IOW – We’re bullies and we want you to see our guns to make up for our other tiny appendage.
Figment @Figment_Imagine
Tweeted on January 16, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a tweet from QuackHead/PotterHead @Duck_Hunter7.—Joe]
IOW – We’re bullies and we want you to see our guns to make up for our other tiny appendage.
Figment @Figment_Imagine
Tweeted on January 16, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a tweet from QuackHead/PotterHead @Duck_Hunter7.—Joe]
Via Paul Koning we have The Unknown Olympic Champion Kim Rhode has won medals in six games. Cue the non-coverage:
How do you manage to win a medal at six straight Olympics and remain more or less unknown? The answer: win by shooting a gun. American skeet-shooter Kim Rhode last week became the first athlete, male or female, to win a medal at six summer games and the first on five continents, but don’t look for her on a box of Wheaties.
Mrs. Rhode, who won a bronze medal in Rio, has received little media attention despite her historic feat. The 37-year-old also lacks a single major corporate sponsor, though her ammunition and training costs are offset with sponsorship and donations from such firearms companies as Beretta and Otis Technology.
Her agent told Bloomberg he had pitched the sharp-shooter to more than 20 companies, with no luck. Our guess is they don’t want to risk a backlash from the progressive antigun culture. It probably doesn’t help that Mrs. Rhode is an outspoken critic of gun-control laws and a Donald Trump supporter.
What media bias?
From here:
Interesting attitude. There are several ways to interpret this:
It’s a good thing people weren’t allowed to have guns. That would have only increased the violence.
I haven’t heard about this in the U.S. media:
schools are a “top priority” target for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), which delivered a direct threat last December. The terrorist group’s francophone propaganda magazine, Dar al Islam, urged Muslim parents to remove their children from French schools and to kill teachers, who were called “enemies of Allah” for teaching the French principle of secularism.
Don’t think that the French are any more hated that Americans. It’s a good thing that here in the U.S. that we have a lot of staff in our schools armed and trained to deal with active shooters. Right?
Via a comment by Paul Koning we have this commentary in the Wall Street Journal:
Doctor to Patient: Do You Have a Gun?
I cannot understand how my asking this question will help.
From a public-health standpoint, adding this question to the medical history must seem logical to policy gurus far removed from the trenches of primary care. According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, 60% of the 30,000 Americans who take their own lives every year do so with a firearm. Ninety die every day from shootings—60 are suicide, 30 are murders.
Yet as horrified as I am by these losses, I cannot understand how my asking this question will help. If a patient’s answer is “Yes,” then what I am to say?
Of course, the platitudes: Guns can be a danger around the home, especially one with children. Make sure you use gunlocks or a special safe. Everyone knows this; it’s akin to telling patients that smoking is hazardous to one’s health. And now that my patient has admitted that he owns a firearm, this fact is duly recorded into the—secure, of course!—electronic medical record.
If my patient suffers from mental illness or substance abuse but is not, in my estimation, a danger to himself or others, then what? Report the patient to someone, some agency? Who might that be? Will my patient be harmed more than helped? What will it do to my ongoing relationship with my patient?
The obvious take-away from the article is that the suggestion that doctors ask patients if they own guns was not well thought out.
As Paul points out in his comment the data is required to go into an electronic records system which is susceptible to hacking (ask the DNC if you doubt me).
Another plausible point, as Paul pointed out in his email to me, is it is a “push for doctors asking about guns to be an attempt to spread hoplophobic disinformation”.
And as Paul hinted in his email one can extrapolate even further to see how these electronic records could be use to build databases of gun owners. Sure, the records are supposed to be private from government snooping except under certain conditions:
The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) states that protected health information may be disclosed if it “is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of a person or the public and . . . is to a person or persons reasonably able to prevent or lessen the threat including the target of the threat.”
But we have laws in existence, right now, which require medical personal report people with, or had, mental health issues to the government so they can be prevented from purchasing guns. How much of a stretch is it to imagine a one or two line amendment to HIPAA which requires the reporting of self reporting gun owners?
And what does the government care about following original intent of the law? Census data has been abused by the governments throughout history:
The Civil War
Along with the benefits of census information for war planning, the census can be used for methods of destruction as a war tactic. General Sherman used census data to locate targets during the famed Civil War March though Georgia.
