Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Wayne LaPierre

Posted on by

I simply and honestly proposed that our schools, our children, should be protected at least as much as our jewelry stores or banks or stadiums, and maybe the Oscars in Hollywood the other night. The national news media savaged me. What parent wouldn’t feel safer dropping their kids off at school with a police car parked out front?

The political and media elites set their hair on fire. Screaming and screeching, they called me just about every evil, nasty name in the book. But in state legislatures and school districts all over the country, the American people began implementing what I proposed, placing trained, armed security in their schools. They didn’t wait for the president or Congress to act. They took matters into their own hands to protect their children.

As a result, millions of our children go to school today, no longer the sitting ducks of the worst and most dangerous of all lies – gun-free zones. The news media, protected by their own armed security, will never admit it, but today, millions of children are safer for one reason: the NRA. The overwhelming majority of Americans agree with the simple truth that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The politicians and the media be damned!

Wayne LaPierre
March 3, 2016
NRA chief tells Hillary Clinton to ‘bring it on’ in gun control fight
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Norma M Atkinson

Posted on by

Shoot to kill these extremists!

Norma M Atkinson
March 10, 2016
Facebook comment on Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America page.
[They don’t just want to take your guns. They want (someone else) to take your life.—Joe]

Law-abiding

Posted on by

This has come up in the comments here before but Alan Korwin expresses it better than most people:

We have reached a point where so many laws are immoral or infringements, or can no longer be legitimately obeyed by anyone dedicated to constitutional governance, the phrase “law-abiding” has become arcane and a relic. “Law-abiding gun owners” are reduced to shivering vestiges of their former selves, dependent on government travel papers, expiration dates, qualification tests, violations based on ammunition types and amounts, infringements so vast and immane it defies the average person’s ability to even know them all, let alone obey them and not step into violation.

In place of the olden standard “law-abiding gun owners” we now find ourselves in need of better and more accurate phrases such as:

good gun owners
honest gun owners
decent gun owners
honorable gun owners
righteous gun owners
innocent gun owners

They really don’t understand

Posted on by

I just have to shake my head at people like this:

You don’t need an automatic weapon to hunt deer or shoot targets,” she said. “If you really need a gun for target practice, why don’t the gun clubs have guns to rent?”

A statement like that only vaguely even makes sense to me. And when you try to talk to these people they seem incapable of understanding what you are saying as well. I would assert people like this really are that stupid, but yet they manage to dress and feed themselves with no apparent difficulty.

Quote of the day—Lee Cruse

Posted on by

These groups have the need to combine and change names on a regular basis. They put out so many false statements that are so far over the top that their supporters stop being able to defend them. So, they are “born again” with a new name and an unsoiled reputation.

In contrast, how long has the NRA been around under the same name?

Lee Cruse
March 17, 2016
Comment to Giffords group merges with Law Center
[To answer his question, since November 17, 1871. This makes it 144 years, four months and one day.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Malcolm Gladwell

Posted on by

Those who say that you can solve this problem with gun control are engaging in a fantasy. Um, can you prevent some cases of this by locking up all the guns? Sure. Is that politically possible in the near-term in the United States? No. Uh, my problem with the gun control argument is that it so grossly simplifies what’s going on here, that this is, you know, we had tons and tons and tons of guns in this country and no school shootings for a long time. So, school shootings are not a necessary or inevitable consequence of having lots of guns.

Malcolm Gladwell
March 16, 2016
Malcolm Gladwell: Gun Control Won’t Stop School Shootings But We Should Still Ban Guns
[I’ve read a number of Gladwell’s books. Including Outliers: The Story of Success, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, and Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. He’s a smart guy. But I think he failed to study this particular issue with the usual thoroughness he has devoted to other subjects.

After getting the essence of the school shooting correct he goes on to say:

This is a, gun control can solve the much bigger problem of the kind of unpremeditated shootings done in the heat of passion or drunkenness or drug use that claim the lives of tens of thousands of Americans every year. That’s the reason to ban guns.

This is complete B.S. without support of any data beyond his speculation. There are less than 10K illegal homicides in the U.S. each year. Hence there cannot be “tens of thousands” of “unpremeditated shootings” each year that result in loss of life.

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

Giffords group merges with Law Center

Posted on by

This is interesting:

The group created by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords to push for tighter control on the sale of guns is merging with a group focused on the legal issues surrounding gun control.

The merger, announced Wednesday, brings together the notoriety of Giffords’ Americans for Responsible Solutions in Washington with the legal acumen of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco.

For now, the two groups will retain separate names and separate offices.

