Category Archives: No one wants to take your guns

Quote of the day—Stephen J. Solarz

Posted on by

Mr. speaker, we must take swift and strong action if we are to rescue the next generation from the rising of tide armed violence. That is why today I am introducing the Handgun Control Act of 1992. This legislation would outlaw the possession, importation, transfer or manufacture of a handgun except for use by public agencies, individuals who can demonstrate to their local police chief that they need a gun because of threat to their life or the life of a family member, licensed guard services, licensed pistol clubs which keep the weapons securely on premises, licensed manufacturers and licensed gun dealers.

…

The time has come for the Congress to place reasonable controls on handguns. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Handgun Control Act of 1992.

Rep. Stephen J. Solarz, New York
August 12, 1992
Congressional Record, 102nd Congress, 1991-1992, Daily Edition, Pages E2492-2493.
[Those were dark days when “reasonable controls” were a ban on an entire class of firearm.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Violence Policy Center

Posted on by

Firearms are currently exempt from the health and safety laws that apply to every other consumer product in America, from toasters to teddy bears. Applying those same standards to guns is the real key to reducing firearm death and injury in America. Under these standards, handguns would be banned because of their high risk and low utility.

Violence Policy Center
Cited March 16, 1999 by GunCite
The False Hope of the Smart Gun
[I find it interesting that the 2013 version of this paper has removed the last sentence of the above paragraph.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Richard O. Simpson

Posted on by

My general counsel tells me that while firearms are exempted from our jurisdiction under the Consumer Product Safety Act, we could possibly ban bullets under the Hazardous Substances Act.

Richard O. Simpson
1973
Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[Via GunCite.

The current efforts to ban lead bullets are in part a watered down version of the same mindset and is getting much better traction.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Roger Rosenblatt

Posted on by

As for the Second Amendment, it may pose an inconvenience for gun-control advocates, but no more an inconvenience than the First Amendment…

Lasting social change usually occurs when people decide to do something they know they ought to have done long ago but have kept the knowledge private. This, I believe, is what happened with civil rights, and it is happening with guns. I doubt that it will be 25 years before we’re rid of the things. In 10 years, even five, we could be looking back on the past three decades of gun violence in America the way one once looked back upon 18th century madhouses. I think we are already doing so but not saying so.

Roger Rosenblatt
August 2, 1999
Get rid of the damned things
[An “inconvenience”? That should tell you all you need to know about these people. Specific enumerated rights are an “inconvenience” when they are “doing the right thing”. This wasn’t Pravda, Democratic Underground or some other openly communistic forum. This was in Time magazine.

This is from the dark ages when even at the high levels of professional gun rights advocates were telling me, “It will all be over in 10 years.” It’s now been nearly 15 years and we are in a much stronger position than we were in 1999. Public carry of a firearm is now legal in all 50 states with only D.C. still in the dark ages. 41 states have shall issue concealed carry and three states have constitutional carry.

What Rosenblatt didn’t and perhaps still doesn’t understand is that 100 million gun owners with 300 million guns buying 10 billion rounds of ammunition each year is going to be more “inconvenient” than words on a piece of paper written 200+ years ago when he sends someone by to “get rid of the damned things”.—Joe]

Automatic suspension of 2nd Amendment Rights

Posted on by

Connecticut has made it less likely people will seek mental health treatment (emphasis added):

On October 1st the Connecticut State Legislature’s reactionary response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary school went into effect. Public Act No. 13-3 requires all people that voluntarily admit to a hospital for mental health reasons (not solely for drug or alcohol treatment) have their names placed in a database administered by the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services – for the purpose of automatic suspension of Second Amendment rights. This database will link with a database held by the state police that includes all gun permit holders, registered gun owners and anyone who has applied for a gun permit. If there is a “match” between the two databases a letter will go out informing the individual that their Second Amendment rights have been suspended (letter below). Although you will not receive a letter from the state police, if you are not a “match” you will be notified of your name being put in the database and of the suspension of Second Amendment rights sometime after voluntary admission. The law does not require notice be given to people prior to admitting themselves into a hospital.

Police-Letter-2_thumb.jpg

Second Amendment rights are not granted by the state of Connecticut. It is not within their enumerated power to suspend them without due process. They can no more legally suspend Second Amendment rights than they can First, Third, Fourth, or Fifth Amendment rights. These people should be prosecuted.

H/T To Andrew T. from the gun email list at work.

No one wants to take your guns

Posted on by

I was doing a little looking around on my blog for more posts to add to the “No one wants to take your guns” category and found links to these sites:

Handgun-Free America is down but Ban Handguns Now is still up.

Also this is a great quote from CSGV.

And if CSGV says they haven’t wanted to ban guns recently take a look at this post.

The only purpose

Posted on by

With as many crazy people as there are it’s surprising the world isn’t more messed up than it actually is.

And of course with a psychotic belief like that they have no reservations whatsoever about destroying your guns and you.

I tweeted back the following:

But trying to reason with the mentally ill is hopeless. I know, I’ve tried it before.

