You have no basis for your claim except your nether region, but good for you, @Ducks_N_Bucks19 @Jeff257; isn’t #2A wonderful.
Still following @osteomath
Tweeted on December 1, 2016.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from American Hunter @Ducks_N_Bucks19.—Joe]
We believe that this is really not about the Second Amendment, it’s about public safety.
Patti Brigham
Co-chair of the Florida Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence
Gun control groups claim victory in Florida – for now
[They claimed victory because no pro freedom bills were passed, not because they were able to pass one or more laws infringing upon our rights. They have to try and keep their morale up somehow.
Aside from blocking the bills which would have reduced the infringements upon the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment what annoys me is that Brigham thinks she can bypass the Second Amendment with an argument about “public safety”. Apparently she is ignorant of and/or disagrees with Ben Franklin on the tradeoffs involving safety and liberty. Even if I knew nothing of the issue I would be substantially more inclined to side with Franklin than with Brigham.
“Public safety” doesn’t outweigh individual rights. This is particularly true when it involves prior restraint. If it did one could make a winning case for banning speech and writing which advocates socialism. Far more people have lost their lives because of socialism in the last 120 years than have lost their lives because of private ownership of firearms.
And that doesn’t even touch upon the fact that the Second Amendment is about public safety.—Joe]
Instead of making it difficult for law-abiding gun shop owners, fully prosecute straw purchasers, felons in possession of a firearm and people who unlawfully use a weapon. Incarcerate more criminals, and you’ll get less crime. Make it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, and you’ll get more crime. Which goal is Sen. Harmon trying to achieve?
Dan P. Eldridge
May 10, 2017
The gauzy misdirection and untrue smears of an anti-gun-rights activist
[It’s a rhetorical question but I’ll answer anyway. Senator Harmon, Democrat, has a vested interest in getting votes. As there are over twice as many Democrats in prison as all other political affiliations combined and convicted felons are not allowed to legally vote the senator wants fewer of his constituents sent to prison. Furthermore the more crime the easier it is for the senator to spin the story that he is needed to protect them from the crime. If people realize they can, and should, protect themselves from crime then they will have less, imaginary, need for him. He does not want this.
So, DUH! The senator wants to make it harder for citizen to protect themselves and fewer violent criminals going to prison.—Joe]
Interesting news from inside the belly of the beast (emphasis added):
Gun control activists who previously worked for Watts in various state organizations are said to be frustrated and feeling burned by her, according to one source.
“Staff who worked for Shannon quit or are fired faster than the organization can replace them. She’s a nightmare,” the source told TheDC.
Another source close to the organization said in a written statement, “Two beliefs unite nearly all gun control supporters: background checks save lives, and Shannon Watts is a self-promoting tyrant.”
In order to be a gun control supporter you have to have a very low opinion of individual rights and a high opinion of the use of government force to infringe upon those rights. That one of the most prominent promoters of rights infringement is also a tyrant is as one would expect.
I think we should get rid of waiting periods to buy guns. But… before you buy a gun, you have to prove that you had sexual intercourse with another person. Have you seen these shooter guys? Lonely looking bunch. If you can’t find someone to f— ya, then no gun! Guns don’t kill people — virgins do!
Jim Jefferies
May 2017
Jim Jefferies explains that ‘guns don’t kill people — virgins do’
[This got a smile out of me.
I suppose it makes as much sense as the waiting periods and background checks. Still, it is as pointless and unconstitutional as all of the other infringements they throw at us.—Joe]
These are people who literally decided that a room full of dead grade schoolers was less important than the possibility that they might have to fill out an extra piece of paper at a gun show.
They absolutely get it, and we need to remember that they’re just complete, farking dickwipes who don’t care.
skozlaw
May 10, 2017
Comment to Gun rights blogger becomes gun control statistic
[This is what they think of you.
The ignorance meter is pegged out, all input channels are blocked, and they are absolutely certain they can read our minds.
Don’t quit your day job skozlaw. You aren’t going to make a living as a psychic.—Joe]
Seattle voters overwhelmingly supported I-594, but refuse to recognize that it hasn’t worked, nor will they admit it will continue not working.
Dave Workman
April 26, 2017
‘Shoplift Shooting’ in Seattle Reveals Liberal Mindset
[But, of course, it depends upon your definition of “work”.
