Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Hal Lillywhite

Posted on by

Actors are good at acting, at pretending to be what they are not. They earn their living in a fantasy world, and I fear that many of them lose touch with reality. Their talent does not include any particular wisdom; if it did we would see fewer Hollywood stars in the news for all the wrong reasons.

Hal Lillywhite
2015
From chapter 27 in Freedom or Serfdom?: The Case for Limited, Constitutional Government and Against Statism
[Via a comment to Dear Julianne Moore: Strict Gun Control Makes Single Women Prime Targets For Rape and Murder.

As I have said before:

Think of it this way. In this case we have the police and the military on our side of the issue, as well as nine Supreme Court Justices who agree the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The anti-gun side has someone who plays make-believe for a living.

They get a lot of attention but convincing friends, neighbors, and politicians to vote your way is easier and more important than convincing actors to read your lines.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Basepaul Season @paulbensonsucks

Posted on by

@_Stars_Stripes_ @NRA ban all guns for the actions of the majority. Gun owners are terrorists throw them in prison

Basepaul Season @paulbensonsucks
Tweeted on April 12, 2016
[This is what they think of you.

This is typical thinking of statists. They refuse, or are unable, to think in terms of individual rights and responsibilities. If one, or a small minority, of people do something wrong it is justification for punishment of an entire class of people. One of the problem with this type of thinking is that you can justify almost anything. People could justify prison for all young black males because the statistics show young black males commit crimes at a higher rate than young Asian females. Our nation, and to a certain extent Western Civilization, was founded upon the principle of individual rights. People like this appear to think in terms of group responsibility. It’s a slippery slope to the good of the many outweighs the good of the individual and to everyone according to their need and from everyone according to their ability.

Then look at potential consequences of what he is saying about gun owners being terrorists and belonging in prison. Do these people think things through? This is very dangerous talk. I keep thinking that if this is what they really think of us then why would people bother to try and convince them otherwise? If one is told they belong in prison for simply existing, and there are people actively attempting to put them there, then what is the downside for doing something the actually earns a prison sentence? It would be easy for people to rationalize showing them the contrast between the way things are now and the way they could be if typical gun owners really were terrorists.

And finally, don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Carry Sword in France

Posted on by

Because-as society evolves, governments can no longer deal effectively with violence ever-present in our streets. Because-all citizens should have the right to defend itself, to ensure its security when the forces of order are absent or impotent. We French of all backgrounds, faiths and political tendencies united in this petition are asking the legitimate right to carry a firearm.

Carry Sword in France.
We ask the government to order the establishment of a decree authorizing all citizens to be entitled to carry a firearm in France
[I’m not sure about the organization, the date, and the translation in general, but the sentiment is fairly clear.

As Paul Koning said, “If that petition succeeds, the French will have a concealed carry system about as friendly as that of California. I suppose it’s a start.”

H/T to Andrew Benghazi.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Leftside Annie‏@LeftsideAnnie

Posted on by

@BrowningMachine Even more ironic that one who substitutes an instrument of killing for their tiny penis projects that onto me. #justsaying

Leftside Annie‏@LeftsideAnnie
Tweeted on October 20, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a Tweet from Linoge.

It’s very telling we have the facts and SCOTUS decisions on our side and the best they can muster is childish insults.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

Posted on by

The left can’t pass any common-sense gun legislation because they aren’t proposing any.

Alan Korwin
March 21, 2016
KORWIN: Moderate Judges, Armed Teachers And Guns Are Germs – Three Myths We Just Busted
[Korwin has a way with words that dramatically clarifies the issue.—Joe]

Taking sides

Posted on by

While I understand that losing your wife and two young daughters can really mess up your mind, that doesn’t mean the media should be putting pushing his ideas without any balance:

I find that pretty revolting to think … that younger children can walk onto a firing range,” Mikac said.

He warned against allowing children to see guns as something fun.

“I just think it’s crazy.”

This makes it crystal clear the media has taken sides.

Suicide and guns

Posted on by

Washington State just passed a law regarding suicide by gun. As I started read the first article on the topic I was highly skeptical:

My husband died by suicide. Here’s what happened during my awkward call with the NRA.

