@amzieaa Pls forgive language but I’m not putting up w/ crap from losers like -> @HitByTorpedo who compensates for teeny penis size w/guns
Ferallike @ferallike
Tweeted on February 1, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]
With each additional gun control law, then, it becomes more and more apparent that our legislators, president and courts are fundamentally lawless, recognizing not authority higher than their own preferences and mere majority rule or, in the case of the courts, the personal beliefs of the judges. Laws enacted in such blatant disregard of a fundamental right make manifest the fact that politics is a confidence game in which the legislators and the courts capitalize upon and trade off of the people’s respect for the nations supreme law to establish legitimacy for their laws and rulings, a veneration and respect they themselves do not share. Gun control is thus providing the occasion for, and disposing larger numbers of people to, recognizing the destruction of individual rights and the illegitimacy of the federal government. When this line has been crossed, it is not easily re-established.
Jeff Snyder
2001
Forward to Nation of Cowards page vii.
[And that line was crossed for me with Ruby Ridge.—Joe]
Suppose we momentarily accept the premise of the gun control advocate that guns being used in violent crime is sufficient justification for the government to forcibly remove them from the general population. Then we, of necessity, must arrive at the conclusion that since guns are used more frequently for defensive use than offensive use that the government has sufficient justification to force the general population to acquire, train themselves, and carry guns for self-defense.
The government did the analog of that by requiring, by law, that everyone obtain health insurance. So, by whatever constitutional loopholes they pushed Obamacare through the same loopholes should be available to push a similar package of gun laws through which demand you own and carry self-defense “insurance”.
Of course such laws would be immoral as well as illegal under the constitution—if the constitution were actually observed.
In 2009 the headline was UK is violent crime capital of Europe with reports of:
Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.
The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
That was over seven years ago.
Today, some police forces in the UK are underreporting crime by 10s of thousand of cases:
Dru Sharpling from HMIC said: “Despite making some progress following our 2014 inspection, the force is failing some victims of crime. We estimate that the force fails to record over 38,000 reported crimes each year. The reported crimes that go unrecorded include serious crimes, such as violence and sexual offences.
Even so the numbers tell a frightening story with the headline today being Sexual offences convictions in England and Wales hit record levels in the past year:
The number of prosecutions brought for sexual offences has risen to its highest level ever, jumping 22.5 per cent on last year.
In total 11,995 defendants were prosecuted in 2015-16 for sexual offences other than rape, up from 9,789 the year before. The figure has steadily increased since 2012, but never as steeply as in the past year.
Sexual offences range from non-consensual sexual touching to serious sexual assault.
I’m reminded of what John Fogh said nearly 20 years ago that was true decades before and will probably be true until we have handheld phasers:
Nothing says, “Please don’t rape me.” like multiple jacketed hollowpoints.
John Fogh
Insights Self Defense Instructor
February 23, 1999
Why would women ever want to visit, or especially live, in places without easy access to guns?
Recently, I enrolled in a conceal carry class. I wanted to learn more about what is becoming a growing movement in our country.
The folks taking the class cut across the socio/economic spectrum. There was a truck driver and a dentist. There were older folks and twentysomethings. And I sat next to a young mother who could outshoot everyone in the class.
What struck me was how ordinary they were.
I didn’t see any gang colors – unless you count camouflage. I found my classmates to be polite and concerned about the well being of their families.
Those who support more restrictions on guns would have you believe that folks who want to carry are Dirty Harry types ready to shove a revolver in someone’s face and shout, “Go ahead, make my day.”
I’ve never met a gun owner like that.
Scott Reeder
September 9, 2016
A baby step for gun control
[Part of the problem we have is that everything some people know about guns and gun owners they learned via T.V. and movies. And, of course, the characters as well as the drama and effects are larger than life.
This is why it is critically important to come out of the closet as a gun owner and take new shooters to the range so they can become acquainted with reality.—Joe]
i think of it as time spent on recon behind enemy lines.
mrminwnc
September 4, 2016
Comment to UC Davis Launching Center to Study ‘Firearm Violence’ in regards to their college education at a very leftist school.
[Now, if we can only put that recon to good use.–Joe]
Very well done:
Via email from Stephanie.
