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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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.
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]
We must never allow ourselves to entertain their insanity. They should be dismissed out of hand. Anyone who claims to care, if they’re being honest, would already have figured out that a disarmed population is nothing but an invitation for predators to sweep in and take over. It then becomes obvious that the anti gun rights movement is inspired, funded, directed and maintained by predators.
Lyle
February 28, 2016
Comment to Quote of the day—Citizen1787
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
The funniest kind of coward is a gun nutter nra coward. Their lack of self awareness makes them easy targets. #bok #tinycockclub #gunsense
Bacon @Baconmints
Tweeted on December 23, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a Tweet from BFD @BigFatDave.—Joe]
No one needs to own a semi-automatic rifle for hunting or self-defense. No one. I have never heard a convincing argument why a civilian needs a semi-auto rifle. In nearly every mass shooting there is a common weapon: a semi-auto rifle. They should be banned.
Citizen1787
February 26, 2016
Comment to Kansas gunman served with restraining order just before shooting spree, police say
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
I received an email from Frank G. in Spokane today. He was confused by something he read in the Spokesman-Review (Spokane Washington) newspaper. The Spokesman-Review says:
The Idaho Senate has spiked legislation that would have expanded the list of the worst kind of felons banned from owning firearms.
Senate lawmakers voted 29-6 on Friday to reject including terrorists, criminal gang members, human trafficking and felony riot convictions as qualifiers to lose one’s right to own firearms.
Frank asked:
I don’t know a LOT about gun laws, but I’m pretty certain that federal law prohibits all convicted felons from owning firearms. It doesn’t matter if they were convicted of murder or embezzlement. Felony conviction? No guns for you.
So, is the idea that “the worst kind of felons … terrorists, criminal gang members [and people convicted of] human trafficking and felony riot” would be SUPER DUPER prohibited persons?
The confusion is because under Idaho law a convicted felony who as served there sentence may own a gun unless they have committed certain types of felonies. Basically non-violent crimes, such as embezzlement, do not put you on the Idaho “no guns for life” list. But under Federal law you could be convicted of using the wrong packaging for shipping shellfish and end up prohibited of possessing firearms for life.
The legislature was attempting to add terrorism, arson, theft by extortion, human trafficking, felony riot, hijacking, racketeering, and supplying firearms to a criminal gang as bars to further firearm possession. It failed, as Frank pointed out, in the Senate 29-6.
The question one would ask is, “With Federal law prohibiting all felons from firearms possession how does Idaho restoring firearms rights after completion of their sentence help anyone?”
Perhaps some lawyers can answer this better than I can, but I would say it means these people have to get the attention of a Federal Prosecutor who probably has “bigger fish to fry” then some little old lady who embezzled a few thousand dollars a decade ago who now wants to defend herself in her home with the gun her husband left in the dresser draw when he died.
I would like to suggest it might be a “good first step” to get changes in Federal such that it is similar to Idaho law. It’s just common sense.
* Note, that except for things like murder, after five years a person convicted of other things including counterfeiting, unlawful possession of destructive devices, rape, and kidnapping, may apply to the commission of pardons to get their firearms rights restored.
Jared Keller complains, What We Talk About When We Don’t Talk About Gun Control Why are Uber and iPhone security more important than solving our national gun problem?
The national conversation has largely moved off of gun control, a trend we’ve seen since the Newtown massacre when support for gun rights increased despite the slaughter of 20 children and six teachers.
This, it seems, is the cycle of our political will when it comes to guns. A mass shooting leads to calls for control from lawmakers, a flurry of reporting from media outlets, and a spate of social media campaigns, then poof: The American public moves on.
After whining a bunch more he quotes Dan Hodges who tweeted the following on June 19, 2015, two and a half years after the Newtown tragedy:
In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the U.S. gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.
I wouldn’t have expressed it that way, but we knew Newtown was the last stand for gun control a few days after it happened. No retrospection required.
Some people just don’t understand markets. If a demand exists then markets will find a way to supply it. Furthermore if, from a legal standpoint, possession of a revolver is no different than owning a grenade someone intent on intimidation and criminal violence might as well get grenades.
Of course the anti-gun people will dismiss such logic as “crazy talk”. But, as is usual, we have the evidence:
Grenades have become the latest “must have” weapons being sold by underworld arms dealers at knockdown prices.
And a special Mirror investigation has found that the terrifying trade is booming.
Following the killing of two unarmed policewomen in a gun and grenade attack on Tuesday, we uncovered the shocking array of firepower available on the streets today.
The death-dealing “shopping list” includes guns for hire for as little as £100 and bullets priced at anything from £5 to £15.
Sources say the evil trade is run “just like any other business” with “gun librarians” setting prices for those looking to rent or buy.
The black market dealings are said to be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds each year. And we can reveal that high-level criminals are now turning to grenades to beef up their armoury. The most commonly used are the Swiss-manufactured British Army-issue L109 and the Yugoslavian-made M75.
In the three years to March 2010, there were 14 grenade attacks in the UK – including seven in the North West in just 10 months.
When the anti-freedom people claim they yearn for U.K. style gun control, let them know the reality is that when guns are outlawed, outlaws will have grenades.
The communists were very careful and deliberate in ensuring that the actions of the internal police were made valid through law and rationalized as a part of “class struggle.” Such laws were left so open to interpretation that literally any evil committed could later be vindicated. Man-made law is often a more powerful weapon than any gun, tank, plane or missile, because it triggers apathy within the masses. For some strange reason, when corrupt governments legalize their criminality through legislation or executive decree, the citizenry suddenly treats that criminality as legitimate and excusable.