It fails to reduce violent crime. But Seattle voters are overwhelmingly Democrats and one should not expect them to have any interest in placing restrictions upon their constituents.—Joe]
Via Liberty Park Press, Black Robes Matter! Do You Care About Your Gun Rights?
It is estimated that President Trump will appoint 38% of all judges on the federal bench.
It’s not just the U.S. Supreme Court we have to worry about. Remember that the Miller decision said:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
This was interpreted by lower courts to mean that unless the individual had some reasonable relationship to “a well regulated militia” that the individual was not protected by the 2nd Amendment. But that’s not what the above passage says. It says the 2nd Amendment cannot be said to guarantee the right to keep and bear the instrument, the shotgun, or weapon. And this is because the 2nd Amendment only protects weapons that are part of ordinary military equipment or that could contribute to the common defense. Hence the military M-16 and AK-47s are protected by the 2nd Amendment but the 30-30 hunting rifle is not.
The lower courts are extremely important as well. And if SAF is correct in saying:
President Donald Trump’s first round of federal court nominees “looks very promising,” and provides strong evidence that the president is determined to fulfill one of his most important campaign pledges, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
SAF has launched the Judicial Accountability Project to help vet the nominees.
The criminal class hates the concept of private arms, partly because it makes their trade more dangerous, but mostly because it’s an expression of the sovereignty of the individual.
Such sovereignty is an affront to their very identity. Putting the lie to their claims of legitimacy, it denies them their livelihood and existence.
In short; an armed, legal, polite society is a free society, and there is simply no place for the criminal class (authoritarians; advocates of coercion) in a free society.
In a proper world there is no place for them but behind bars or at the end of a rope. Although we complain about them every day, we hold them up as our teachers, our watchmen and our rulers. What does that say about us?
Lyle
May 6, 2017
Comment to Quote of the day—Jay Dee
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Is gun control a euphemism for acerebral?
Jay Dee
Comment to Quote of the day—estevan @estevancarlos
[Jay may be on to something here.—Joe]
It’s clear we have to do things differently. What we’re doing currently isn’t working. The strategy isn’t working.
Brandon Scott
Baltimore City Councilman
May 3, 2017
ATF brings ballistics van to Baltimore after murder rate surges
[Recognizing that what they are doing does not work is a step in the right direction. But then what do they do? Instead of looking “next door” to Virginia or Pennsylvania, to see what they are doing that has been tried and known to be working better they add something new to the situation. Maryland infringes upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear far more than neighboring states and even though they apparently are aware the problem is related to guns they can’t imagine they are going in the wrong direction. Instead of making easier for innocent people to defend themselves they attempt to increase their ability to trace and infringe gun ownership.
When you are in a hole you don’t want to be in STOP DIGGING!
This is yet another demonstration of crap for brains and/or outright evil. Scott and his gang should be arrested and prosecuted.—Joe]
The philosophical rationale should be clear; if you have to ask permission, it’s a privilege, not a right. Permission can be rescinded, and is always exercised at the sufferance of whoever is empowered to say “yes” or “no.” A license to speak your mind granted in place of First Amendment protections, or an annual fee to keep the cops from tossing your house as a substitute for Fourth Amendment restrictions on search and seizure, might give you a little breathing room, but each breath would be drawn in the shadow of fears about lost paperwork or pissed-off officials. Owning and carrying the means to defend yourself is no different, with the rights embodied in the Second Amendment at odds with any requirement that their exercise requires a stack of forms filled out and filed.
J.D. Tuccille
May 2, 2017
Carry a Gun—Without a Permit
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
How do you recognize who the good guys are? How does arming ourselves with more weaponry make us a safer society?
Nicole Hockley
May 1, 2017
Why do people buy guns after a mass shooting?
[The good guy is putting high velocity lead into the guy shooting the elementary kids and teachers. Duh!
The second question is probably answered best by another question:
How does making people defenseless make us a safer society?
But I don’t think Hockley is interested in answers to her questions. If she were she would have had them ages ago. She just wants to believe the questions support her agenda. Either she has crap for brains and/or she thinks the rest of society is as stupid as she is.—Joe]
The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.
Justin Curmi
April 26, 2017
A Revision on the Bill of Rights, Part III
[H/T to Kimberly Morin.
Unless you have crap for brains there is no problem here. The right of self-defense trumps the right to a fair trial. Another way to look at it is that the perpetrator gave up their right to fair trial for the duration of the violent attack.