A sober assessment of the Second Amendment’s present status must precede any attempt at predicting a “conservative” Supreme Court nominee’s impact on the Second Amendment’s future. Well before Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing, judges figured out that District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago are optional precedents. For all their powerful content, these decisions have in practice proven meaningless in the face of near-total resistance throughout the federal courts, in combination with the transparent lack of interest at One First Street in defending the Supreme Court’s eponymous position atop the judicial hierarchy. To be sure, some judges seek to apply Heller and McDonald in resolving Second Amendment disputes. But most treat the Supreme Court’s precedent as a hassle to surmount before rubber-stamping any legislative restriction on the right to bear arms. If not today, then very soon, it shouldn’t be too hard for any sufficiently dedicated and creative legislature to effectively ban firearms or just about any firearm-related activity, without worrying much about Heller. Appointing one “conservative” Justice to replace Antonin Scalia won’t improve matters. Indeed, “conservative” judges are part of the problem.
Alan Gura
September 6th, 2016
The Court after Scalia: The next “conservative” Justice may not save the Second Amendment
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
There are so many details in the gun and ammo industry it might be easy to overlook some little decision and the side effects of it. Some mistakes are minor. Some are a little larger.
The ATF accidentally banned ammunition manufacturing.
Well, not exactly, but sort of. The changed the regs and reclassified nitrocellulose as a high explosive. You know, nitrocellulose. The stuff that is used to manufacture virtually ALL smokeless powder? All the facilities that made or handled powder would have to be totally redesigned, and frequently relocated, and shut down in the meantime. Yeah, just a minor change. So, the ATF, having been informed of the effect of this minor update, issued a “it’s still on the books, but never mind for the moment” notice.
Joe, I know you say you’ve had nothing but positive interactions with the ATF field agents and personnel, but you must live in a odd location in the time-space continuum.
Yeah…. Top. Men.
A majority of the public (58%) says that gun ownership in this country does more to protect people from becoming victims of crime, compared with 37% who believe it does more to put people’s safety at risk.
Pew Research Center
August 26, 2016
Opinions on Gun Policy and the 2016 Campaign
[That’s the good news.
The bad news is there doesn’t seem to be any anti-gun laws being proposed in any of the major legislative bodies that the majority of people are opposed to. I don’t have an explanation for this dichotomy other than what I have said many times before:
It’s irrational to expect people to be rational.
I guess it just means we have more work to do in changing the culture.—Joe]
In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal violence shows contempt of God’s gift of life (or, in modern parlance, does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. In truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.
Jeffrey R. Snyder
1993
A Nation of Cowards
[It’s probably been 20 years since I read this. I linked to it on a very old web page of mine here. The link there, and nearly all the others as well, are dead. I was somewhat surprised that many of the things I have said in more recent years had been said, more eloquently, in Snyder’s essay in 1993. I should reread that powerful essay more frequently and use his words instead of substituting my resuscitation of the dusty, vague, memories of decades old enlightenment.
H/T to Kirk Parker and Sean for bringing this to my attention again.—Joe]
@Trunthepaige
Ed S. @SnowdenEd
Tweeted on September 15, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
This guy is particularly dim-witted because @Trunthepaige is a woman.
Via a tweet from QuackHead/PotterHead @Duck_Hunter7.—Joe]
So, Hillary now is the Reset Button?
John Hardin
August 26, 2016
Comment to Quote of the day—Liz Crokin
[I think this might be better rewritten as, “Hillary is the Reset Button.”
Back in the late 90’s, in the dark days of the Clinton presidency, I knew gun people who said we should vote for the most totalitarian administration imaginable, Hillary, for the next president. The thought was that the “water” would heat up so rapidly that “the frogs” would take action rather than die from the slow increase in temperature. There are people today saying similar things.
I don’t know whether that would have been the correct choice then or it is the correct choice now, but it might very well be the choice will be made for us. And if the election goes worst case for us it will be ugly. Not only are the anti-gun people openly talking of an “assault weapon ban”, and “the Australian example”, but also “a ban on semi-automatic firearms, which are often described as ‘assault weapons.’” Never mind semi-auto handguns were a significant component of the Heller decision and protected. As it stand the Heller decision is being essentially ignored. With another Clinton presidency it will be nullified in everything but our memories.
I’m preparing for the worst and hoping for an indictment of Hillary.—Joe]
If someone is physically and mentally able to defend themselves, at least to some degree, but is unwilling to expend any time or effort in doing so doesn’t that mean they must not believe their life is worth defending?
Furthermore, suppose someone is willing to defend themselves. But if they are only willing to defend themselves with one hand tied behind their back, are they really serious about self defense? Do they really believe their life is worth defending if they insist on handicapping themselves when they defend themselves?
