By making good people helpless, you won’t make bad people harmless.
Ryan Fournier @RyanAFournier
Tweeted on March 9, 2019
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Category Archives: Gun Rights
Quote of the day—Tom Knighton
I think they don’t want these regulations properly enforced because if they were, they fear they’d have less justification to demand new gun laws.
Which is what their entire existence is about these days anyway.
Tom Knighton
March 7, 2019
Did USA Today Admit Gun Control Laws Not Enforced?
[I agree but there is more to it. True criminals are their allies. They don’t want their allies to be put in prison.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Steve Hebbe
As a law enforcement agency, our job is to uphold the law, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution. We are dedicated to ensuring a safe community and will be keeping a close eye on all proposed legislation.
Steve Hebbe
Farmington Police Chief
February 20, 2019
San Juan County sheriff concerned NM gun control bill could violate constitutional rights
[This is about parts of New Mexico. See also here.
What is it, maybe 75% of Washington state is 2nd Amendment sanctuary territory? Parts of Oregon are as well. Then there are nine states which have passed the Firearms Freedom Act.
It’s trivial to create analogies to free/slave states and sanctuaries in the early 1860. The Democrats are pushing, and passing, bills that I couldn’t have imagined they would try even a couple years ago. Nearly all semi-automatic guns are to banned?
They have become berserkers. My guess is that it is some sort of late stage Trump Derangement Syndrome. What happens if the courts slap them down? What happens if the courts support them? I hope they recover their senses before the only cure is a repeat of the 1860s, but The Fourth Turning keeps coming to mind.—Joe]
Quote of the day—5sdad
In all the talk about gun control …. I never hear them talk about taking guns away from criminals; just from law-abiding citizens.
5sdad
Forum post on February 20, 2019
[There are several reasons for this:
- Criminals are their natural allies. Violent crime makes people inclined to seek help from the government. This increases the power of politicians.
- Taking guns from people who are strongly inclined to follow the law is far less risky than taking them from violent criminals who require firearms in their “profession”.
- Control. The populous will be more docile without firearms. Political power flows from the barrel of a gun.
Never give up your guns. The criminals who want them will respect you even less if you surrender to them.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Johnny (Joey) Jones @Johnny_Joey
I paid for my @NRA membership with my own blood as I got a free lifetime membership for being a Purple Heart recipient.
Also… come to think of it.. your security, free market economy and constitutional rights were paid for in blood as well.
Johnny (Joey) Jones @Johnny_Joey
Tweeted on March 5, 2019
[Thank you Joey Jones.—Joe]
Lack of trust
Tweeted by PYTHiasGHOST on March 4, 2019:
While true, there is more to it. Government in general cannot be trusted. And of course not all our fellow citizens can be trusted.
It is true that twice as many prison inmates identify as Democrats as all other political affiliations combined but it’s not close to 100%. And my impression is that ratio holds for convictions of politicians as well as common criminals. So while the meme above is substantially true it doesn’t tell the whole story.
Quote of the day—Call Me Donald @LoserInChief
I wish more gun owners did this. #ThinningTheHerd
Call Me Donald @LoserInChief
Tweeted on March 3, 2019 in response to Man out for a morning walk shoots himself in the penis, Indiana police say
[It is somewhat refreshing when the anti-gun people slip and admit what we have long known. That is, they regard people as cattle and think it a good thing when those they view as inferior or a threat to their “enlightened governance” are maimed or killed.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Richard Hudson
It’s a shame that in their rush to “do something”– anything – Democrats have made this critical debate a partisan show. Last week, my Democrat colleagues rushed to pass two partisan pieces of legislation that would have done nothing to stop some of the most prominent mass shootings in recent memory. H.R. 8 would not have stopped Newtown. H.R. 8 would not have stopped Parkland. It would not have stopped Las Vegas, or Sutherland Springs, or San Bernardino or many other tragedies. But the proponents of gun control don’t want you to judge them based on outcomes; they want you to judge them based on intentions.
Richard Hudson
United States Representative for North Carolina
March 2, 2019
H.R. 8 won’t stop school shootings
[I thank Representative Hudson for standing up for our rights and pointing out the deliberate deception of many anti-gun people.
While I agree that what Hudson says in that last sentence is true for many people and it’s a relatively safe thing to say to avoid a lot of controversy it’s not entirely true.
