, at about 300 yards. So what? Common hunting rifles chambered .308 Winchester, 30.06, or .300 Win Mag, in skilled hands, can reach out and touch someone at 600 yards and beyond. They can’t be “easily converted into automatic weapons” for two reasons; 1) Assault rifles ARE automatic weapons and these, almost for certain, are not assault rifles; and 2) Firearms that are “easily converted” into automatic weapons are not allowed on the market and haven’t been for decades.

The guns have surfaced as Boston police have pushed to provide more of their own officers with M16s, high powered semiautomatic rifles.

In May, the Globe reported that police had ordered about 200 M16s free of charge from the US military and made plans to train dozens of officers and arm them with the rifles.

M-16s obtained from the military are NOT semi-automatic. They are fully automatic. Facts? What do facts matter to these mentally deranged writers? That’s right, they don’t. (Update: As pointed out in the comments the M16s were converted to semi-auto by the Boston Police Department. The article was written by the same writer. She was careless with the facts in this article even though she knew them.)

Community leaders and gun control advocates yesterday said many of the illegal guns in Massachusetts likely come from states like Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, where private gun owners can sell their weapons to anyone without requiring background checks.

Bruce Wall, the pastor of the Global Ministries Christian Church in Codman Square, said he is planning to hold a prayer summit on the steps of the New Hampshire State Capitol in Concord, N.H., to get the attention of public officials and call on them to tighten their laws.

“We’re going to pray for the trafficking of guns to stop,’’ he said. “Those gun shows in those states are making a lot of money off people in Massachusetts. Now the criminals are using weapons that can outpower what the police have.’’

Let’s see… violent crime rates (FBI stats for 2007 that I just happened to have on my computer):

  • Massachusetts: 431.5/100K
  • Maine: 118.0/100K
  • New Hampshire: 137.3/100K
  • Vermont: 124.3/100K

Blaming the laws in states with low crime rates for the high crime rates in their state proves that logical thinking doesn’t even rate a place holder in their brains. If it was private sales of guns increased crime then why is the crime rate lower, by at least a factor of PI, in those states than in Massachusetts? Massachusetts should look to the laws and policies of states with low crime rates, see what is different, and emulate those other states. NOT insist that those other states adopt their failed polices.

What do you think? Are the authors correct that it’s all about “fearsome firearms”? Or is it that the authors have crap for brains?

Author Maria Cramer can be reached at mcramer@globe.com let her know what you think. I sent her a link to this post and a link to Just One Question.

Update: I received a response from her:

From: MCramer@globe.com
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 7:59 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: Re: Brazen weapon fire chills police

Thanks for your note.

 

 

Maria Cramer

Reporter

Boston Globe

w: (617) 929-3169

c:  (617) 291-6008

It’s not about safety

Posted on by

It’s not about safety. They want our culture eradicated. They even say so:

Mr Ahern says the legislation is designed to halt the emergence of a gun culture in Ireland.

Response from Senator Murray

Posted on by

At least I had fun. I wonder if she and her staff will enjoy reading my response as much as I did writing it:

From: Senator Murray
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:30 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: Response from Senator Murray

Dear Mr. Huffman:

Thank you for writing to me regarding S. Amdt. 1618, Senator Thune (R-SD)’s amendment to provide for uniform reciprocity for concealed weapon possession across the country.  It is good to hear from you.

Senator Thune’s amendment would allow gun owner with a right to carry concealed weapon in one state the right to carry a concealed weapon across the United States.  Like you, I am concerned about the level of violence in this country, and its effect on our families and communities.  Legislation to regulate the use of firearms is and should remain primarily a state issue.  I believe that our national crime-fighting strategy should include reasonable measures to control firearms that strike a balance between reducing street crime and maintaining individuals’ rights.

As a U.S. Senator, I have supported common-sense measures to reduce or restrict gun violence while posing the least possible inconvenience to law-abiding gun owners.  Please know that as the Senate considers this and other firearms legislation, I will keep your concerns regarding this important issue in mind.  If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please feel free to sign up for my updates at http://murray.senate.gov/updates.  Thank you again for writing, and please keep in touch.

I hope all is well in Kirkland.

 

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:58 PM
To: Senator Murray
Subject: RE: Response from Senator Murray

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this important issue.

Since you are of the opinion that legislation to regulate the use of firearms is, and should remain, primarily a state issue I presume I can count on your support of efforts to remove firearm regulations at the Federal level. I would like to suggest you introduce legislation to undo the continuing infringement of our rights inflicted by the following Federal firearms laws:

• National Firearms Act of 1934
• Gun Control Act of 1968
• The Hughes Amendment
• The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Once those are infringements have been successfully resolved I will be glad to provide you with a list of other Federal firearms laws that need to be eliminated as well.