Quote of the day—Molly Ivins

Posted on by

I used to enjoy taunting my gun-nut friends about their psycho-sexual hang-ups – always in a spirit of good cheer, you understand. But letting the noisy minority in the National Rifle Association force us to allow this carnage to continue is just plain insane.

I do think gun nuts have a power hang-up. I don’t know what is missing in their psyches that they need to feel they have to have the power to kill. But no sane society would allow this to continue.

Ban the damn things. Ban them all.

You want protection? Get a dog.

Molly Ivins
Columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram
March 15, 1993
Taking A Stab At Our Infatuation With Guns
[She also says, “As a civil libertarian, I of course support the Second Amendment.”

Note that this is someone who lives in Fort Worth Texas in 1993. Those were very, very dark days for gun owners.

I could spend several paragraphs picking apart the quote above but I really don’t have the time or interest. I just want to address one point.

If you “get a dog” for your protection keep in mind that it has a mind of it’s own. It isn’t under your full control. A gun does not have a mind of it’s own. You can lock up the gun in a safe and leave it there when you are at work without worrying it will get cranky and bite the neighbor kid that is poking a stick at it if you left it in your yard. When you decide your life is in immediate danger of termination or permanent injury you can pull the trigger and be nearly certain your persuasive forces have been significantly increased when the dog could be thinking of begging for a treat.

If your dog is a weapon big and determined enough to pull down a large attacker do you really want that weapon to have a brain with that much independence, and that much less judgment controlling it’s actions?

If Ivins has evaluated the judgment of dogs versus her own and decided in favor of the dog I’m certainly not going to dispute her conclusion on the basis of the evidence I have seen so far. But she has no business making a similar decision for me or anyone else.—Joe]

Quote of the day—aallison

Posted on by

There is no possible necessity for a private citizen the need a reloadable semi-automatic weapon.

aallison
October 11, 2013
Comment to Brown misfires on gun control legislation.
[Such ignorance is absolutely staggering.—Joe]

Quote of the day—U.S. Representative Major Owens

Posted on by

My bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind. It sets a penalty of $5,000 or 5 years in prison for people who violate it.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are way ahead of the Brady bill at this point. I understand this has to be a very carefully crafted rule in order to move forward. It is important to take the first step with the Brady bill. But the American people realize this is already too little, too late. They demand more.

Mr. Speaker, there are many bills that have been introduced by my colleagues which do go further. This bill, H.R. 3232, the Public Health and Safety Act, will solve the problem in the future of the proliferation of handguns. We must go forward and stop the carnage on our streets, and the Brady bill is a very important first step.

U.S. Representative Major Owens, Democrat
November 10, 1993
Congressional Record
[This was during the debate about the Brady Bill. They regarded it as a “first step”. There were plans then, and now, to go much further than merely background checks. The background checks is nothing but a ruse. Background checks to reduce criminal access to guns is crazy talk. It’s real goal is an attempt at backdoor registration. Confiscation is the ultimate goal.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Silber

Posted on by

I don’t believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness… The Constitution doesn’t count!

John Silber
August 16, 1990
Former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts.
Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA.
[This was in the dark days of the 1990’s. Back then a lot of people believed that in 20 years anonymous private gun ownership would be illegal. And private gun ownership would be extinguished in another 20.

It didn’t turn out that way but it’s good to know what rules the enemy is playing by so we can all use the same rule book.

The Constitution doesn’t count? It would appear the 13th Amendment is off the table when dealing his type then.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charles Krauthammer

Posted on by

Sarah Brady is doing God’s work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm.

Charles Krauthammer
April 8, 1996
Both Sides Blowing Smoke In Gun Debate
[This was nearly 20 years ago and some people still believe this. What they don’t seem to grasp is that totalitarian societies are much more likely to be disarmed than democracies. Either that or they yearn for a totalitarian society and wish to enable it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charles Krauthammer

Posted on by

A civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility.

Charles Krauthammer
April 8, 1996
Both Sides Blowing Smoke In Gun Debate
[Reference needed.

I would cite Lenin, Chicago, and Washington D.C. for starters.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Judge Robert C. “Brunes” Brunetti

Posted on by

No one in this country should have guns.

Judge Robert C. “Brunes” Brunetti
September, 2013
Second Amendment Rights Attacked Behind Closed Doors
[Don’t ever let anyone tell you “No one wants to take your guns away.” People who say that are lying. It’s what gun grabbers do.

See also Nobody wants to take your guns (via correia45).—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chuck Michel

Posted on by

This year’s extremist legislative package proves that the threat of the slippery slope is all too real.

Chuck Michel
Attorney for the California Rifle and Pistol Association
August 10, 2013
Gun-control bills could push California to top of firearm-restriction list
[As if we didn’t have enough proof already of the existence of the slippery slope.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michelle Schimel

Posted on by

The New York SAFE ACT represents a tremendous step toward sensible gun control.