I believe that some gun control proponents, particularly, but not exclusively the politicians, know the proposed gun legislation cannot make people safer and that is their intention. They want something that will fail to make people safer and, in fact prefer, that it will make people less safe. This gives the politician more power because it makes people more dependent upon government.
That said, the common person doesn’t realize they have been duped and believe the implied intention. I said “implied” because it is very rare that politician will come out and explicitly state that a law making access to guns more difficult will make people safer. They will say, “Its just common sense.” They will say, “No one should have these guns.” They will say, “80% of the people want background checks.” But they don’t say, “Criminologist predict this will reduce violent crime by 20%.” Or, “This will cut mass shootings deaths in half.” That they don’t make the claim that gun regulations will improve public safety strongly implies to me that they know it will not improve public safety.
I can give someone a temporary pass on not knowing something and making an overstated claim about their unproven hypothesis being true. But when they almost for certain know the truth and deliberately word things to deceive people that is an extremely strong indicator they are evil people. That these people deliberately deceive others to infringe a specific enumerated right make them criminals punishable by law.
I hope they enjoy their trials (http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2).—Joe
Quote of the day—The Common Sense Gun Regulation Act
(1 )(a) “Assault weapon” means any:
(A) Semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:
(i) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;
…
(B) Semiautomatic pistol, or any semiautomatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
The Common Sense Gun Regulation Act
Oregon, February 26, 2019
[There is a lot more but the above is all you need to know. Their intent is to ban nearly all semiautomatic rifles and pistols.
This is despite the Heller decision which specifically protected a semi-auto pistol and almost explicitly protected rifles of the type targeted by this law. These people, such as Greg Wasson, are criminals. I hope they enjoy their trials: http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1 and http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Brianna @BriannaWu #EnjoyYourTrial
I had an opportunity to fire a fully automatic M16 assault rifle today under professional instruction. This is the same weapon US Armed Forces use. The experience made me feel even more strongly there is no reason for a civilian to have access to this weapon, or one like it.
For starters, growing up in the South, I took an NRA safety class as a teenager. I spent many an afternoon as a kid in target practice. But this assault rifle is a different beast. It would take A MINIMUM of 30-40 hours of professional instruction to learn to operate safely.
It shoots a 5.56 mm bullet. You can feel the wind of it firing three feet behind the shooter. The gun is very difficult to control. I’ve seen these fired thousands of times in games and movies. In real life you understand the devastation even being grazed would cause.
Brianna @BriannaWu
Candidate for US House of Representatives in MA District 8 for 2020.
Tweeted (and here and here) on February 26, 2019
[She feels strongly. Apparently she is also an extremely slow learner because the first set of Boomershoot 101 students did just fine with only a few hours of instruction and practice.
There are no strong feelings or imaginary excess wind exceptions to the 2nd Amendment. http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1.—Joe]
#EnjoyYourTrial
The anti-gun people have a narrative of “gun safety”. We know, as do they, they have never encouraged people to take a gun safety class or learn about guns. Ignorance and deliberate deception is all part of their game plan.
They insist background checks are “common sense” and save lives. They don’t save lives and are a deception for the real objectives:
- Creating lists of gun owners
- Delaying the exercise of a specific enumerated right
- Increasing the costs (time and money) of exercising our rights
They insist we don’t need a particular type of gun or accessory and we end up trying to convince them we do need it. It’s a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. They should be the ones attempting to convince us there is a “compelling governmental interest,” and have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest (strict scrutiny). Until they can do that the proposed law does not pass constitutional muster and they are attempting to infringe upon our rights. The default position is the proposed law is invalid until they can conclusively demonstrate they have met the requirements.
As it is we are playing defense and losing in public opinion.
It would seem to me that we need an easy narrative of our own. It must be something that tweets and sound bites well. It must put them on the defensive. We must gain the initiative in social media and when we contact our political representatives.
I discussed this with Brian K. and we came up with:
- #EnjoyYourTrial
- http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1 (18 USC 241: Conspiracy against rights)
- http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2 (18 USC 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law)
These can be used in a variety of ways:
Think women shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns without a man’s permission? #EnjoyYourTrial (Aimed at may-issue states.)
Send teens to war but don’t let them own handguns? #EnjoyYourTrial
Disarm peaceful African Americans because they live in the wrong state? #EnjoyYourTrial.