It wasn’t the hardest phone call I’ve ever made, but it was certainly awkward. I was cold-calling the National Rifle Association. Because the NRA is well-known for offering gun safety training, I wanted to know whether the organization had ideas on how to reduce the number of firearm suicides.

…

But I learned a couple of surprising things from that call and the many follow-up meetings with a local NRA lobbyist and the executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation.

First, they were not just willing to talk but also willing to listen.

The details of the law are here. The voting is telling:

Passed by the House March 8, 2016  Yeas 94  Nays 2

Passed by the Senate March 1, 2016  Yeas 47  Nays 0

Basically the law requires a task force, in part, to:

(a) Develop and prepare to disseminate online trainings on suicide awareness and prevention for firearms dealers and their employees and firearm range owners and their employees;
(b) In consultation with the department of fish and wildlife, review the firearm safety pamphlet produced by the department of fish and wildlife under RCW 9.41.310 and, by January 1, 2017, recommend changes to the pamphlet to incorporate information on suicide awareness and prevention;
(c) Develop suicide awareness and prevention messages for posters and brochures that are tailored to be effective for firearms owners for distribution to firearms dealers and firearm ranges;
(d) Develop suicide awareness and prevention messages for posters and brochures for distribution to pharmacies;
(e) In consultation with the department of fish and wildlife, develop strategies for creating and disseminating suicide awareness and prevention information for hunting safety classes, including messages to parents that can be shared during online registration, in either follow up electronic mail communications, or in writing, or both;

Yes. It addresses pharmacies as well as firearms owners, dealers, and ranges. It looks like it has the potential to be a good program that truly tries to address the problem of suicide in a fair handed manner and not just something to demonize gun ownership. Others think so as well:

A couple of years ago, Stuber began reaching out to firearms retailers and asking them if they worried about the possibility of selling a gun to someone who might be suicidal. Virtually every employee she spoke with, she said, answered yes. With some trepidation, Stuber called the National Rifle Association and Gottlieb’s group to enlist their help in reducing firearm suicides. To her surprise, they were willing to talk, and also listen.

“There’s real hurt,” she said. “Everybody showed up at the table willing to share their pain. This is an issue that impacts all of us.”

Forefront, the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation met with groups including the Seattle Police Department and the Department of Fish and Wildlife over about six months to draft the language for the initiative. Rep. Tina Orwall, D-Des Moines, the bill’s main sponsor, was instrumental in getting the legislation passed, Stuber said.

About 20 other states have taken steps to bring together suicide prevention advocates and gun owners, Stuber said, but none of those efforts are as broad as the Washington bill. Gottlieb thinks the initiative could become a successful model that can be replicated in other states.

“Lots of us in the firearms rights community have been concerned that a significant percentage of suicides involve lethal force,” he said. “If there’s a way to lower those numbers, it’s in gun owners’ interest to do that. To me, this is a no-brainer, but it took someone like Jenn to put it together.”

Quote of the day—Sean Barney

Posted on by

We will ban military-style assault weapons and large capacity ammunition clips.

Sean Barney
Delaware candidate for U.S. Congress (D)
April 7, 2016
Barney hopes to make gun control an issue
See his complete position on ADDRESSING GUN VIOLENCE.
[He also wants to eliminate the default proceed if the FBI doesn’t complete the NICS check within three days. This would enable people in Washington D.C. to halt all gun sales in the entire country by simply sending NICS employees home. Imagine a government shutdown for a few days or weeks. Imagine budget cutting. Imagine “technical problems” in doing the background checks.

And don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Richard Feldman

Posted on by

Someone ought to present both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton with the joint “Salesmen Award of the Decade.”

They have collectively achieved what advertisers could only dream about. Their ill-informed, uninformed and intentionally misinformed, anti-gun rhetoric is a caustic shot directly across our bow. If it’s political jihad that they want to wage on this, the most quintessential of all American domestic issues, then it’s political jihad they shall receive.

Richard Feldman
March 23, 2016
Richard Feldman: Obama’s Gun Issue Misfires on Hillary
[In related news:

Political jihad over guns in November? Only if Hillary isn’t in shackles by then.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Hillary Clinton

Posted on by

That he would place gun manufacturers’ rights and immunity from liability against the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook is just unimaginable to me.

