Category Archives: No one wants to take your guns

Quote of the day—rackjite

Posted on by

This is a doable and sensible solution in solving our ever growing mass shooting horror in the United States.

There are about 15 million assault rifles out there. Many owners own more than one. So we are talking about 7 million individuals or less than 2% of our population who along with the NRA are running roughshod over the rest of us.

99% of mass shooting are from white male losers who are above all else gun enthusiasts.  We cannot red flag them all.

There is zero chance we can take their guns away.

The standard owner of an assault rifle uses a 40 round clip which can be all be fired in a few seconds.

There is no reason for more than six shots other than murdering co workers, movie goers, shoppers, worshipers and school children.

The only viable solution is to reduce the number of rounds a semi automatic weapon can fire before stopping and reloading and giving some brave soul a chance to stop it.

rackjite
September 4, 2019
Sensible and doable Gun Control – Six is Enough
[I won’t bother to fisk this. The errors are blatant enough any of my frequent readers could do it without effort.

Beyond the errors, he has no concern for the constitutional issues.

He goes on to say the government should “buy back” all guns that are capable of self containing more than six rounds and replace all magazines that can hold more than five rounds with five round magazines.

Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Matt Scott

Posted on by

Because this is what life looks like when you have a 1″ penis.

Matt Scott
January 20, 2020
Comment to a Facebook post in the group Repeal the Second Amendment.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

And if they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment you know for certain they want to take your guns.

H/T to Jonathan Sullivan.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Constitutional Lawyer‏ @Constit71567558

Posted on by

IMO the Second Amendment has outlived it’s useful life and should be repealed. There, I said it.

Constitutional Lawyer‏ @Constit71567558
Tweeted on January 17, 2019
[If he were a real constitutional lawyer of any competence he would know repealing the 2nd Amendment was of little importance:

The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

Chief Justice Morrison Waite
U.S. Supreme Court
U S v Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

It’s settled law.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Victor Joecks

Posted on by

Gun grabbers frequently talk about banning “assault weapons,” but that term doesn’t have an agreed-upon meaning. For instance, the since-expired 1994 Assault Weapons Ban defined the term as a semi-automatic rifle with two of the following features: a pistol grip, collapsible stock, bayonet mount, flash suppressor or grenade launcher.

If you know anything about firearms, the assertion that these secondary characteristics make a firearm more deadly is laughable. Grenades are already illegal.

What the term has come to mean is “scary-looking rifles that mass shooters use.” But, as Sisolak now admits, “It’s not the look of a weapon that makes an assault rifle.” This puts gun grabbers in a double bind. They’re either banning secondary characteristics that won’t stop mass shootings — even if gun bans worked, which they don’t — or they’re banning every semi-automatic rifle in the America, which is politically unpalatable.

It’s much easier to say you want to ban assault rifles — and then trust the media won’t dig deep enough to find out if you know what you’re talking about.

Victor Joecks
December 21, 2019
VICTOR JOECKS: Sisolak promised to ban assault rifles, but he doesn’t know what that term means
[Sisolak is the Governor of Nevada.

As a friend in high school, Ken Franklin, once told me, “If you can’t define a word then you literally don’t know what you are talking about.” And here we have a politician becoming the governor of Nevada based, in part, on a promise of something he literally had no idea what he was talking about.

This is not to say he is stupid or even ignorant. It’s self evident that he didn’t need to know what he was talking about. He won the election, right? In this context “assault weapon” is political tool used to gain power. And not in the sense Mao Tse-tung used it.

I’m reminded of the quote attributed to Adolf Hitler:

If the Jews didn’t exist, we would have to invent them.

And our country’s political left, and Governor Sisolak in particular, has Josh Sugarmann to thank for recognizing the utility of the “assault weapon” boogie man. Sisolak successfully used it in his bid for the governorship. And, if this article is to be believed, he did that without even knowing that they didn’t exist.

Think about that. A concept of something which cannot be defined, and hence is largely imaginary, was instrumental in getting someone elected state governor. The concept is a real tool so powerful that even if you don’t know what it is you can use it to win elections.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Justin Anderson

Posted on by

Sales have definitely been brisk, especially of small, concealable handguns. We also saw a spike in sales of tactical rifles like AR-15s and AK-47s, for which I think we can confidently thank Beto O’Rourke.

Justin Anderson
Marketing director for Hyatt Guns in Charlotte, North Carolina
December 4, 2019
ATF: 423M guns in America, 1.2 per person, 8.1B rounds of ammunition a year
[If the anti-gun people want there to be fewer guns in circulation the best way for them to accomplish that is to stop trying to ban and/or restrict gun sales.