Incremental prosecution and oppression is effective when the establishment wishes to avoid outright confrontation with a population. Attempt to snatch up a million people at one time, and you will have an immediate rebellion on your hands. Snatch up a million people one man at a time, or small groups at a time, and people do not know what to think or how to respond. They determine to hope that the authorities never get to them, that it will stop after a few initial arrests, or they hope that if they censor themselves completely, they will never be noticed.
Brandon Smith
February 24, 2016
A Warning To The Feds On Incremental Prosecutions Of The Liberty Movement
[I believe Smith is correct about human nature. In Washington State and some others it’s against the law, I-594, to loan your hunting rifle to your life-long friend for the weekend. If you were to assume the claimed motivation for the law is to reduce violence crime is true then it’s an incredibly stupid law. But I suspect many people avoid breaking that law and if they were prosecuted would blame themselves rather than the law and those who voted for it.
As you follow your nature please remember what Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn said:
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?
It’s entirely natural to follow the law. But sometimes that which is natural is not what is best for you or society as a whole.—Joe]
Like it or not, guns are a necessary evil for maintaining a free and democratic society in which we live. However, when the gun falls in the hands of some problem people, it becomes a weapon to kill. That is the difficult challenge we have to face in an imperfect world in which we live. Of course, some people today tend to think that gun rights are for hunting, recreation and self-defense. Perhaps, but that was the last thing in the framers’ minds when they drafted the Bill of Rights.
Chris Hsu
January 28, 2016
Letters: Gun rights are essential to the freedoms we enjoy in America
[I don’t get the “necessary evil” part but Hsu does reasonably well in the rest of his letter.—Joe]
Interesting. Idaho is state most dependent on gun industry, report finds:
Idaho depends more on the gun industry than any other state, according to a study by the financial website WalletHub. Idaho ranked No. 1 among states and the District of Columbia based on firearms industry activity in the state, gun ownership and overall prevalence, and gun politics — specifically, contributions by gun control and gun rights groups to members of Congress.
Idaho, The Gun State*. I could live with that.
* Idaho’s official nickname is The Gem State.
Do you realize that Obama has more time at the White Board diagraming Saul Alinsky’s “Rule for Radicals” than he has Trigger Time?
Bubblehead Les
February 2, 2013
Comment to Quote of the day—Sebastian
[After spending 20+ hours (about 2000 rounds in the Intensive Handgun Skills class) of “trigger time” this last weekend my mind is stuck on “trigger time”. I’m constantly amazed at how fast, and accurately, people can put lead downrange.
At Boomershoot people can and do put bullets into seven inch square targets at 700 yards on nearly every shot. I know people who can hit eight inch steel plates 25 feet away at a rate of six to seven rounds a second—with a 12 gauge shotgun! With a pistol (concealable, as opposed to a long gun) people put bullets into different eight and 12 inch circular targets from 25 feet away at the rate of two to three rounds per second. At conversation distances it’s eight to 10 rounds per second.
Every day of the week during normal wake time hours you can go to the local range here in the Seattle area and see people practicing. On the weekends and many week days you can find competitions where people hone and display their skills to levels that are mind bogglingly sharp even by my standards of being a competition shooter for over 20 years.
There are roughly 80 to 100 million gun owners in this country. That “extremist organization”, the NRA, has “more than five million members”.
People “White Board diagraming Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rule for Radicals’” as they plot to destroy our freedom don’t realize just how dangerous a fire they are playing with. As I pointed out in this post about the number of Al Qaeda members:
According to intelligence estimates reported by the New York Times in 2010 the answer is “fewer than 500” in Afghanistan and “more than 300” in Pakistan. A 2011 article in the Wall Street Journal put the number in the range of 200 to 1000 with “affiliated fighters or funders” making up thousands or tens of thousands.
Since allied forces in Afghanistan haven’t “finished the job” after more than a decade against less than 1000 poorly trained and funded fighters which side do you bet on if they were fighting a few million well trained and well funded fighters? If the would-be tyrants push us too far, just how much trigger time do each of five or 10 million people, skilled with the tools of freedom, need to put an end to the threat? Do the arithmetic.—Joe]
If the US government dictating iPhone encryption design sounds ok to you, ask yourself how you’ll feel when China demands the same.
Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green)
Tweeted on February 17, 2016
[H/T to Tyler Durden.
Of course, as I posted before, Lyndon Johnson once said:
You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
The problem being that it is difficult for many people to see the “unintended consequences” in foresight. If there is the possibility of a good outcome they will focus on that. In a lot of ways it’s like gun control. “People might be safer if guns are banned because the bad guys won’t have guns to commit crimes with.” Overlooking that the good guys won’t have guns to defend against the bad guys with.
The gun control analogy is an even a better fit when you remember that at one time the U.S. government insisted encryption was a “munition” and was mostly banned from export. It would seem to me that if the Second Amendment were well respected by Congress and the courts then a good lawyer could make the case government resistant encryption is protected by the Second Amendment as much or more so than it is by the First Amendment.—Joe]
@StrippedLower @grassfed_butter For starters, my wiener is bigger then 3 inches so I don’t need a gun.
Joe College (@newguy42)
Tweeted on October 19, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]
I think the notion of any private citizen owning guns is absurd.
Kim LaPointe1 @kimoui
Tweeted on February 17, 2016
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
After having it pointed out that the right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right she followed up with, “can’t take ignorance GO shoot yourself”.
I found this last contribution particularly interesting. She was the one exhibiting the ignorance but insists the person trying to inform her is ignorant and demands the more informed party cause themselves harm. These people have mental problems.—Joe]