Deny me the right to defend my family because of my skin color? #EnjoyYourTrial
You are trying to ban guns in common use protected by the Heller decision. #EnjoyYourTrial
A right delayed is a right denied. #EnjoyYourTrial
You are demanding people ask permission for a guaranteed right. #EnjoyYourTrial
Background checks don’t save lives (https://fee.org/articles/california-s-background-check-law-had-no-impact-on-gun-deaths-johns-hopkins-study-finds/) and infringe our rights. #EnjoyYourTrial
Gun control is prior restraint of specific enumerated right and is illegal. #EnjoyYourTrial
“Red flag” laws are prior restraint and are illegal. #EnjoyYourTrial
What you are doing is illegal. Everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. #EnjoyYourTrial
In each invocation you can include http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1 (for private citizens) and/or http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2 (for politicians, law enforcement, and other government employees).
Yes, I know it’s not 100% correct in every context. But the point is to gain the initiative and put them on the defensive. I think this has a chance of doing that.
Quote of the day—Thales
If a Rightist is going to have a problem with you, the odds are he’s going to punch you in the face. Or follow you into a bathroom and beat you down. The Right is much more fond of directness. Does anybody really think, say, a redneck is going to dump bleach on you and run away? Do you think he cares about the symbolism of a noose, or that he’s going to go out of his way to wear a certain hat – so as to make the right fashion statement during the attack? No. If he has a problem, he’s going to get in your face, probably punch it repeatedly, and walk away when he feels his point has been made.
In this the Left betrays how little they understand us. For even their hoaxes seem like bad parodies to us. It’s what a Leftist would do, only reversed in ideological polarity. It’s not what a Rightist would do. They don’t get us. Their rank-and-file doesn’t have any clue who they are dealing with anymore. Even the Media is too stuck on Leftism to understand anymore. There was a time, perhaps, when wiser Leftists would have thought “well, that doesn’t sound a whole lot like them… maybe we should check into this a little more.”
That time has passed.
This is profoundly dangerous to us all. Because, not knowing us, they cannot understand where the limits are. They’ve been butting up near our maximum levels of tolerance for some time now. Sooner or later, one of them is going to exceed that boundary because he doesn’t even know it’s there, anymore.
Thales
February 22, 2019
Leftist Hoaxes: A Failure to Understand the Right
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
A risky truth
Via a tweet from UR a Smart Ass, Carl @cleflore23:
However much truth is in this statement I suspect this is good way to drive your odds of having sex asymptotically close to zero.
Quote of the day—Maj Toure @MAJTOURE
Currently, folks can be locked up for feeding homeless, stashing rain water, growing plants, recording public servants and owning guns. What a time to be alive.
Maj Toure @MAJTOURE
Tweeted on February 22, 2019
[Look on the bright side. There is lots of opportunity for improvement because there is so much low hanging fruit.
Or is that, “Fruits that should be hanged”?—Joe]
Quote of the day—Colion Noir
But then, progress to what? Progress to Hell?
Colion Noir
At 23:20 in Seattle: The Utopian Lie | NOIR S7E8
[Via email from Stephanie.
I knew there was a big homeless issue. Until the weather got cold late last fall there was a guy you lived on a bench in Bellevue next to the street which I drove by on the way to work. In downtown Seattle you can see tents next to parking areas on the streets. But I didn’t realize there were piles of used needles on some streets and schools had to pick up needles from the sports fields before they could use the fields.
Government officials are enabling these things (watch the video). Someone in the area dies from illegal drug use every 36 hours. And the politicians want to demonstrate their hatred, prejudice, and bigotry of gun owners who are among the most law abiding and productive members of society. Screw that. We aren’t a problem. But if they keep it up, we could be. And the police are likely to look the other way when we ignore the politicians stupid and hateful laws.
The video is a bit long and is mostly about heroin use with a little bit of gun rights stuff mixed in. But the points that really stuck with me is that Seattle city officials:
- Have a set of beliefs which they they cannot or will not reconcile with reality. And/or:
- Are deliberately attempting to destroy society.