Using other information from the article, I’ll leave following as a exercises for the reader:

  • Calculate the percentage (worst case using reasonably valid assumptions) of the total number of guns used in a murder or violent crime each year.
  • Calculate the percentage (worst case using reasonably valid assumptions) of the total number of rounds of ammunition used in a murder or violent crime each year.

And more directly related to the Anderson quote, the anti-gun people should ask themselves, “Are all these people buying the guns that we plan to confiscate just really stupid? Or, are they planning to shoot the people advocating for confiscation?”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Prosper

Posted on by

There are zero reasons to believe a gun offers personal protection against a felon or any protection against any attack. Normal people don’t have the disregard for life to pull the trigger against a threat. The felon enters the scene prepared to shoot at the slightest resistance. Guns are virtually useless for personal protection.

Prosper
Posted at Democratic Underground on November 2, 2019
[Interesting. Apparently in this world view the police and military are not “normal” people. Nor are the thousands of ordinary citizens who fire their guns in self-defense each year. I think the more likely case is this is a troll.

If someone with children tries to make a such a claim ask them if they would be unable to shoot someone about to beat their young child with a club.

If they have no children of their own then ask about a mass shooter at a children’s school. Do they think they would be unable to pull the trigger if the alternative were to run away and/or watch a dozen or more children be killed?

If they are unable to pull the trigger when confronted with murderous evil in action then it is they who are not normal and should be treated as such.

Continuing on a different path…

Even if we were to grant the absurd proposition that 90% of the population can be characterized in this fashion there is still a problem. The statistics of the masses cannot justify denying the individual their right to defend themselves using the most effective tool for the job.

This type of person belongs in a collective of some sort. They apparently have no concept of the individual or individual rights.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Joy Behar

Posted on by

They should not tell everything they’re going to do. If you’re going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected — then take the guns away. Don’t tell them ahead of time.

Joy Behar
November 4, 2019
Joy Behar: Don’t tell Americans before you take their guns
[Behar was discussing failed 2020 presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke.

Good advice. A little too late. But good advice.

But then, it appears that these days if a candidate has a ‘D’ after them name gun confiscation is their game plan so one should just automatically assume the worst regardless of how public they make their gun confiscation plans.—Joe]

Quote of the day—NitramLand @NitramLand

Posted on by

We are taking your guns. Period. The tide is turning rapidly. The NRA is toast. As soon as trump is gone, guns are gone.

NitramLand @NitramLand
Tweeted on October 27, 2019
[Who’s “we”?

And as if the NRA and President Trump were protecting gun owners from him and others like him. It’s more like he and his unindicted ideological coconspirators are being being protected from us by the presence of the NRA and a president who gives lip service to the 2nd Amendment.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Beto O’Rourke

Posted on by

My service to the country will not be as a candidate or as the nominee. Acknowledging this now is in the best interests of those in the campaign; it is in the best interests of this party as we seek to unify around a nominee; and it is in the best interests of the country.

Beto O’Rourke
November 1, 2019
Gun control advocate Beto O’Rourke drops out of US presidential race
[Certainly it’s in the best interests of the country if he never sees political power again. I would prefer that he be given a fair trial, convicted, then sentenced to hard labor. But this is good enough for now.

Although, I will kind of miss the opportunity to collect more “No one wants to take your guns” quotes.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cassandra Crifasi

Posted on by

The drum that they beat that if you allow any [gun control] policy to pass then they’re just going to take your guns away. Then when we have candidates that say yes, well I am going to take your guns away, that doesn’t send the right message in my opinion.

Cassandra Crifasi
Deputy director of the Johns Hopkins Center For Gun Policy and Research
October 23, 2019
From Toxic To Staple: Gun Control Is Now Front And Center On The Campaign Trail
[And nowhere in the article does she, or anyone else, say the goal isn’t to take guns away. So, it appears she is saying the “right message” she wants the candidates to send is something other than their true intentions.

Lying, it’s what they do. It’s an essential part of their culture.—Joe]

Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

Posted on by

Gun confiscation is the goal. Gun confiscation has always been the goal. Thanks to a recent outburst by 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Robert (Beto) Francis O’Rourke, potentially millions more Americans are now aware of this fact.

