I am shocked that you are here. You don’t belong here. I don’t know why the police have pursued it as far as they have.
Magistrate Barry
2014
I faced a 14-year jail sentence for carrying pepper spray
[The same words would be applicable the vast majority of people charged with the violation of gun laws.
H/T to Kris R. who sent me the link via a Facebook message.—Joe]
There may be many different answers to school shootings and other massacres. There may be none. One thing that cannot be argued by rational people is that the answer to these realities cannot consist of advocating more violence against people, whether it be at the hands of deranged lunatics or the government. Disarming individuals has never, and cannot make those individuals safer.
Rich Burgess
President of Connecticut Carry
March 26, 2018
With Regards to the ‘March for our Lives’
Emotional Collectivism Makes You Vulnerable To Those With Bad Intentions
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Your gun doesn’t make your dick look bigger. It makes you look like a bigger dick!
Jean Dupont @laceydupont
Tweeted on March 25, 2018
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
They have crude insults and we have SCOTUS decisions.—Joe]
If you believe only the police and military should have guns:
Perhaps you should be more careful what you wish for.
Via Rolf.
The entire reason we have 300+ million guns to defend against is because decades-long efforts to stop this proliferation (mostly by Democrats) have been defeated by public officials (mostly Republicans) insisting that these efforts conflict with the Second Amendment. In this way, the Second Amendment is being used to solve the very problem that it was instrumental in creating.
Ken Levy
March 22, 2018
The (Current) Gun-Control Debate Is Not Really About Gun Control
[Apparently Mr. Levy is unaware of a large number of facts that anyone with a firm grasp on reality knows, such as:
Hence, one has to conclude that Mr. Levy has crap for brains and/or is deliberately lying.—Joe]
A gun guarantees freedom in the same way that a hammer and a chisel guarantee an exquisite sculpture.
Lyle
March 22, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Linda Allderdice
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol—cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly—and banned.
Mark Rosenberg
Director for CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
October 16, 1994
New Tactics Urged in Fight Against Crime
[Tell me why this shouldn’t be treated as a confession of guilt in a violation of 18 USC 241 and/or 18 USC 242.
In more recent news connected to this see What Does The Omnibus Spending Bill Mean for Gun Control? Background Checks and CDC Studies where congress gave the anti-gun people some of what they wanted and didn’t even give gun owners a breadcrumb.—Joe]
The best defense against an “abusive government” lies with the rule of law, an independent judiciary and law enforcement, the free press, civil disobedience against injustice, voting by all members of our communities without voter suppression, religious freedom and tolerance, and respect for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all who make their home in our country.
The myth that a gun guarantees freedom has to be shattered once and for all.
Linda Allderdice
Letter to the editor, Los Angles Times
March 21, 2018
[The irony is almost painful.
The Bill of Rights is part of the highest law of the land and Allderdice, apparently wanting to ban guns protected by the Bill of Rights, claims adhering to the rule of law eliminates the need for gun ownership. So, which is it? Does she want to adhere to the rule of law or does she want to ban guns? Also, apparently Allderdice doesn’t recall that the great genocides of Europe in the last century were perform in full compliance with their laws at the time.
I’m tempted to say she has crap for brains, but I have to weigh that speculation against the very real data that public schools don’t teach just how murderous socialist governments can be.—Joe]
Yeah, because what you really want to do in a society is make 150M gun owners with 600M-1B guns and 1T rounds of ammo for them ostracized pariahs, with nothing to lose, no job, no life, and no prospects, and sit there on top of the shit heap with the other monkeys as Lords of the Flies, with nothing to protect you but an entitled smirk.
Because that will turn out so well for you and the other shitlords.
…
Keep on telling gun owners they’re terrorists, and see what happens when they decide if they’re going to be hanged as a thief, they may as well steal.
Aesop
March 17, 2018
Comment to Robb: When ALL Gun Owners Are Shunned
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
It’s really a matter of putting public pressure on the president. This is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly, because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?