Usually when an anti-gun group merges with another it means one of them was broke. This doesn’t seem to be the case this time:

Americans for Responsible Solutions Foundation took in $159,900 in 2014, according to its most recent tax return filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Americans for Responsible Solutions Political Action Committee raised about $3 million in the final six months of 2015, according to its filing with the Federal Election Commission. There was about $4.2 million in its campaign account at the start of 2016.

The Law Center took in about $1.4 million in 2014, according to its most recent tax return.

I wonder if Giffords just doesn’t have the time and/or energy and is basically selling her name and donor list.

Quote of the day—John Niven

Posted on by

It seems increasingly obvious that the real infant with a gun here is America itself. Watch it stumbling around like a giant toddler, wreaking untold havoc and then screaming its head off if someone dares to confiscate its beloved toy.

It’s about time someone took the toys away for good.

John Niven
March 14, 2016
John Niven: American gun laws are just crazy, it’s time we took the firearms away from them
[H/T to Say Uncle.

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

Just keep thinking that

Posted on by

Anti-gun activist pastor Michael (how does he keep his tax exempt status?) Pfleger says:

Until America is so wounded by gun violence in the white and wealthy communities, till that happens and people start voting out politicians who are owned and bought by the NRA, it’s not going to change.

As is common with these type of people they believe it is all about the money. They do not, and perhaps cannot, comprehend there are many people who are guided by things other than money. Those other things include facts, logic, and principles.

As long as these people don’t understand the motivation for people to exercise and protected their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms they have little hope of gaining political traction.

Even if we were to grant his statement as true the facts are that violence in general is reducing as gun ownership increases. So, by his own logic, gun control is projected to be less likely in the future.

So if Pfleger keeps thinking that he’ll live the rest of his life bitter, hateful, and deluded. He’ll likely end up being one of those people that I feel sorry for as they wander around town shouting at clouds, mumbling at lamp posts, and spending their nights at homeless shelters.

Of course there is another way to interpret his words. He could be calling for people to begin shooting up “the white and wealthy communities”. If so, and he continues in that direction, then his life could have a much different, but no more pleasant, path.

Either way Pfleger and those who believe like him are on the losing side of history.

Quote of the day—Nelson ⚒‏@NeLoNe79

Posted on by

@MilitiaJim @wallsofthecity @JClaireBurke You love need guns I get it, God didn’t bless you enough in the trousers.

Nelson ⚒‏@NeLoNe79
Tweeted on November 30, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

All’s well that ends well

Posted on by

A customer shot and killed a hatchet-wielding man attacking a clerk at a convenience store in Burien Sunday morning.

A bad start to a day that ends the way it should – the attacker stopped by a concealed carry customer in the shop. Way to go, Mr. “regular customer.”

Quote of the day—Robert Rotberg

Posted on by

We’re not taking anything away. We’re strengthening the rights of Lexingtonians to be secure in their private houses and less fearful of people spraying bullets at them.

Robert Rotberg
Founding director of Harvard Kennedy School’s Program on Intrastate Conflict and Town Meeting member
March 8, 2016
Lexington debates proposal to ban semi-automatic weapons
[What this guy wants:

the proposal seeks to ban any semi-automatic rifle or handgun that has a removable magazine capable of holding 10 or more rounds. It also seeks to ban any magazine that holds 10 or more rounds.

And he claims, “We’re not taking anything away. We’re strengthening the rights of Lexingtonians…”?

Gun banners lie because it’s the only way they can win.

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

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

This is a big win. Not just for gun rights but for the freedom movement in the battle against billionaire elitist gun prohibitionists like Michael Bloomberg. West Virginia just told him he can’t buy away our Second Amendment rights.

Alan Gottlieb
March 7, 2016
Gun control group ‘livid’ about permitless carry override veto
[While there is a certain amount of truth to this, 10s of millions, or more, of dollars can buy more repression of our rights than we care to tolerate.

Probably the best we can do is make the cost, in time, money, and public opinion, as high as practical such that the return on Bloomberg’s investment is as low as possible. In the case of West Virginia, gun rights supporters caused him to do the equivalent of setting a very large pile of $100 bills on fire. Bloomberg has an distressingly large number of $100 bills he is willing to throw on the fire but getting nothing except reports of his failures in return for spending large amounts of money will be discouraging to both him and the people he is funding. It also demonstrates that the claim that “the greedy gun manufactures with lots of money” and the NRA get legislative votes by outbidding the virtuous anti-gun activists is false. With this key assumption falsified it demoralizes them and makes it more difficult for them to recruit additional people and raise money in general.—Joe]

Quote of the day—surfinbird512 @surfinbird512

Posted on by

some big fat piece of shit behind an AR 15! he can’t even see his dick.

surfinbird512 @surfinbird512
Tweeted on November 25, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.

