What’s common about common sense depends on context. In this case, the context is a black man entering a Subway shop in 2016 clearly, openly and legally armed, and sending the place into a panic. The cops were called. They demanded to see his permit. He lawfully refused. And Connecticut’s white liberals lost their minds. It’s just crazy that the law bars cops from asking for a person’s permit. This is common sense! The alternative is insane!

John Stoehr
April 12, 2017
John Stoehr: Gun control, in black and white
[Although Stoehr’s point in his opinion piece is inscrutable to me he does have some good observation.

“Common sense!” That is the cry from the anti-gun people. The only facts that matter are that they can’t tolerate the thought of people keeping and bearing arms. The only logic that matters is that they will be afraid if ordinary people could exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Can’t you see that it just doesn’t make any sense for people to have these things that are designed to kill? You must be stupid, crazy, or have a small penis if that isn’t obvious to you. Analogies are dismissed because, “That’s completely different.”

I think we are at the point that we can mock them most of the rest of the time and ignore them for the most part as we take more and more of their friends and neighbors to the range. Make the nut case anti-gun people into a smaller and smaller minority and eventually they will go silent or wander around the streets mumbling to themselves and the street lights.—Joe]

We the people have had it. We’ve had it with your narratives, your propaganda, your fake news. We’ve had it with your constant protection of your democrat overlords, your refusal to acknowledge any truth that upsets the fragile construct that you believe is real life. And we’ve had it with your pretentious, tone-deaf assertion that you are in any way truth or fact-based journalism.

Dana Loesch
April 10, 2017
Taking on the Times
[Now is the time. Let loose the hounds. Hunt them down and destroy them.—Joe]

To every dishonest member of the failing American news media, let me explain why you’ve never been less trusted, less credible, or less respected. For decades you ignored calls from millions of gun owners to just tell the truth. All you had to do was just get the facts right about our guns, and our freedom. But you never even pretended to listen. Instead, you weaponized the First Amendment against the Second. And now the whole country sees you for the mockery we’ve always known. Your claim to the truth is as legitimate as a thief’s. If the fate of individual freedom had rested in your hands, America would have fallen long ago. But Americans put their trust somewhere else, and now in that place stands the most trusted defender of individual freedom in American history. We’re the National Rifle Association of America, and we’re freedom’s safest place.

Wayne LaPierre
NRA Executive Vice President and CEO
April 7, 2017
nra commercials fox news
[I have nothing to add to LaPierre’s message.

But I do have something to say about what the political left says about LaPierre’s video.

As is typical, the political left lies about us. The headline is NRA Readies Next Attack Against The First Amendment.

It’s not an attack on the First Amendment. No one is advocating for the licensing or “universal background  checks” of people who exercise their First Amendment rights. No one is advocating “Common sense speech laws” which discourage the exercising of First Amendment rights. The NRA is not advocating the banning of speech that doesn’t cause the immediate threat of grave injury or death of innocent people. The NRA is not advocating for government restrictions of any type on free speech. The political left is far more likely to advocate for restrictions on speech. The campus speech codes are just one such example. Wearing a NRA t-shirt to school has resulted in the arrest of a 14 year old kid. That is an attack on the First Amendment.

The political left is lying. Again. Still. As always.

Lies and deception. It’s the best they can come up with.—Joe]

Me getting shot is a manifestation of Trump’s and Milo’s violent ideology.

…

I refuse not to recognize these people as people, because I refuse to be like them.

Josh Dukes
April 4, 2017
‘I refuse to be like them’: why the man shot while protesting Milo Yiannopoulos doesn’t want revenge
[This is the guy who was shot at the University of Washington while “protesting” (preventing people from attending) a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos on Inauguration Day. The article is extremely sympathetic to Dukes. For example:

Dukes says that he attempted only to “peacefully de-escalate” conflict.

Then, he was shot.

And:

Both Sasha and Dukes are angry with the Hokoanas, who they believe acted with unjustifiable carelessness by bringing a gun to a protest and allegedly firing into a crowd of people.

I looked around for a bit more information to see what the police investigation came up with in regards to the shooting. It has been widely believed that Marc Hokoana shot Dukes, but it was Marc’s wife, Elizabeth Hokoana, who shot Dukes.