Michelle Schimel
Assembly Member, NY State 16th District
August 6, 2013
Exit Wound: Who Will Take on Gun Control?
[The New York SAFE ACT is some of the most repressive, short of a total ban, legislation this nation has ever seen. That she thinks of it as a “step toward sensible gun control” should tell you all you need to know. I can only conclude that in her mind “sensible gun control” is a complete ban on firearms.

What we really need is for “sensible politician control” to be enforced.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David T. Hardy

Posted on by

No matter how much the advocates of gun control get, it will never be enough.

David T. Hardy
July 18, 2013
Why Gun Owners Are Right to Fight Against Gun Control—The anti-gun crowd doesn’t want “compromise.” They want confiscation and control.
[Via David and Bitter.

Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson has confirmed this is true, repeatedly.—Joe]

Nobody is going to take your guns

Posted on by

I couldn’t begin to count the number of times I’ve been told either directly or indirectly by anti-gun activists and politicians that nobody is going to take guns away from U.S. citizens. Frequently if you listen to them for another 30 seconds they will tell you the guns they plan to ban next. When confronted with this discrepancy they will tell you what they really meant was nobody was going to take all the guns away. And there is no slippery slope.

Yeah. That really puts me at ease.

I guess I should ignore little things like this police chief saying Americans can be completely disarmed within a generation.

Or political pundits outlining How to Ban Guns:

  1. The very first thing we need is a national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them… I think about 6 months should be enough time.
  2. Make private sales illegal.
  3. Remember those ATF form 4473s? … So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry.
  4. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will. One good first step would be to close the registry to new registrations.
  5. An immediate, national ban on concealed carry.
  6. A ban on internet sales of guns and ammunition is a no brainer.
  7. I know this seems harsh, but this is the only way we can be truly safe. I don’t want my kids being shot at by a deranged NRA member.

If you read the fine print you will find he has zero regard for the Fourth Amendment as well as the Second. Neither are even identified as a speed bump in his grand plan.

The guy is clearly delusional as he apparently expects gun owners will willingly cooperate with the gun registration if they “make it super easy to do.”

And if his grand plan, with him given credit for it, were to be accepted and implementation began it’s unlikely his kids would be shot. I’m pretty certain all his worries would be very short lived. They would be very intense, but short lived.

Quote of the day—Donald Kaul

Posted on by

Here, then, is my “madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun violence in America:

• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures.

Donald Kaul
December 29, 2012
Kaul: Nation needs a new agenda on guns
[I think I owe a H/T to some blogger but I lost that info. Sorry about that.

In addition to being violently opposed to the 2nd Amendment he is willing to (have someone else) use violence against people exercising their First Amendment rights (freedom of association in this case) and the Fifth Amendment (due process).

Suggestion to Kaul: You should plan on take point on those plans of yours because that would probably result in a less painful end than waiting around for someone else’s point to find you.

Oh, and another thing. The “my cold dead hands” thing went out in the mid-90’s although Charlton Heston did use a few times after that. It was replaced with, “When you reanimate your cold, dead, hands.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Wallace Carroll

Posted on by

Can’t we Americans here at home do something to lift the gun terror from our schools, playgrounds, parking lots, malls, post offices, housing projects, highways and the grim reaches of our cities where the police must risk their lives to uphold the law?

Of course we can. What we have to do now is to free ourselves from one of the great hoaxes of the 20th century.

This mighty country stands paralyzed in the face of an ever-spreading plague of guns. This national calamity we owe to the leaders of the National Rifle Association in Washington. With a tenacity and ferocity worthy of a better cause, they have fought every proposal, however moderate, to bring the menace under control.

In this endeavor, their principal weapon has been the Second Amendment to the Constitution — or, rather, their version of the Second Amendment.

That amendment, they have insisted, gives everyone an absolute constitutional right to have every kind of firearm. Brandishing that “right,” spending millions in lobbying and legal maneuvers and threatening doom to politicians who would oppose them, they have killed or stalled gun control initiatives in Congress, state legislatures and city governments.

At last, however, the nation is on the move.

…

Now the great Second Amendment hoax can be nailed once and for all if the rank-and-file of the NRA and other responsible citizens will master one simple truth: The Second Amendment means what the courts say it means. It does not mean what the NRA leaders have been telling the nation all these years.

Wallace Carroll
July 4, 1993
To End the Gun Terror, End the Second Amendment Hoax
[Those were the dark days of gun rights activism. That was the attitude nearly everywhere in the media and many of the politicians. Guns were a terror, a plague, a menace, and a national calamity. The standard view of the Second Amendment was a hoax, a lie, and a fraud.

I agree with one thing he said. The Second Amendment means what the courts say it means.

The problem for Mr. Carroll is that he was, probably deliberately, misreading the Miller decision and ignoring the Cruikshank decision. The Heller decision made things much more difficult for people like Carroll to distort. The question is now that the courts have agreed with the NRA on the meaning of the Second Amendment does Carroll still insist that the meaning of the Second Amendment is what the courts say it is? Or does he now insist that the Supreme Court has perpetuated a fraud on the American people as well?

Or does Carroll now admit it was he that was the hoaxer or at least the one that fell for a fraud?—Joe]