Since you are opposed to Federal regulation of firearms I cannot help but conclude you are also opposed to any new Federal firearm regulations. I was concerned that you might be considered a supporter of a new ban on “assault weapons” or think there was some utility in restricting both the First and Second Amendments by some law that claims to “close the gun show loophole”. As I’m sure you know there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole”. All Federal laws that are applicable at a gun shop are also applicable at gun shows.

Thank you for your support. I will be sharing your email and my response on my blog and with my friends at NRA-ILA. This will allow other Washington State gun owners know what a good friend they have in you and for the NRA-ILA people to start a dialog with you to begin getting some relief from the stifling and bewildering array of Federal gun laws.

If you meet any resistance in your efforts to roll back the infringements on the Second Amendment I would like to suggest you ask them Just One Question:

Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

I’ve been asking that question of gun-control supports for several years now without once getting a defendable answer.

Regards,

Joe Huffman
—–
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
http://www.boomershoot.org/
http://www.modernballistics.com/

For those of you that don’t know the Honorable Senator Patty Murray, I don’t think there has ever been a piece of gun control legislation that she didn’t support.

And just as an FYI, I Bcc’d my contact at NRA-ILA.

I saw another piece of email she sent someone else on the same topic that is even more hilarious. I’m working to get permission to blog about it as well.

Hopeful?

Posted on by

Paul Helmke says he is hopeful:

I am hopeful that our Congress will now start addressing proactive measures to reduce gun violence in this country by doing things like requiring background checks for all gun sales, particularly at gun shows.  We make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in America.

Emphasis in the original.

Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center, has similar thoughts:

Today’s legislative victory reinvigorates us in the fight for stricter gun control laws. The next target of the gun control community will be passage of national legislation to close the so-called “gun show loophole” by requiring stringent Brady background checks on all gun purchases. Hopefully this victory will give momentum to efforts of the administration, Congress and the gun control advocacy community to enact strong and safe gun control measures, like this one, that will protect the sanctity and value of human life.

Why do “dangerous people” have access to the general population? Shouldn’t they be locked up in prison? Do we also make it too easy for “dangerous people” to get gasoline and matches? How about clubs, knives, and pointy sticks?

They were only able to get 39 votes in the Senate to stop legislation that I wouldn’t have dreamed would even come up for consideration a year ago. Their “gun show loophole” mantra has been going on for at least ten years and they are “hopeful” now is the time for it? They have mental problems. But we already knew that.

Constitutional law advice for Sotomayor

Posted on by

Bitter and Sebastian has been pointing out just how bad nominee Sotomayor is on the right to keep and bear arms. This is probably the most damning.

She does not want to admit that people have a right to self-defense. She is smart enough to know it is a slippery slope to the acknowledgment of the right to keep and bear arms if she were to admit that. The British have learned that lesson sliding down the slope in the other direction–if there is no right to keep and bear arms then there is no right to self-defense.

Alan Korwin gives Sotomayor some pointers on what the U.S. Supreme Court has said about self-defense. It’s not a question mark at all. The conclusion:

The Supreme Court has recognized, addressed and answered all the most fundamental questions about self defense. The idea that they have never addressed this core American issue is completely false, as the numerous cases clearly demonstrate.

He’s really on our side, right?

Posted on by

Sometimes “The Gun Guy” is so far out that it’s like a caricature. But he’s further out than I could portray even if I tried. Case in point:

If the gun lobby gets its way in Congress, the following scenarios might become all too real:

  • You’re visiting an elderly family member at the hospital when you see a gruff man in the parking lot adjusting his loaded and deadly handgun in his belt. You inform the nurse that there is a dangerous and armed man outside and the nurse informs you that it is “legal” for the gun owner to carry a concealed weapon only steps away from the hospital entrance.
  • You’re walking through the park with your kids on a sunny day eating ice cream when you see two men pull up in a dark SUV. As you walk by, you see them take two handguns out of the glove box and stick them in their jackets. You immediately call 9-1-1 to inform the police that there are armed men in a park with families and children, but the police tell you that unless their is cause, the armed men are perfectly legal carrying deadly weapons in family-friendly locations.
  • You’re at a coffee shop sipping your latte when you see a woman with a handgun casually tucked inside her purse chatting away on her cell phone and says she’s from out of state. You’re terrified at the sight of the weapon knowing that children are present. You ask an employee why loaded handguns are allowed at a coffee shop and the barista says that the owner still hasn’t posted a sign explicitly prohibiting carrying concealed weapons and therefore it’s permitted.

