@Cmf68Kevin anyway, no one needs a machine gun, no matter how much they think it will make their penis grow
Cloudy @CloudyHawk
Tweeted on December 10, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]
Category Archives: Gun Rights
Quote of the day—Melissa Crawford
Good lord, he’s been President for over 7 years and you still have your stupid guns. When the hell is he going to take them already???
Melissa Crawford
March 10, 2016
Facebook comment on Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America page.
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Selective reporting
For some reason this portion of the latest gun control study has not been well publicized in the media:
According to the study, gun dealer licensing, dealer state record reporting requirements, dealer police inspections, gun owner fingerprinting, closing of the “gun show loophole,” ammunition purchaser recordkeeping, child handgun restrictions, child access laws, juvenile handgun purchases, magazine bans, and may-issue carry permits, have little to no effect on firearm-related deaths. Further, their results show, semi-auto bans, firearms locks, “bulk purchase limitations,” and mandatory theft reporting, increase firearm-related deaths.
The media did report on the laws which they think should be passed:
According to their calculations, implementing these laws throughout the U.S. – not just on the state level – could reduce gun-related deaths 80 percent. Broken down by each law, that would be a decrease of 84 percent for firearm identification, 61 percent for universal background checks for purchasing guns and 82 percent for ammunition background checks.
I wonder why?
H/T Sebastian.
Quote of the day—edsdet @edsdet
@Gunsandcoffee12 @AdamPiersen @FShagW is what’s disgusting. America want created for you to masturbate with an AR 15 in a weekend militia
edsdet @edsdet
Tweeted on March 15, 2016
[Via a tweet from Adam Pierson @AdamPiersen.
It’s almost a Markley’s Law, but not quite, so I’m not making it a Markley’s Law Monday post. Besides, I’m not really hurting for material. Markley’s Law Mondays are already scheduled out through the middle of January 2017.
But note, as is typical with these type of people, they don’t even make sense grammatically. And even if you corrected the grammar they still wouldn’t make sense on any of several different levels.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Alan Korwin
It is well past time to single out the naysayers and myth purveyors, help them with interventions and counseling, and get on with the process of training and arming the staff where our precious youngsters gather on a daily basis. Stop the lunatics from stopping reasonable, common-sense gun-safety laws, like armed teachers.
Alan Korwin
March 21, 2016
KORWIN: Moderate Judges, Armed Teachers And Guns Are Germs – Three Myths We Just Busted
[In many cases intervention is probably not appropriate. In those cases prosecution would seem to be the better plan.—Joe]
Quote of the day—SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
We found the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong, but “bordering on the frivolous.” 554 U. S., at 582. Instead, we held that “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.” Ibid. (emphasis added).3 It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly to the point. Yet the Supreme Judicial Court did not so much as mention it
…
A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the consequences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for selfdefense. … If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
March 21, 2016
JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
[This is a really big ruling for gun rights. It is close in importance as the McDonald and Heller decisions. The decision was unanimous. This helps put those anti-gun nuts who think they are one supreme court justice away from overturning the Heller decision in their place. It slaps down the state supreme court in terms that leave zero doubt as to SCOTUS displeasure. I just hammers the argument that “only muskets are protected”.
This is another nail in the coffin of gun control.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Doogie Howitzer @HowitzerDoogie
new #Backgroundcheck #gunsense law: Men may not purchase a hand gun larger than their penis (or ammo>testicle diam.)
Doogie Howitzer@HowitzerDoogie
Tweeted on December 1, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a tweet from Linoge.
Well, I suppose it makes as much sense as any other background check scheme.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Wayne LaPierre
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
@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
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
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
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]