World War II and Japanese Internment
A specific example of the privacy risks of the US census can also be found in the 1940s. During World War II, Japanese-American citizens were rounded up and sent to internment camps. The Census Bureau might not have necessarily given out individual Japanese-American names or numbers, but the Bureau did work with US War Department to offer aggregated data about certain localities. Although there is still a lack of consensus concerning specific conclusions, the Census Bureau has issued a formal apology and now reports that the Bureau did not protect Japanese-Americans.
[It has been admitted the census bureau did give detailed info to the Secret Service.—Joe]
It has been recorded that even before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt ordered the Census Bureau to collect information on “American-born and foreign-born Japanese” from the Census data lists. Information was gathered from the 1930 and 1940 censuses on all Japanese-Americans and then given to the FBI and top military officials. These sources point directly to the census information as one of the reasons that led to the internment of almost 110,000 Japanese-Americans on the West Coast, two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens.
United Kingdom
A recent example of abuse from abroad can be found in the United Kingdom. It recently has reached the public view that compulsory transfers were considered in Northern Ireland in 1972. A UK government top-secret memo has surfaced describing a plan to relocate Irish Catholics. The plan was written with census data. Although never implemented, the use of census data for non-statistical purposes has caused great concern in Europe.
Germany
Germany has a contrasting history in census reporting. The most extreme example of census abuse is Hitler’s use of the census to track minorities for extermination during the NAZI regime.
Germany not only used the census data (and gun registration data) of their own country but that of countries which they conquered for evil purposes. My general rule is that if the data exists then it will be abused by a government. Carefully consider the type and persistence of data you disclose to anyone.
Hillary has said the enemies she is most proud of are:
Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians.
See also here.
we were able to ban assault weapons… We’ve got to go after this. And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.
I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at.
Australia banned all semi-auto rifles, semi-auto shotguns, pump shotguns, magazines which hold more than 10 rounds, a caliber limit of not more than .38 inches (since expanded under certain criteria), semi-auto pistols with barrels shorter than 120 mm (4.72 inches), and barrels shorter than 100 mm (3.94 inches) for revolvers.
Nearly all the guns I own would be banned.
Hillary must be prevented from taking office by every legal means available to us.
Advocacy on this issue has the potential to make the LGBTQ movement even more relevant to national politics and to win over allies outside the community. Achieving gun control legislation would constitute, for Preston, a “contribution to benefit our society as a whole and give us the recognition and respect we deserve.
Julie Moreau, Ph.D.
8/10/2016
Commentary: Is Gun Control Next Step for LGBTQ Movement?
[Wow!
That’s a mind bogglingly stupid conclusion. And from so many different angles. Here are just a few:
I know I have a biased sample, but nearly all the LGBTQ people I know are gun owners. I find it difficult to imagine they are going to get much unity in their community on a gun control effort.—Joe]
Millennial poll: 2nd Amendment no obstacle to gun control:
A new poll by the University of Chicago finds that Millennials have a strong preference for gun control, even supporting a proposed ban on semi-automatic weapons.
The survey—which was conducted by GenForward, part of the University of Chicago’s Black Youth Project, in conjunction with the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, a nonpartisan social science research organization—polled 1,940 young Americans ages 18 to 30 and revealed that that 57 percent of Millennials approve of banning people from purchasing semi-automatic weapons.
This is the part that is really scary to me:
…over half of those surveyed said they believe that Second Amendment rights can be compromised in order to support greater gun control.
Perhaps the the Nineteenth Amendment should be compromised to support greater voter control. Compromising the Second Amendment is no less repugnant.
As pointed out in the comments:
It’s estimated that nearly 70% of the guns in circulation (and even a higher percentage of those sold) are semi-automatic. 57 percent of Millennials support banning 70% of the currently owned guns and the vast majority of those currently legally sold?
But most importantly, don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
The present study has offered three empirical predictions. (1) The number of fame-seeking rampage shooters will continue to grow. (2) Fame-seeking rampage shooters will attempt to kill more victims than past offenders killed. (3) Fame-seeking rampage shooters will “innovate” new ways to get attention.Whether these predictions will be borne out by future data remains to be seen. However, one social change that could potentially disrupt the growth of this threat would be a major reversal in the way the media covers these attackers. Recently, there has been some support for movements such as “No Notoriety” and “Don’t Name Them,” which encourage media organizations to avoid giving rampage shooters the attention and fame they often seek.
Adam Lankford
Aggression and Violent Behavior Volume 27, March–April 2016, Pages 122–129
Fame-seeking rampage shooters: Initial findings and empirical predictions
[Via email from John Richardson, No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money.