Rep. Tom Suozzi (D)
March 2018
Congressman suggests Second Amendment as means of opposing Trump
[Via email from Lyle who commented (and also suggested this was appropriate):
If nothing else it demonstrates once again that they understand the constitution. They oppose it, not because they fail to understand it, but because they do understand it.
I cannot find fault with this conclusion.—Joe]
Via email from Bill J.:
Does that mean that this liberal wants…
Hmmmm.
Perhaps this was not well thought out.
The Brady Center filed a lawsuit today:
Brady Center Files Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturer and Dealer For Parents of Boy Killed in Unintentional Shooting
Lawsuit Alleges Gun Did Not Include Safety Feature That Would Have Prevented Shooting
The parents of 13-year old J.R. Gustafson brought suit today against Springfield Arms and Saloom Department Store in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, outside Pittsburgh. J.R. was killed on March 20, 2016 in an unintentional shooting by a boy who thought the gun was unloaded after the gun’s magazine had been removed. The lawsuit alleges that the gun should have included safety features that would have prevented the shooting, and J.R.’s death.
It appears they are trying to sneak through a clause in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The law gives qualified civil liability to manufacturers or distributors for the criminal acts of a third party. But it’s not clear to me (I am not a lawyer) that it extends to careless, negligent, and/or ignorant actors:
A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘qualified civil liability action’’ means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party…
Are there any lawyers who want to comment on the viability of this lawsuit?
Faced with a generation of defeat in the gun debate, the Left is increasingly turning to one of its favorite weapons in the culture war, stigma. It’s mobilizing its tribe — including progressive corporations, Hollywood, and the mainstream media — to not just make policy arguments but also to shame and insult Americans who disagree. The goal is to make gun ownership culturally toxic.
But shame is weaker than love. Gun owners who’ve experienced a threat possess or carry a weapon because they love their families. Teachers who wish to carry a weapon at school do so because they love the kids under their care. These folks know that their responsible gun ownership makes their communities and families safer.
Why does the Left keep losing the gun debate? Because it’s hard to persuade any man or woman to surrender an unalienable right — especially when exercising that right helps preserve the most vital right of all, the right to live.
David French
March 5, 2018
Why the Left Won’t Win the Gun-Control Debate
[It’s hard to win a debate when you are being shouted down by an angry mob or going into hiding because you and the lives of your children are being threatened.
It may not be long until the “debate” goes non-linear and gun owners will be required to use a much louder voice to get their points heard. It’s too bad the restrictions on suppressors haven’t been lifted yet.—Joe]
Why are we even giving her the time of day…@DLoesch is a female version of Hitler.. who knew in one Presidency term we’d have a male and female modern day HITLER
Sunny BoycottNRA ❤ @srfuzy
Tweeted on March 16th, 2018 and deleted by the morning of March 17th.
[You have to wonder… is it profound ignorance that enabled Sunny to concluded that HITLER is a generic insult like “pond scum” or “jerk”? Or do they live in some sort of delusional reality where Hitler didn’t confiscate firearms before sending “the deplorables” to the death camps?
In any case, two things are clear:
—Joe]
Who is buying all these guns—and why?
The short, broad-brush answer to the first part of that question is this: men, who on average possess almost twice the number of guns female owners do. But not all men. Some groups of men are much more avid gun consumers than others. The American citizen most likely to own a gun is a white male—but not just any white guy. According to a growing number of scientific studies, the kind of man who stockpiles weapons or applies for a concealed-carry license meets a very specific profile.
These are men who are anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market, and beset by racial fears. They tend to be less educated. For the most part, they don’t appear to be religious—and, suggests one study, faith seems to reduce their attachment to guns. In fact, stockpiling guns seems to be a symptom of a much deeper crisis in meaning and purpose in their lives. Taken together, these studies describe a population that is struggling to find a new story—one in which they are once again the heroes.
I find it interesting that every person in my sample of gun owners fails to match the profile they give on almost every one of the negative characteristics they claim dominate. Some might match on one negative characteristic, and some on another, but none that I can think of match on more than one. I wonder how they obtained their sample and how many gun owners claimed to not be a gun owner and avoided participating with their study.