My guess is that “progress to hell” isn’t the intent they discuss even when they talk among themselves. But they do know that is where they are headed. They are almost certainly suffering from their own addiction. An addiction to power and an addiction to a failed belief system and it’s difficult to kick their habits. And as one of the people in the video points out, 95% of junkies cannot get cleaned up until they hit bottom. And politicians are a long way from hitting bottom. They will die of old age while still a junkie.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Ozzie Knezovich
This is an individual who wants to ban guns — except he wants to kill people.
Ozzie Knezovich
Spokane Sheriff
February 21, 2019
Washington Man Arrested For Allegedly Vowing Sheriffs Who Oppose Gun Control Law ‘Will Be Shot. By Me.’
[Well, of course. As Lyle pointed out a few days ago when the question “Why are anti-gun activists so violent?” came up again:
When you turn that question around and ask it the other way (Why are the violent so opposed to honest people being armed?) then it pretty well answers itself.
That an obviously violent person thinks it is so vitally important that the guns of common people must have their guns taken away is one of the best reasons possible to hold on to your guns and prepare to use them.
Here is a picture of the thug:
Be on your guard. He may not remain in jail long enough to cure him of his violent and Marxist ways.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Russell Shafer
I have an issue with having to go to a dealership and do a background check before you can even trade a gun or sell a gun to your brother or your best friend. That’s my concern, that’s infringing upon our second amendment rights.
Russell Shafer
Quay County Sheriff
February 20, 2019
‘Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties’ Declared in New Mexico
[I like this trend (see also the map here).—Joe]
Quote of the day—Alan Korwin
Finding and arresting the armed criminals, that’s what makes you safer. That’s what we all seek, or should. Keep the dangerous, the repeat offenders, the people who have guns by the millions who should not have them — isn’t that what you want?
Spending all this money and police effort and computer power to find and write down the name of every innocent citizen who goes out and buys or transfers a gun — what does that do but make people who don’t understand feel good?
Americans buy and transfer tens of millions of guns all the time, all of it legal, none of it connected with crime. Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, Bernie, Hillary, the solid block of knowing (and unwitting) Democrats in both houses of Congress, they want to control THAT. That’s what their H.R. 8 background checks are aimed at. Checks have nothing to do with making us safe and controlling crime and danger. Their leadership is 100% aware of this.
Alan Korwin
February 15, 2019
Background Checks Are…Wrong
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Matt Shea
The problem is I am not going to sit in a state that is going to try to take away our firearms, either by regulation, by cost or by confiscation, are you? So if they try to do that the only solution left is the 51st state. A lot of people say, ‘Why do you want to do that?’ It would better represent downtown Seattle’s values and our values in Eastern Washington if we split. They would stop calling us the welfare freeloaders, as one publication said. They would stop calling us names, we’re the ignorant hicks. Have your socialist values in downtown Seattle. It’s awesome. Go and do that do that experiment, but let us live free.
Matt Shea
Washington State representative
February 15, 2019
Supporters of forming 51st State of Liberty gather at capitol rotunda
[As Richard said yesterday:
Absolutely right about CW2. I have never experienced it, thank God, but have studied it enough to know I want no part of it. Trouble it takes only one side to start it. That is why I want a civil divorce before it is too late.
Sounds like a plan. Make it so.—Joe]
It has to be said
Most of the information you obtain from the mainstream media on guns has to do with the adverse effects of the ownership and use. What follows is a glimmer of light in a very dark landscape–Any Study Of ‘Gun Violence’ Should Include How Guns Save Lives:
But regardless of whether “gun violence” research is being conducted by the federal government, states, universities, or private organizations, there are three key principles all public health researchers and firearms policy analysts should remember.
The first principle is:
* Firearms save lives as well take lives.
…
A second key principle in judging gun violence research:
* The value of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens should be measured in terms of lives saved or crimes prevented, not criminals killed.
…
Finally, a third principle to remember in analyzing public health gun violence research:
* The right to self-defense does not depend on statistics and numbers.
The first principle should be obvious but it is extremely rare this is brought up in the media.
The second principle is obvious to most people when you point out. And you have to point it out to most people. And in the case of the anti-gun people you have to really “rub their noses in it” before they will even acknowledge your mention of it.
The third principle is will probably take some convincing to a most people and it is an extremely rare anti-gun people who acknowledges you even bringing this point up.
Regardless of the difficult it getting acceptance, and even acknowledgement, these things have to be said whenever someone wants to talk about gun policies.