In much of the rest of the post Curmi is beyond dimwitted and travels deep into incoherency.—Joe]
You came through for me, and I am going to come through for you.
President Donald Trump
April 28, 2017
Trump: ‘8-year assault’ on Second Amendment is over
[I agreed that a President Hillary Clinton would have been far, far worse. But with all the abuse we have put up with for so many decades there is a lot of work to be done.
The new Supreme Court justice is a good start. But that isn’t enough to satisfy me in this regard.
In a matter of a week or so he could have reverse a number of bans on foreign made ammo and guns put in place by executive order by the last three or four presidents. And don’t forget the requirement that gun dealers report sales of multiple long guns in certain Mexico border states implemented by President Obama.
I remain skeptical.—Joe]
Following the enactment of New Zealand’s Arms Amendment Act in 1992, the government produced a pamphlet for gun owners that explained the new law. A FAQ-style section titled “Some misconceptions about the new laws,” addressed a hypothetical gun owner statement that “It’s my rights to have and use firearms.” In response to this contention, the government stated, “No it isn’t,” and called a firearms license a “special privilege.”
American gun rights supporters know this to be incorrect. In addition to being protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, firearm ownership is an individual right that is an extension of the natural right of self-defense. Various governments may choose to respect or disrespect that right, but it is a right inherent to all peoples.
As a matter of policy, and as a matter of rights, the New Zealand Parliament would do well to reject the repugnant attack on law-abiding gun owners outlined in Law and Order Committee’s inquiry report, and instead focus their efforts on more directly confronting the criminal misuse of firearms.
NRA-ILA
April 14, 2017
New Zealand MPs Propose Raft of New Gun Controls
[Read how they slid down the slippery slope from the early 19th century through the early 1900s in The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy.—Joe]
Via email from Ry we have a win against New Jersey in a 2nd Amendment case:
Today, the District Court of New Jersey entered the Consent Order re: Tasers
April 25, 2017
Today the Consent Order in New Jersey was entered. It is attached here for you to read. The Court finds:
1. The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010); Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. __(2016). Further, “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 582; Caetano, slip op. at 1 (per curiam).
2. Pursuant to the holdings in Heller, McDonald and Caetano, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-3(h), to the extent this statute outright prohibits, under criminal penalty, individuals from possessing electronic arms, is declared unconstitutional that it violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and shall not be enforced.
It only knocks down their law against Tasers, but every little step in the right direction helps.
I got into some trouble for saying gun violence is a public health issue. A little bit of trouble. But you know, I was stating what I think is the obvious, and I think most people in the country understand, which is that far too many people die from gun violence. And in my book, every single death from gun violence is a tragedy because it was preventable. It’s unacceptable.
Vivek Murthy
Former US Surgeon General
June 13, 2016
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy talks Zika, guns, and why he loves ‘Love Actually’
[It’s very telling that he believes it is better that you be murdered, raped, stabbed, beaten, whipped, crushed, impaled, hung, or burned than the perpetrator be killed if you use a gun to defend yourself.
Molṑn labé Murthy.
In other news, President Trump Removes Obama’s Pro-Gun Control Surgeon General and President Trump Just Fired Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy. The NRA And Gun Owners Thank Him.—Joe]
Anti-gun organizations and spokesman position themselves rhetorically so as inevitability to cement millions of gun owners into opposition to any sort of gun control with claims that common citizens who want a handgun to protect home and family are sexually aberrant, paranoid, trigger-happy rednecks whom it is imperative to disarm. Handgun ban advocates also support denying permits to those who most require handguns for safety, such as inner-city small business owners or elderly welfare recipients trapped in deteriorating welfare neighborhood even though research shows that handgun-armed citizens actually thwart about as many crimes annually as handgun-armed criminals succeed in committing. Yet, such advocates systematically avoid the key criminological issue of enforceability which leads to the conclusion that the goal is not to change human behavior but to legally enshrine one morality over another.
Don B. Kates
April 1, 1986
The Battle Over Gun Control
[The face of evil and the lies they tell have changed little in the last 30+ years.—Joe]
It’s a one-to-one correlation. The bigger the gun, the tinier the penis. It even has a name The NRA Penis Curve
Head of Joaquin @headofjoaquin
Tweeted on September 21, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from BFD @BigFatDave.
I always wonder, do they have peer reviewed research supporting these type of claims? Or if it was something worked on by themselves, what were their sample size and sampling methods? They really need to share their data before anyone can take them seriously.—Joe]