This is all consistent with other research that I have seen. The only quibble I have with this conclusion is that it limits the fame seeking to shooters. I also expect fire, knives, swords, vehicles, poison, chemical weapons, explosives, blunt objects, and many other tools will also be used by fame seekers.—Joe].
I received this from Stephanie in reference to today’s QOTD:
If they do happen to show up here, as usual, please keep things relatively civil. No unsubstantiated or irrelevant name called. For example, telling them they are illogical, ignorant, etc. is acceptable if there is data to back that up and relevant to the previous comments they have made. Questioning their sexual orientation, parentage, brain size, etc. without relevance or supporting evidence may have unpleasant repercussion.
@statasiore I dont need a weapon to face the world nor do I need a surrogate @NRA penis-anyway u indulge urself so 31k get shot ea yr in US
The left honourable @bamboozled3
Tweeted on January 12, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]
Update: Interesting… @bamboozled3 replied to the blog post title which showed up on Twitter:
11:16 AM PDT:
@JoeHuffman 31k US citizens killed ea yr-00s of schoolkids-on altar of #2A if that’s “liberty & justice for all” you can stick it, smartguy
3:19 PM PDT:
Perhaps we should ask @JoeHuffman if the 200 school shootings since Sandy Hook is just the price of his “liberty & justice”? #uscowardsrus
I’m sure you will be just as shocked as I was to learn that the GAO reports the BATF has accidentally ignored the law and it’s policies and created a gun-owner database via the NICS.
Totally a surprise, amirite?
So what are the odds of a prosecution and destruction of those illegally-kept records, you think? I’m putting it at less than 1%. It Trump wants a few million more votes, promise to prosecute and destroy. (Preferably prosecute the records and destroy the ATF, but I’d settle for t’other way ’round).
The anti’s are even out to ban simple graphic images of guns, in addition to real guns, including muzzleloaders. If it even looks like a gun, they want to ban it. They are, in fact, that extreme.
Chas
August 3, 2016
Comment to Leave the SJWing to the professionals
[This is what they think of the right to keep and bear arms. You shouldn’t be allowed to even see a picture of a gun.—Joe]
Hillary has basically promised to nominate justices who would gut the First and Second Amendments. She would create the most prolonged period of judicial lawlessness since the Warren era.
Carrie Severino
August 1, 2016
Is SCOTUS a Good Reason to Support Trump? Libertarian and Conservative Legal Experts Weigh In
[Via email from Mike B.—Joe]
The pro-gun trolls are vicious and ignorant. I’m sure in real life they are pitiful little men who couldn’t get a date with a woman if their life depended on it. It’s easy to sound tough when you’re hiding in your basement.
danyl
07/30/16 05:46 PM
Comment to AG faces sexist, antigay slurs after imposing gun ban
[Via a comment from Weer’d Beard.
This is what they think of you.
Just let them keep thinking that.—Joe]
From the comments to AG faces sexist, antigay slurs after imposing gun ban:
pegnva 07/30/16 05:59 PM
How does AG MH expect gun nuts to feel “manly” if they can’t own assault weapons?
HamsterMom 07/30/16 06:44 PM
And display them and compare their size, especially when a woman stands in their way.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
Via a comment from Weer’d Beard.
you’re a bunch of idiots too obcessed with your penis size to take time to realize American
justme @beckychristens4
Tweeted on January 12, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
And it’s not even a complete sentence. But it is no surprise that when the best they can come up with is childish insults they have a problem with simple communication.
Via a tweet from QuackHead/PotterHead @Duck_Hunter7.—Joe]
In January 2015, the families of 10 victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook shootings filed suit against the Remington Outdoor Co., which manufactured the Bushmaster rifle used by Adam Lanza to kill his mother and students and teachers at the school. They filed a suit against Camfour Holding LLC, the gun’s distributor and Riverview Sales, the store where Lanza’s mother bought the gun.
They claimed the gunmaker and sellers knew civilians are unfit to operate the assault rifle and yet continue selling it to civilians, disregarding the threat the gun poses.
Daniel Tepfer
July 29, 2016
Gun control spotlight shines in Bridgeport court
[This is what they think of you. You are “unfit to operate ‘the assault rifle’”. If this claim is successfully litigated in court then expect manufacturers of modern sporting rifles to stop selling to private citizens.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]