Why should someone be willing to risk themselves to protect someone else who doesn’t believe their own life is worth defending?
Why should someone defend another person who isn’t willing and able to use tools, and the best type of tools, to defend themselves?
Why should friends, neighbors, and the police provide physical security for people who are anti-gun?
Via Fred’s comment we have this:
Because the feds rely heavily on state and local law enforcement assistance to enforce federal measures, passing a state law banning such assistance will make federal gun control “nearly impossible to enforce.”
Our strategy takes a step-by-step approach, with each step building on the last, until all federal gun control is nullified in practice within the state.
People in the United States of America want it understood that designating arms, ammunition and related accessories, which are currently legal to make, keep or bear in any state, which may later be declared illegal to make, keep or bear, or encumbered in any way by any means and for any reason, constitutes Second Amendment infringement.
Such actions are null and void, amount to prima facie violation of the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and are grounds for removal from office for failure to faithfully execute the duties of the office.
Any action or attempt by any person to enforce such infringement on property possessed in our state will be a class four felony for a first offense, and a class three felony for second and subsequent offenses.
County Sheriffs and law-enforcement agencies in this state will be authorized to enforce this Declaration and to deputize as many residents as may be necessary to enforce this Declaration.
This Declaration, circulated widely by people who support it, is provided as a courtesy and notice of protected civil rights to candidates, politicians and people working in any capacity in government. It will be introduced as state legislation to authorize peaceful enforcement of those civil rights. Model legislation is in the draft stage and will be circulated soon.
…
Consider yourselves notified of impending disaster, if the headlong rush to infringe the public’s right to arms — and all the other blatantly unconstitutional abuses — continues on its current path. Don’t shoot me, I’m only the messenger.
Alan Korwin
August 21, 2016
American Protection of Arms Declaration
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
We were concerned about copycats and that if we tried to be too specific, that these people are very adept at figuring ways to get around (the law).
We wanted the law to be dynamic and evolving but aimed with the purpose to ban assault weapons.
Warren Tolman
Former Massachusetts Democratic state Senator.
Cosponsor of the 1998 law.
August 20, 2016
1994 Massachusetts law at center of assault weapons clash
[I think the title should be “1998…”, not “1994…” but that’s not important.
The important part is that non specific and “dynamic and evolving” are weasel words for “unconstitutionally vague”.
Update: Weer’d gives us the contradictions in the Massachusetts AG “clarification” letter.
And, as pointed out by Archer, don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Terrorists can recognize the difference between actual security and it’s mere appearance. You think they can’t see past a gun free zone sign? It might as well say, “Terrorists welcome! Ready access to undefended scores of innocent children.” Please get over the gun-control distraction. Ask yourself, “What stops four men from going to a school with knives or bombs?” I know that by the time a threat reaches me on an airplane there is no time for hesitation, talk, quarter. I want to win more than I can tolerate losing.
In 2016 federal agencies are training their law enforcement personal to respond to active shooter scenarios. Concealed carry permits for civilians are going up. That’s great!
But we need a more honest discussion. By the time a terrorist or a criminal boards a plane with ill intentions we’re past the time for obfuscating their plans or negotiating them down. Either FAMS personal is on the plane when it takes off or its passengers and crew are marked for death and they better know it. The Federal Air Marshal, the passengers, the flight crew, and pilots are truly the last line of defense. Public spaces and schools need the same approach.
Let’s cut the feel good politics and recognize by the time someone with dangerous plans reaches your doorstep it’s too late to ponder root causes of anti-social behavior. It’s time to act. All of the thinking should have been done beforehand. And the level of commitment to stop grotesque violence in its tracks, stone cold dead, has to exceed theirs if protecting the principal is going to succeed.
Have no misconceptions. Any outcome at that point will be bloody, ugly, and lowdown. It’s like nothing you have seen in any Hollywood movie. It’s going to be bad breath and fingernail close. But it’s a fight that is coming our way whether we get ready for it or not.
Let’s get ready.
Gary J. Byrne
2016
Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate
[I listened to this as an audible book so I probably have some punctuation messed up and maybe some spelling and other minor stuff. But it’s pretty close.
The book, as you can see, isn’t just about his time as a Secret Service Officer for the Clintons. It briefly covers his time in the Air Force, time with the Bush’s before the Clintons, testifying during the investigation by Kenneth Star, and time with the Federal Air Marshals.
There are some quotes I’m going to pull out about the Clintons too. But I thought this was higher priority. I really like it.
It’s a good book. I highly recommend it.—Joe]