And, if someone claims this is justification for implementing gun control, this is an admission that gun control is sexist and racist.
In any case, this is what they think of you. Let them keep thinking this. It will be a bigger surprise for them when reality smacks them in the face.
John Robb has presented us with an extremely interesting scenario:
Weaponized social networks have seized control of the political process from the traditional political parties and their media gatekeepers. They are in charge now and, more importantly, they are rapidly evolving. Getting more powerful with each passing day.
…
This effort gets teeth, and the capacity to impact millions of people simultaneously, through a list. A list of gun owners. A list built in part using leaked/stolen government data and through the reporting of friends, family, neighbors, coworkers, and more. A list that is potentially stored in a blockchain for durability and enhanced with rumors (statements or pictures of people on the list that makes them look dangerous). With this list in hand, network members would then turn up the pressure on individuals:
- Employers would refuse employment or fire individuals who own guns, in the name of workplace safety, at the urging of other employees.
- Parents would put pressure on schools to ban the parents who own guns from attending school functions or put in place extra security at schools targeting children living in gun owning households.
- With pictures and and a little open source facial recognition software, anyone on the list could be IDed by anyone with a smart phone.
Get the picture? In short, everything from getting access to a building to renting an apartment to getting a date could get very hard for reputed gun owners to do nearly overnight.
All without legislation or government regulations.
Scare you a bit? It should.
I can see this happening in leftist enclaves but in the vast area of the country where guns and gun owners are accepted. The boycotts and shunning only work when those your are shunning are a small enough minority that you don’t really need them. Are they going to boycott most of the farmers, miners, and others who supply their water and energy?
That boycott won’t last more than a week and the payback may be far more than they bargained for.
And when the mobs surround the homes of gun owners I see visions of the shopkeepers with rifles on top of their buildings during the L.A. riots.
And what about the police? They are generally on our side even though their political overlords may not be. Will they be “unable to identify” the person who drove off the rioters attempting to torch someone in their car.
But, even in the best case imaginable above, the better result is to never get into the situation. Gun owners all need to “come out of the closet” and make it clear we are normal people. We do not have blood on our hands from the school shootings. We did not create the victim disarmament zones. We offer calm, rational, solutions and our opponents offer angry mobs.
A well-regulated death squad being the best defense of a tyrannical government, the right of the government to selectively enforce disarmament laws shall not be infringed.
Norman Yarvin
May 3, 2000
Tag line to his post in rec.guns about Cooper’s Rule 1.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Lots of examples here but the conclusion is:
If “gun control” extremists actually want to ban “weapons of war”… why are they not calling for actual weapons of war to be banned with their zombie “assault weapon ban”?
And if all they want to do with this rotting, shambling piece of legislation is only ban “weapons of war” – as they’ve been trying to proclaim for nearly a month now – then why is all that other stuff included in the blast radius?
Perhaps they have no idea what they are talking about.
And perhaps they are being… less than honest.
To answer the question, it is because lies and ignorance are the best they can muster.
Gunowners cannot afford to give up anything at all — to do otherwise would be to condemn themselves and their whole families to immediate and dire peril. Both sides know it, and government bullies dare not deal a small injury to their constituents…some hold out for the opportunity to strike big, others try to encroach by degrees.
Oleg Volk
March 15, 2018
The impossibility of surrender
[Or, as Rolf pointed out to me, “If these fancy politicians treat the people this poorly when you’re armed to the teeth, just imagine what they’ll be willing to do once they’ve taken away all your gun.”—Joe]
My boss at work just finished up some management training and shared the following video with our team.
If you tilt your head just a bit you can map the lessons of this video into the the form of our U.S. Constitutional government as it was originally intended.
It also helps you realize why an authoritarian system of government will always underperform a liberty based form. It’s about decisions being made where the information is. And furthermore, you only have to squint just a little bit to see why, individual gun ownership must remain an individual choice.