Hillary Clinton
April 6, 2016
Clinton Hits Sanders on Gun Control, Sharpens Attacks
[Why not the car manufacturer that the killer drove to the school? Or the clothing manufacturer? And I’m shocked she didn’t mention the ammunition manufacturer.

It’s unimaginable to me how someone could believe that the manufacturer of a product should be liable for its deliberate, criminal, misuse. But then I suspect real issue is that Clinton “thinks” in terms of politics rather than factual or logical terms. She knows that her claim will gain her favor with certain voters and that is all that matters to her.

It’s easy for us to think she is talking crazy talk and has crap for brains. But she is a practiced, deceptive, predator who has lived a lifetime benefiting from saying things that are unsupported by facts or logic. She will continue her path of deception and destruction until she is stopped. I prefer she ends up in shackles before she is nominated but I’ll settle for an defeat at the polls in November.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jim Wallace

Posted on by

What we pay as gun owners in Mass. is twice as high as any state in the region. With all the talk about Massachusetts leading the nation, they collect millions of dollars from us and don’t spend a single penny on firearms education. The system is designed to register and watch the good guys, but not designed to watch the bad guys.

Jim Wallace
March 18, 2016
Executive director of the Gun Owners Action League in Massachusetts
Gun Owners Weigh In: The debate over gun control
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

They want us dead

Posted on by

Via a tweet from Proud Hunter‏@Duck_Hunter7 (which also resulted in a Markley’s Law Monday post scheduled for January 16, 2017) we have this tweet from Pupper, Esq. ‏@alltehmunnies:

I hope you’re killed in an armed stand off with law enforcement.

And this tweet from not nev ‏@existentialslut in the same thread:

my dream gun control legislation is all gun owners shoot themselves

Why are progressives so violent?

Oh yeah! Now I remember.

Quote of the day—Bacon @Baconmints

Posted on by

Oh, you’re in a “club” that you have to pay to be a member of. Sounds awesome. Silly, nra cowards. #bokbok #tinycockclub #gunsense

Bacon @Baconmints
Tweeted on December 23, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a Tweet from BFD‏ @BigFatDave.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bruce Schneier

Posted on by

Across the US, states are on the verge of reversing decades-old laws about homosexual relationships and marijuana use. If the old laws could have been perfectly enforced through surveillance, society would never have reached the point where the majority of citizens thought those things were okay. There has to be a period where they are still illegal yet increasingly tolerated, so that people can look around and say, “You know, that wasn’t so bad.” Yes, the process takes decades, but it’s a process that can’t happen without lawbreaking. Frank Zappa said something similar in 1971: “Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.”

The perfect enforcement that comes with ubiquitous government surveillance chills this process. We need imperfect security­ — systems that free people to try new things, much the way off-the-record brainstorming sessions loosen inhibitions and foster creativity. If we don’t have that, we can’t slowly move from a thing’s being illegal and not okay, to illegal and not sure, to illegal and probably okay, and finally to legal.

This is an important point. Freedoms we now take for granted were often at one time viewed as threatening or even criminal by the past power structure. Those changes might never have happened if the authorities had been able to achieve social control through surveillance.

Bruce Schneier
2015
Pages 97 and 98, Data and Goliath
Via Mass Surveillance Silences Minority Opinions
[This line of thought can be extended to many other victimless crimes still on the books from gun “crimes” to gambling, social nudity, sex toys, and various activities involving consenting adults.

The counter point is that with near perfect surveillance political corruption, murder, terrorism, and other horrible crimes could be significantly reduced. So the question becomes, “How do you balance the tradeoffs?”

It appears to me the greatest threats to society come government (look at the number of murders committed in the 20th Century by governments against their own citizens as opposed to murders committed by citizens on each other). Hence as a “common-sense good first step” I am of the opinion that greatly enhanced surveillance for government employees is a good thing. Implement the most extreme surveillance practical for politicians and others in positions of power. Encrypt it and store it securely. But if they are accused of wrongdoing their data comes out of storage and is reviewed for evidence of criminal activity. The rational could be, “With great power comes great responsibility. With great responsibility comes great oversight.”—Joe]

Australian Compliance

Posted on by

If a politician advocates for the “Australian Model of gun control” be sure to inform everyone of the “Australian Compliance Model of gun control”:

In Australia, part of the supply of banned firearms comes from defiance of the original prohibition. The Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia estimates compliance with the “buyback” at 19 percent.

