Category Archives: No one wants to take your guns

Quote of the day—FightingIrish

Posted on by

Your assumption that we only take their guns away by physically confiscating them is very simplistic and not very imaginative. We take their guns, and I assume yours, by taking away the cachet of gun ownership. We did that with cigarettes. We take their guns away by having reasonable restrictions on what arms are tolerated in civil society and where they can be present. We take their guns away by teaching our children that pulling a trigger is not a valid form of expression.

FightingIrish
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But no one wants to take your guns away.—Joe]

Quote of the day—baldguy

Posted on by

As long as the community of gun owners prove themselves to be unable or unwilling to keep their weapons secure from people who would kill, a national gun ban would be the only right & reasonable solution.

baldguy
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

They want a list? We have a list

Posted on by

In Connecticut, after the massive non-compliance, there is talk of the police confiscating ordinary, in common use, firearms from people who refused to register them. The media is saying such a crime “cannot go unenforced”. Some people are even saying these, estimated, 330,000 people should be “rounded up”. There are people who believe there might be “enough information on gun owners to start a confiscation effort, lets get started.”

Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta says:

From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to shit, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur.

See also Says Uncle who says, “This will get out of hand.”

So with the politicians being encouraged to use somewhat nebulous lists of gun owners that might still have their evil black rifles Dutchman6 posted a precise list of the 131 politicians, and their home addresses, who voted for the repressive law.

Apparently some people are getting upset about this. I don’t see what the problem is. People wanted a list of people they thought were a problem and needed to be “dealt with”. We have a list. And our list is much shorter. If people need to be “rounded up” to get past this impasse isn’t it better to “round up” a relatively small of people rather than hundreds of thousands? This is especially true when the people on the large list are saying Molon labe and the people on the short list apparently don’t have any fight in them and want others to fight for them. It would seem that there would be far less bloodshed and disruption of society if Federal Marshals went door-to-door and arrested the people on the short list so they could be prosecuted.

Quote of the day—Warren Stupidity

Posted on by

If its magazine capacity is larger than around 5 shots, it doesn’t belong in civilian hands.

Warren Stupidity
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But there is no slippery slope and no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Pam Bergren

Posted on by

Today’s Courant says that there could be as many as 330,000 people with assault weapons who refused to register them according to the law. Then now is the time to increase the penalty and start rounding them up.

Pam Bergren
East Hartford
February 12, 2014
Prosecute Illegal Gun Owners
[Just so you know what they want done to you for exercising your specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Ms. Bergren should be careful what she says. It may be used as evidence against her at her trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Warren Stupidity

Posted on by

Make possession of high capacity magazines a federal felony with a minimum sentence of five years.

Warren Stupidity
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mark Wahlberg

Posted on by

Well, I would love it if they could take all the guns away. Unfortunately, you can’t do that so you hope that good people in the world have them to protect the people who can’t protect themselves.

Certainly, I haven’t used a gun anywhere other than on a movie set and I’d like to see if we could take them all away. It would be a beautiful thing.

Mark Wahlberg
April 26, 2007
Straight shooter
[This is a much more interesting quote that I originally expected.

I originally ran across this quote with the preceding paragraph that I quoted:

I’d like to see if we could take them (guns) all away. It would be a beautiful thing.

Which is attributed to Wahlberg in several places:

It is rarely (only once that I discovered) is it pointed out that the actual quote (that I used above) is more ambiguous than the more common one. In fact I could see the second paragraph of my selection being taken out of context in such a way that it completely changed the meaning. The “I haven’t used a gun anywhere other than a movie set” could mean something like “used a gun against people or animals”.

I don’t trust Hollywood actors to have solid political sense or philosophy but I trust the accuracy of reporters even less.—Joe]

Extermination Order in Missouri

Posted on by

There was an extermination order against the Mormons in Missouri. It was an executive order by Governor Lilburn Boggs in 1838 and it was technically in effect until 1976.