A gruff man with a handgun is known to be dangerous? “A gruff man with a handgun” describes a fair number of police officers.

He puts quotes around the word legal? It’s currently legal in nearly all states. So what is his point? The proposed law wouldn’t make the described scenarios any more or less legal.

Armed men in the park? I’ve done this more times than I could count and I know lots of people that do it. It’s currently legal in nearly all states. So what is his point?

Women at a coffee shop with a gun in her purse–and his point is? Oh, yeah. He’s terrified.

If he were talking about blacks or homosexuals that way it would be virtually impossible for him to get or keep a job. But since it is gun owners he is talking about he gets paid by the Joyce Foundation to spew hate at such a ridiculous level it’s difficult to not believe it is a deliberate farce.

Either Scott Vogel is conning the Joyce Foundation or he is really wacko. I’m really not sure which.

What do facts have to do with belief?

Posted on by

Kevin asks, How Can People Still Believe This?

It’s easy, just because something is irrational doesn’t mean you don’t have to believe in it. Or so says one high school teacher.

Ayn Rand says it’s because philosophy isn’t taught. Or at least the philosophy that is taught, mostly indirectly, has been total crap. Philosophy, she said, is vital to humans. When we have crap for philosophy we make crappy decisions and this person is just one example of many with crap for brains.

Isn’t it About Time…

Posted on by

…that a movie was made, paralleling “Reefer Madness” exactly, scene for scene, gesture for gesture, line for line including the dramatic introduction, merely substituting “marihuana” for guns?  Yes, I believe it is.  An NRA agent arrives in town, starts promoting guns, and all hell breaks loose.  “Gun Madness”.

If you haven’t seen the 1930s movie “Reefer Madness”, by all means do watch.  It’s not only illustrative of what the totalitarians have been up to for generations, it’s a real hoot, especially considering that those who made it were trying very hard to appear serious.  I can picture Di Fi standing before the concerned parents at the school meeting, eyes glaring, finger pointing at the camera…

Hmm..you don’t suppose the VPC or other anti-gun groups could be talked into providing some of the funding?

Quote of the day–Dale L. Gillis

Posted on by

It is distressing to see that the National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle Program will be part of the Highlands County Library’s Youth Summer Program. This was mentioned in Highlands Today on July 2.

The NRA is a lobbying organization dedicated to putting more guns in the hands of criminals. As a lobby group, the NRA twists the facts when it uses them at all. The NRA often sues cities and states to advance its radical program. How did the NRA get to be considered a harmless organization that should have access to our libraries and our children?

Dale L. Gillis
July 13, 2009
Gun safety among children
[“Dedicated to putting more guns in the hands of criminals?” I guess that is why they have they have the support of four million members, right? And that is why two thirds of the states Attorney Generals support the NRA lawsuit against Chicago.

“Twists the facts when it uses them at all?” See projection.

Gillis is just another bigot.–Joe]

I think I see a trend here

Posted on by

Via an email from Chet:

The source is here.

I’m sure glad the stimulus plan saved 150,000 jobs since February. Just for scale, assuming the claim was true, those alleged 150,000 jobs account for about two widths of the horizontal lines in the above graph–since the beginning of the recession in the middle of 2008 about 6.2 MILLION jobs have been lost. Hence those 150,000 make a difference of about 2.4%.

So the government authorized spending nearly $800 Billion of money they didn’t have and now is considering spending more in a second attempt.

I think I see a trend here–these people just don’t learn, do they?

Anti-gun bigots in action

Posted on by

Via an email from Mike B.

The city of Seattle can’t ban firearms from being carried openly because of state preemption–so they do what they can:

Q: Is it illegal to bring an unconcealed airsoft handgun into a public place?

A: Seattle police say it is, and reference Seattle Municipal Code section 12A.14.083, regarding weapons in public places.

That states: “It is unlawful to knowingly carry or shoot any spring gun, air gun, sling or slingshot, in, upon, or onto any public place.”

“An airsoft gun specifically fits into that weapons code,” police spokesman Jeff Kappel said.

But police note the above code does not reference or regulate the carrying of firearms which are different from airsoft guns.

So I could legally walk down the sidewalk with my fully loaded (18 + 1 of .40 S&W) STI and a spare magazine openly displayed in a holster on my belt and someone else with an unloaded Airsoft gun in their backpack could be end up paying a fine of up to $500 and/or spend two months in jail for a first offense (up to 12 months for a third conviction).

Bigots, they try to get away with whatever they can no matter how ridiculous it is.