Other researchers agree. In a white paper on the results of gun control efforts around the world, Franz Csaszar, a professor of criminology at the University of Vienna, Austria, gives examples of large-scale non-compliance with the ban. He points out, “In Australia it is estimated that only about 20% of all banned self-loading rifles have been given up to the authorities.”

You might also speculate that would be an upper bound for the U.S. and that U.S. gun owners might not be nearly as “polite” about it as the Aussies.

It’s about the money… right

Posted on by

Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign spins his false narrative again:

Make no mistake, this is a disgusting, morally depraved marketing campaign,” Dan Gross, the organization’s president, said in a statement. “The NRA continues to stoop to new lows in the hopes of shoving guns into America’s youngest hands. If nothing else, this approach demonstrates just how desperate the organization has become to sell more guns — it must now advertise deadly weapons to kids by perverting childhood classics with no regard whatsoever for the real life carnage happening every day.

To be frank, it’s pathetic.

No, Mr. Gross, your deliberate lies are pathetic. This isn’t NRA marketing. The NRA doesn’t sell guns. The NRA is a civil rights organization representing private citizens. It does not directly represent manufacturers or sellers of firearms.

But Gross is smart enough to recognize the truth will be ineffective in advancing his agenda. So, he does what he has to do. He lies.

That had to hurt

Posted on by

I’m a strong proponent of women learning how to shoot guns even though they sometimes use them inappropriately:

The wife, 60-year-old Victoria Reid, was arrested Wednesday evening in Rockledge and charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault domestic violence.

An arrest report from the Brevard County Sherriff’s Office indicates that Reid forced her husband of 16 years to sit on a couch at gunpoint as she confronted him about having an affair. Once seated, she threatened to maim him, kill him, and give him PTSD – a condition she also suffers from – in order to punish him for his alleged acts of unfaithfulness.

Her threats indicated that she was planning to shoot her husband in the face or chest, however it seemed she settled on traumatizing her husband rather than flat-out killing him, opting to shoot him in his left knee instead. But once she did, the bullet ended up traveling past his knee, up his leg and to his testicles where it got lodged.

I’m also a strong proponent of not doing things you know will make them extremely angry.

Quote of the day—Justin Stakes

Posted on by

Gun control is not about saving lives. It never has been and never will be. It is about control, even to the point that it causes innocent persons to lose their lives to violent crime. To the antis such deaths are an acceptable, maybe even a necessary, means to an end.

Justin Stakes
March 9, 2016
Are We Protecting Victims or Are We Playing Gun-Control Games With Their Lives?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

What did you expect?

Posted on by

If you do something like this:

When Amelia Hamilton started working with NRA Family on updating classic Grimm fairy tales, it was to rework the stories we all knew and loved to show what would happen if the main characters had been taught about gun safety and how to use firearms.

Never did she imagine the biggest criticism she’d face would be from people who hadn’t even read her work.

Of course you should expect the anti-gun bigots to get all upset. It shows gun ownership and usage in a positive light. This is unacceptable in their world view.

And, of course, there is absolutely no need for them to read your work. Knowledge and rational thought is irrelevant to their thought process. We have seen this again and again.

How else do you explain how quickly and frequently they resort to childish insults instead of calm rational thought when discussing gun ownership?

This could come up at her trial

Posted on by

Hillary Clinton says:

If the NRA thinks you’re doing a good job, that’s a pretty good indication that something’s very wrong.

The portion of the NRA which she is referring to is NRA-ILA. This is a civil rights organization. What presidential hopeful Clinton is saying is that she wants to infringe upon a specific enumerate right. She is publically admitting her intent to violate 18 USC 241 and/or 18 USC 242.

I can understand her lack of concern for being so open about this. She has gotten away with so many crimes that I suspect she gives such acts less thought than if you or I would when contemplating tearing off a “Do not remove under the penalty of law” tag off our pillow.

This could come up at her trial. Assuming, of course, she isn’t already serving a life sentence for some of her other crimes by then.