More on all that here. Something leads me to believe that the story of the Mormon War is relevant to today. Anyway, you might want to read up when you have some time.

Maybe you all knew about it, but I was unaware of that executive order until recent months. Hat tip; Glenn Beck

Confiscation dampens enthusiasm

Posted on by

Via Rusty Weiss who says:

In the clip seen below, Democrat Assemblyman Joseph Lentol can be heard pleading with McLaughlin that he not share the list “because it has the capacity to dampen the enthusiasm of compromise.”  To which McLaughlin replies, “It sure does, when we talk about the confiscation of assault weapons.”

Yes. Yes it does.

Don’t let anyone tell you, “No one wants to take your guns.”

Quote of the day—John Tkazyik

Posted on by

It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns; that under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens. I don’t believe, never have believed and never will believe that public safety is enhanced by encroaching on our right to bear arms, and I will not be a part of any organization that does.

…

Troubled urban areas desperately need an economy that welcomes businesses to locate and remain in our cities. Robust respect for the Second Amendment rights of the law abiding does this by discouraging theft and enhancing personal safety.

Unless Bloomberg and MAIG recognize and implement these principles, their efforts are doomed not only to fail, but also to cause further — if unintended — harm.

John Tkazyik
Mayor of Poughkeepsie New York.
February 5, 2014
Valley View: Mayoral group’s gun agenda is wrong
[If you read the comments you will find they generally don’t believe he had a true change of heart. Rather, he decided he was on the wrong side of the issue because of a shift in political winds.

Whatever.

Regardless of the reason his removal from MAIG and his public support for the 2nd Amendment his actions weakens our opponents and strengthens our side.—Joe]

Quote of the day—alcibiades_mystery

Posted on by

It will be a multigenerational fight, but we will prevail.

We need to make the gunners irrelevant. Long view, long fight. Challenge everything in the long view. Harass them mercilessly in the short term. We need an ACT UP, sitting in at the gun manufacturers, shaming their spokespeople in public. And absolute frontal attack on all of gun culture beginning now and not ending until their paltry and pathetic arguments have been obliterated.

alcibiades_mystery
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[I also take a long view on this. Someday I hope this will be used as evidence in his trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Italian Rose

Posted on by

If we have enough information on gun owners to start a confiscation effort, lets get started what are we waiting for?

Italian Rose
January 21, 2014
Comment to Knowledge is Power: How the NSA bulk data seizure program is like gun registration
[H/T to Sebastian for the link to the blog post.

To answer Italian Rose’s question:

  1. It is unconstitutional.
  2. There are over 300 million guns in this country and probably 10 billion rounds of ammunition in the hands of private citizens.
  3. The majority of those guns will only be willingly given up after the owner runs out of ammo.
  4. No one wants to take point on the confiscation project.

—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeannie Darneille

Posted on by

I am not a person who handles guns. I don’t own guns. I don’t…they shock me, quite frankly. We’re an open carry state and when I see people open carrying their guns, while it may be perfectly legal, it creates a visceral, personal, physical reaction in me as it does in other people…

Jeannie Darneille
January 29, 2014
Washington State Senator  (D-27th District)
In Senate, less circus, more circumspection, no media, one ‘shock’
[This is precisely what Anonymous Conservative says happens in the brains of liberals. The rabbit brain cannot handle the concept of stress. To others guns are tools to protect innocent life when threatened with immediate danger—a stressful situation.

She is compelled to reduce the thought of stress by demanding you become a rabbit or at least masquerade as a rabbit.—Joe]

Lists

Posted on by

What if some “news” organization or politician were to propose making lists of one or more of the following sets of people with home and work address, and making them publically available:

  • Homosexuals
  • Blacks/Hispanics/Asians
  • Christians/Muslims/Jews/atheists
  • People infected with HIV
  • People in interracial marriages
  • Women who had abortions
  • Abortion doctors
  • People with I.Q.’s below 85

Suppose the people creating the list of Jews were neo-Nazi’s or Muslims.