NRA-ILA
September 20, 2019
Beto’s Confiscation Plan Shows Why Gun Owners Must Reject Appeasement
[This quote, from over a month ago, is nothing new. It’s mostly my lead in to this:

The NRA’s PAC raked in $1.3 million in total contributions throughout September, an increase of nearly $400,000 from its previous month, with an overwhelming majority of its cash haul coming from small donors. Of the $1.3 million, $981,277 was sent from individuals contributing less than $200. September was the fourth month in 2019 that the PAC has collected at least $1 million; it currently has $10 million on hand.

…

FEC documents show the NRA PAC brought in $50,902.20 from itemized donors before Beto’s comments on September 12—about $4,627 per day. After them, the group brought in $276,208.20—about $15,344 per day. That represents a threefold increase in daily giving to the gun-rights group.

…

The Giffords PAC, which works to elect gun-control proponents, reported just $11,000 in contributions in September, a major drop from the $195,000 it reported in August. Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund, an independent-expenditures only PAC, does not have to submit its next report until the end of the year. However, its mid-year report showed that the committee was given just $5,000, which was transferred from the group’s action fund. The Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc. PAC has taken in just $18,000 this year from six donors and currently has less than $90,000 cash on hand.

…

The more than $10 million in the bank the NRA PAC ended September with is more than three times that of Beto O’Rourke, and even outpaces Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden.

There are multiple ways to spin this:

  1. The NRA loves gun control politicians. If it weren’t for them the NRA would go broke or at least downsize and lay off a bunch of people. But this same logic could lead one to conclude these anti-gun politicians love the NRA and are helping them with their fundraising. Politicians need a bogeyman to scare voters into supporting them.
  2. Americans support gun ownership far more than they support gun confiscation.
  3. Anti-gun groups represent a few rich people. Pro-gun ownership groups represent the little guy. This makes sense because the rich have connections to political power and can, if they wished, run roughshod over the masses using the government. Guns in the hands of the ordinary individuals empowers them and acts as a last ditch defense against the injustices of a corrupted and/or tyrannical political system. As Mao said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

It may be insightful to read the entire Mao quote. Marxism, Socialism, Communism all require a powerful government to enforce the redistribution of food, housing, health care, jobs, etc. to the politically loyal. A government can increase their power in absolute terms by increased spending on the military and/or police. More subtly, they can increase their relative power by reducing the private ownership of guns. The second route is less costly and less likely to alarm the general population. In fact, the second route can be, and is, spun as improving the safety and security of the average person even as it makes them more and vulnerable to the abuse of government power.

It should come as no surprise the Marxists, socialists and communist running for the most powerful political positions in the world want to take your guns. And if you value your freedom, wealth, and health don’t allow these villains access to the power they crave.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Andy Wilczak (@heyDrWil)

Posted on by

They locked down 5’s school today because they found ammunition on the ground. She’s in kindergarten. Ban guns. Ban all guns. I don’t care. Ban guns.

Andy Wilczak (@heyDrWil)
Tweeted October 23, 2019
[He has since deleted the tweet.

Interesting school response to ammunition. Makes for an easy “denial of service attack”. Some kid wants to be a jerk and they throw a handful of .22 cartridges over the fence into the school yard and the kids have to go into lock down rather than get a recess.

It’s an even more interesting response of Mr. Wilczak. A presence of a few loose rounds of ammunition with no injuries and extremely unlikely potential for injury is enough for him to justify the elimination of 10% of the Bill of Rights. What kind of mental issues, besides Hoplophobia, does he have? One could justify the elimination of the entire Bill of Rights with whatever criteria Wilczak is hallucinating.

Note that in addition noting the crap for brains exhibited by Wilczak you should also never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Breakingbad @BreakingBad7172

Posted on by

Democrats don’t want to take your guns away. They just want assault weapons banned which nobody needs an assault weapon. Nobody is coming for you guns dude.

Breakingbad @BreakingBad7172
Tweeted on October 4th, 2019
[Ignoring the typos we still have some problems comprehending this. One could presume they mean Democrats don’t want to take all our guns. Just the “assault weapons”. As if this would put us at ease for them to ban the most popular firearm type currently sold.

It’s the logical equivalent of saying, “We aren’t going to take all of your children away from you. Just your firstborn.”

One could claim they are unimaginably stupid and/or ignorant. One could claim they are trolling for entertainment value. I might buy into either of those hypothesis if it didn’t happen so frequently.

Another hypothesis is that they are unconsciously or deliberately utilizing deflection. I think this is most likely. Such people should be treated as mentally defective and/or evil.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jacob Sullum

Posted on by

His plan does not pass the laugh test, but it beautifully illustrates the magical thinking of gun controllers.