Here is what I found:

Dukes was an early opponent of Yiannopoulos’ appearance at UW and worked to organize resistance among a number of groups. He was “in the crowd of protesters in a physical altercation” when he was shot in the stomach about 8:25 p.m., the affidavit says.

…

UW detectives, along with a private technician, have been examining videos of the incident from various sources.

Analysis of video appeared to show Marc Hokoana turning away from Dukes while his wife’s arms were in an extended position, the second law-enforcement source said.

Gordon said the video shows Marc Hokoana in a “position of retreating” and Dukes in a “position of advancing.”

Yet, in the comments of the article which strongly suggests it was a legitimate case of self-defense, we have people saying really twisted things like:

I’m just watching the far right blame a shooting victim for his attempted murder.

The warped sense of reality by Dukes I can sort of understand. It is difficult for many people to admit they made a serious mistake. He wants to continue believing he is a good person. But the commenter? This is after Washington State law on self-defense is quoted for everyone’s benefit.

These people may not be a different species, but they seem to be in a different reality.—Joe]

The gun control movement, like all movements of the Left lie, they have to because the truth is to the Left what holy water is to vampires, but it may be what I call the Cult of Gun Control that dives the deepest into the lying pool.

…

Keep in mind that the folks pushing these lies know they are lies, so, ask yourself what is their real agenda.

Gatordoug
April 3, 2016
Does any group lie more egregiously than the Cult of Gun Control?
[Hmmm… That last line is almost as if they read my blog.—Joe]

The Centers for Disease Control, in a September 2011 report titled Noise and Lead Exposures at an Outdoor Firing Range—California, documents the importance of hearing protection in shooting. It determined that noise levels above 160 decibels are routine at gun ranges and how even repeated exposure at lower decibel levels can be as damaging as fewer exposures at higher levels. It recommended “double protection” (i.e., earplugs and earmuffs used together) as the best currently available protection. But it noted that

The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel. However, some states do not permit civilians to use suppressors on firearms.

[Emphases added.]

Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
March 2017
Position Paper in Favor of Firearm Suppressors to Prevent Hearing Loss
[The anti-gun people who claim:

There’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire.

Are lying, as usual, because that is the best they can come up with.—Joe]

The two pertinent rates – the number of firearms per capita versus the number of firearm-related fatalities per capita – correlate with a coefficient of -0.79744, indicating a strong, negative correlation between the two sets of data.

If you look at the raw numbers – the number of firearms, period, versus the number of firearm-related fatalities, or “gun deaths” – they correlate with a coefficient of -0.27315, which remains a negative correlation.

As always, correlation does not necessarily indicate, or even come close to proving, causality; but I am also not trying to prove causality.  However, the notion of “more guns = more ‘gun deaths’” does try to claim causality, when there is absolutely no positive correlation to support such a causal link.

Therefore, the hypothesis of “more guns = more ‘gun deaths’” still cannot be true.

Jonathan
March 22, 2017
graphics matter, 2017 edition
[And this is why the anti-gun people have to lie. They should be arrested and prosecuted for conspiracy to deprive people of their rights.—Joe]

In this world turned upside down, where certain lunatic-fringe Americans are against secure borders, don’t believe in earning their own way, won’t care about their health but demand others pay for their health care, where crazy politicians rant how bills must be signed to find out what’s in them, and where everybody knows that the most innocent lives are always lost in gun-free zones, dangerous people actually want more gun-free slaughter zones.

Ted Nugent
February 23, 2017
TED NUGENT: INSANITY IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON—BAN IT
[The motives of knowledgeable people advocating for more “gun-free” zones cannot be more clear. It is evil.—Joe]

Armed evil beats unarmed innocence every time.

Alan Gottlieb
March 25, 2017
‘Armed Evil Always Beats Unarmed Innocence,’ Warns SAF Founder
[Well, perhaps not every time, but close enough.—Joe]

Foes of the law such as Gillibrand should not use misleading terms such as “quiet” to describe the sound made by a high-powered weapon with a suppressor attached. We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but finally tipped to Three. There is little that’s quiet about a firearm with a silencer, unless one also thinks a jackhammer is quiet.

Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Fact Checker
Are firearms with a silencer ‘quiet’?
[H/T Bob Owens.

One should not be surprised an anti-gun organization and their people are lying. It is in their nature and it is the best they have to work with.—Joe]