Suppose the people creating the list of abortion doctors were abortion protestors.

Suppose the people creating the list of homosexuals were from Westboro Baptist Church.

Suppose the people creating the list of people in interracial marriages were members of the KKK.

Would you consider this covered under free speech? I probably would. I’d also consider them at least partially liable if the people on those lists were harmed by people utilizing the information on those lists. I think I could convince a majority of people that the intent of the list(s) was to intimidate and/or harm the people on the list(s).

Now imagine it was the government making such a list. Would you regard this a permissible use of the force of government?

So when a U.S. newspaper conglomerate considered making a public database of people with concealed carry licenses and says this about them:

We are launching two enterprise projects across our newsrooms this month. The first will deal with the creeping influence of heroin in our communities. The deadly drug has quietly taken over, reaching across all age groups and eclipsing meth as the recreational drug of choice,” Lawitz began.

“The second project examines the explosion of ‘conceal and carry’ gun permits across the U.S. Through public records act requests, we will attempt to build state-by-state databases that list those who have the right to carry a concealed weapon,”

What do you think their intent was?

What do you think the intent of a government is when it makes such lists?

I don’t know about you but my mind immediately goes to the story of the Belgium Corporal.

Quote of the day—Douglas Anthony Cooper

Posted on by

Only a couple of aspects of the Australian Model would legitimately outrage a predictable group. The ban would be retroactive. Citizens would then have to specify why they wish to keep or purchase an unbanned gun. Sufficient reasons would include hunting, pest control, and target shooting. Insufficient reasons would include, notably, “self defense.” Anyone with a demented understanding of the Constitution would be outraged by this, and you ought to welcome their outrage. They are a menace.

Douglas Anthony Cooper
December 12, 2012
A Proven Way to End the Gun Slaughter: Will We Fight For it?
[It is critical for the anti-gun people to eliminate the concept of self-defense. It is our strongest point in this battle. Look what we did with the concealed handgun laws in the last 30 years. That was the “tip of the spear” and getting some of our gun rights back.

What is surprising to me is that self-defense, of almost any type, does not resonate with many people from other cultures. Our culture of individualism regards self-defense as self-evident. My communist brother-in-law has flat out told me “the needs of the society outweigh the needs of the individual” and denigrates self-defense and individual rights. Individual rights, to him, hinder “progress” because they inhibit the “advancement” of society as a whole.

My brother-in-law and Douglas Anthony Cooper regard anyone who has a respect for individual rights as a menace to society. Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, and Mao Zedong were in full agreement and demonstrated the “proper” way to deal with such people. It should be no surprise so many of these people want you disarmed. And it should be obvious what they would do if they could acquire the power to deal with you as they wished.—Joe]

Only a gun

Posted on by

Does Lorraine Devon Wilke live on planet Nerf where the bats can break Nerf desks and Nerf windows but not a head?

The student in Roswell might have picked up a bat and smashed a few desks, knocked over some chairs or even broken a few bones. He might have trashed a locker, broken a window or spewed graffiti across a wall. But leaving a child critically wounded with a shot to the face? Only a gun can inflict that result.

Only a gun? Wow!

Wilke goes on to say:

It appears we care more about owning guns than saving ourselves from them. We care more about being able to carry them, defend them, shoot them, and justify the damage caused by them. We care so much about all that, wrapped in arguments of outdated constitutional amendments, that we’ve basically agreed, tacitly or otherwise, that we will live in a society where an irate moviegoer can kill someone for texting, an angry child can destroy a classmate out of anger, and a distraught father can end his life out of despair.

I do not want to live in that kind of society. Do you?

“Outdated constitutional amendments”? She has to have the 2nd Amendment as one of those. I wonder what other specific enumerated rights she thinks is outdated? The rights that would inhibit the confiscation of all firearms in the hands of private citizens?

Ms Wilke, if you don’t want to live in a society that respects our preexisting, specific, enumerated, rights then I suggest you to move to a different society. You won’t be taking my guns and my rights from me during my lifetime in this society.