Just remember, we have SCOTUS decisions, they have childish insults.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Wayne LaPierre

Posted on by

Mrs. Clinton, if you want to come after the NRA, if you want a fight over the God-given rights of America’s 100 million gun owners, if you want to turn this election into a bare-knuckled brawl for the survival of our constitutional freedom, bring it on. We aren’t going anywhere – and we aren’t hard to find.

Wayne LaPierre
March 3, 2016
NRA chief tells Hillary Clinton to ‘bring it on’ in gun control fight
[I think that sums it up fairly well.—Joe]

Quote of the day—bruce lancaster

Posted on by

When you come for my guns, you will need to bring yours. If you are successful prying my gun from my cold, dead hand, take care. The barrel will be quite hot. … Understand the consequences you beg for: I will fight you to my last bullet. I will fight you until my knife is worn to the hilt. I will fight you until my knuckles are shattered, my nails torn free and my teeth broken at the roots. … When you have tended your wounded and mourned your dead, good luck mustering the courage to face my neighbors, my grocer, my barber, the lady at the gas station cash register, my pastor, my sons, my daughters… They will offer you the same resistance I did. You will reap the whirlwind. If you’re successful killing me or someone like me, you will be hunted. You will be run to ground. You will be smoked out. You will be hung from the nearest tree. Your villages will be plundered, your livestock slaughtered, and your homes burned to ash. There will be no quarter. Each and every disgusting one of you traitorous evil freedom haters will die.

I welcome you to come whenever you think you’re ready. Say When.

bruce lancaster
March 1, 2016
Comment to How to Pass Gun Control in the Sixth-Most-Gun-Owning State in America
[H/T to Sebastian for the link to the main article.—Joe]

Homicides versus guns in developed countries

Posted on by

Via Ry’s tweet we have source code and data to test various hypothesizes regarding firearm ownership and homicide:

Fit linear regression weighted by number of homicides. Homicides are rare, therefore variance of homicide rate estimates is primarily driven by number of homicides rather than by population. There is no circular reasoning here – we’re predicting homicide rate rather than absolute number of homicides.

Exclude countries with gross domestic product (at purchasing power parity) per capita lower than the median because we are primarily interested in developed countries.

Firearms are statistically significant and have negative coefficient in the regression.

Conclusion: in developed countries, more firearms means less homicide.

Quote of the day—MNsoda55401

Posted on by

We need to remove all guns from our society other than those used by police and other authorized government agents.

The time for the wild wild west has long ago left us.  We need to allow our Constitution to be adapted to prohibit gun ownership by all private citizens.  Only then will our streets again be safe for our children.

MNsoda55401
March 1, 2016
Comment to Gun safety groups plan caucus push to promote background checks
[At least they recognize the Second Amendment is blocking their goal and they need to change it before proceeding.

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

A great idea

Posted on by

Via Glenn Reynolds we have West Virginia lawmakers eliminate permits for concealed carry guns. But what I really latched onto was this:

…the proposed law includes a $50 tax credit for residents trained to carry a deadly weapon.

In Washington State the pro-gun people proposed a bill which eliminated sales tax (near 10%) on gun safes. The anti-gun people were put in a tough spot. If they opposed the bill they were against “gun safety”. But if they agreed they were lowering the cost of gun ownership. The bill was passed and gun safes became less expensive in Washington.

Why don’t the pro-gun people propose tax credits on all “gun (safety)” classes? And how about removing sales tax on “public carry holsters” which resist guns being taken away or accidently dropped? And removing taxes on “practice ammo” for guns which people who carry in public?

These proposed laws would put the anti-gun people in a difficult position when trying to oppose them. And, if passed, it would lower the cost of gun ownership, increase gun ownership and use, which would make it easier to change our culture to be more accepting of gun owners.

Quote of the day—Gary Doner

Posted on by

So you don’t think there should be any limitations whatsoever on what type of arms should be allowed? Right now you can’t go out and buy a machine gun, for example, due to a 1937 federal law. A nuke is an “arm”. Would you allow someone to have one in his backyard?

Gary Doner
March 1, 2016
Comment to Local gun control
[You know he is ignorant and/or careless with the facts just by his errors regarding machine guns. That alone is almost enough to tell him to go away and come back when he knows what he is talking about. But Doner goes on to invoke Knox’s Law because he doesn’t have a plausible response to the plain and simple facts. And those are that the guns he wants to ban, “assault weapons”, are protected by the Second Amendment and are seldom used in criminal activity. Hence he needs to, in essence, change the subject.

You should never let them get away with this. Keep them on point and demand they acknowledge they were wrong with their original assertion. Their absurd argument need not be answered. Tell them, “We can get back to that when you find a nuke available for sale at Wal-Mart.”—Joe]