Jacob Sullum
October 2, 2019
Joe Biden Plans To Ban and Register ‘Assault Weapons’ but Won’t Say What They Are
[It also demonstrates how easy it is to lead the useful idiots.

See also the QOTD for yesterday.—Joe]

All your guns

Posted on by

Democrats are in some sort of crazed frenzy:

If you want to see how extreme the Democrats have gotten on gun control, you just had to listen to a House Judiciary Committee hearing last week.

It is one thing for Democrats such as Beto O’Rourke and Rep. Eric Swalwell (R-CA) [This should be a ‘D’.–Joe] to call for confiscating AR-15s and civilian versions of AK-47s. But in the committee hearing this past Wednesday, the loudest applause came when Democratic witnesses called for bans on all or at least the vast majority of guns.

“I believe that any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned,” announced Charlottesville Police Chief RaShall M. Brackney in the hearing. Brackney and other witnesses showed just how far the Democratic Party has gone on gun control in only a few years.

Brackney was given a chance by Congressman Greg Steube (R-FL) to correct the record if she might have misspoken, but she only doubled down. Steube pointed out that any firearm could be used to hunt people down, and Brackney responded by repeating the point. She only clarified that police and the military would still be able to have guns.

Ten years ago, if a Democrat witness had suggested banning all guns, one can only imagine that Democratic congressmen would be desperate to disassociate themselves from those comments. But not now. Not one, single Democrat expressed any disapproval.

The only good thing about this is that they have overreached. This will make them vulnerable at the polls and in the courts. If we play our cards right they might even be slapped down harder than in 1994.

But don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns. These monsters have come out of the closet and shown their true colors for everyone to see.

Quote of the day—Eric Boehm

Posted on by

Of all the places to argue that only the government should be trusted with guns, Beto O’Rourke picked…Kent State University.

Eric Boehm
September 27, 2019
Beto Goes to Kent State, Argues Only the Government Can Be Trusted With Guns
[One might claim Beto pegged the irony meter. More careful reflection should bring to mind that leftist governments regard shooting disarmed civilians with little or no risk a feature, not a bug.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Will Wilkinson

Posted on by

They’re unmoved by the mounting heap of slaughtered innocents, by schoolkids missing recess to rehearse being hunted. It’s a sacrifice they’re willing to let other Americans make, because they think democracy’s coming for their power, and they’re right.

Will Wilkinson
September 18, 2019
Why an Assault Weapons Ban Hits Such a Nerve With Many Conservatives
[It’s nice of Wilkinson to admit a few things:

  1. Rights are irrelevant in his misshapen view of our country as a democracy instead of a republic.
  2. It is the intent of the political left to remove conservatives/deplorables from power.
  3. It is the intent of the political left to confiscate the most popular firearms in this country.

These admissions provide more validation for the point made the other day. They are not after your guns. They are after you.

I look forward to his trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chris Knox

Posted on by

Apparently @TheBabylonBee is now hard news. I wish them the best in this new phase.

Chris Knox
Tweeted on September 14, 2019
[This was in regards to this Tweet from The Babylon Bee:

It is, of course, a reference to Beto saying that as POTUS, if given the chance, he would demand a “mandatory buyback” of all privately owned AR-15s.

I agree with Knox. The Babylon Bee has been a great satire site and I will miss the humor. But if the skill they have demonstrated continues in their new endeavors they will do well and I also wish them the best.

At a recent shooting match I asked a few people what they would do if Beto got his way. The near universal response was a laugh and them saying something similar to, “What AR-15s? I don’t have any AR-15s.” Also mentioned was something to the effect of a “Tragic boating accident.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dean Engemoen (@deanengemoen)

Posted on by

Go fuck yourself, shithead. The only violence I am interested in is taking care of every right-wing shithead who thinks that AR-15’s are appropriate in a decent society.

Dean Engemoen (@deanengemoen)
Tweeted on September 4, 2019
[Ahhhh… yes. The voice of tolerance in a decent society.

What would the death count if he got his way? 50 Million? 100 million?

Well, that certainly convinces me to give up all my guns.—Joe]

Truth

Posted on by

Via Matthew Bracken @ Matt_Bracken:

The abuse of psychiatry was legendary:

See also Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union.

Expect little difference if implemented here. What is going to be the default decision of a judge or psychologist? Risk letting a potential mass shooter keep their guns or risk an nonviolent person losing their guns?