I have to conclude these type of people have crap for brains.

Quote of the day—Harvey Weinstein

Posted on by

I don’t think we need guns in this country. And I hate it. I think the NRA is a disaster area.

Harvey Weinstein
January 15, 2014
MILLER: Movie mogul says new Streep film to make NRA ‘wish they weren’t alive’
[H/T to Emily Miller for the Tweet.

From the same article:

Asked if it was going to be a documentary. Mr. Weinstein said no, that it would be a “big movie like a ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’”

The movie mogul said his vision was to scare people away from firearms and the Second Amendment. He foresees moviegoers to leave thinking, “Gunstocks – I don’t want to be involved in that stuff. It’s going to be like crash and burn.”

Of course it’s not going to be a documentary. Facts would get in the way of his agenda.—Joe]

Full faith and credit…

Posted on by

…in a gang of thieves.

You know all those crazy, wild-eyed loons living in trailer parks who’ve been warning us about the Federal Reserve? Yeah; what a bunch of maroons (cough cough).

And no; your safe deposit box isn’t really all that secure either. Not anymore. There’s already talk of reaching into people’s bank accounts on a large scale and taking some of it, they’ve already set up the “infrastructure” to do that, and it’s already been done at least once as a trial balloon.

The Progressives (Democrats and Republicans) have already spent your money, you understand (and your children’s money and their children’s money). Now it’s CYA time for the perpetrators.

If you never understood why government types are so terrified of the concept of an armed populace that they’re willing to make complete asses of themselves and risk prosecution for depriving citizens of a constitutionally protected right, maybe you begin to understand a little bit better. It’s not that they’re all that stupid, necessarily– They’re fucking terrified at the prospect of their chickens coming home to roost. Criminals fear armed victims more than anything else. They’re already starting to act like the cornered predators they are, and a cornered predator is a very dangerous thing indeed.

Quote of the day—Jeffrey Goldberg

Posted on by

Gun-control advocates, and their friends in Congress and state legislatures, must admit to themselves that the fixes they propose are mainly symbolic. There is a striking timidity to the gun-control movement. America is awash in guns — about 300 million are now in private hands. Mainstream, incremental, gun control measures, if enacted, would not reduce the number of guns in society, and they would only work at the margins of the problem. In other words, laws that would have prohibited the Newtown killer’s mother from acquiring her weapons would have been more helpful.

Jeffrey Goldberg
December 20, 2013
Jeffrey Goldberg: Why Newtown didn’t change America
[If you read his entire post you will discover Goldberg has a good understanding of the gun politics. The only thing he messes up above where he expresses his belief that “laws that would have prohibited the Newtown killer’s mother from acquiring her weapons would have been more helpful”.

He apparently does not understand a couple of things. It’s too bad because that understand is critical to his reaching the correct conclusion. Those items are:

  1. Firearms are used to protect innocent life. Hence any restrictions on firearms must take into account the reduction in benefits as well as the reduction in risks.
  2. Prohibiting firearm ownership to people with no propensity to commit violent illegal acts, such as the Newton killer’s mother, would not be “helpful” in the sense Goldberg might imagine it. In addition to the Constitutional issues flooding the courts there would be significant percentage of existing gun owners that would choose to act outside the law to demonstrate just how “unhelpful” they could be.

I applaud Goldberg’s call to gun control advocates to recognize they are mainly symbolic and do not advocate for practical benefits. But he still needs addition education and, contrary to the gun control advocates, I think he is rational and honest enough to learn.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Unarmed Barista (@GunzAreBad)

Posted on by

@Rivers513 handguns kill more than the assault murder guns. I’m going after them all #GunSense

Unarmed Barista (@GunzAreBad)
Tweeted on December 16, 2013
[Yeah. Tell me again that, “No one wants to take your guns.”

This may be a troll account so this may not be as good as example as I thought it was.—Joe]