The home invasion, which was carried out on August 6, 2012, in Sharon Connecticut found the victim’s mother zip-tied with her son Luke dead from multiple gunshot wounds pleading with the dispatcher for police and an ambulance for ten minutes. At approximately 6 minutes into the call, she exclaims that ‘she doesn’t have a gun and couldn’t defend herself’ in an audible display of despair.
Politicians who are protected by armed security details like Governor Malloy, the Connecticut General Assembly and Connecticut’s Federal Representatives and Senators continually tell the public that this kind of thing doesn’t happen. That people do not need firearms to defend themselves, and worse, they create infringements on the right to armed self-defense for the citizens in Connecticut.
Connecticut Carry
January 7, 2016
Press Release: When Seconds Count the Police Are Ten Minutes Away
[These politicians need to be prosecuted.—Joe]
From CNN Money, Gun control is one thing, but what about bullets?
A small group of gun-control advocates have, for years, been making the case that bullets are as good, if not better, a target for regulation than guns. Without bullets, they point out, a gun is a useless piece of metal. And unlike guns, bullets must continually be replaced. “If I buy a firearm, I take good care of it, it can last a lifetime,” says Garen Wintemute, an emergency physician and Director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. “The larger share of the market is in the consumables, like ammunition.”
…
The proposed new system in California would require a background check at every purchase, and would draw on the database of prohibited purchasers, updated in real time, that the state already uses for gun sales.
What about background checks before you make a post on Facebook or tweet something? What about a background check each time before you go to church, vote, or read something of political nature? It’s a constitutionally protected right and these proposals create a chilling effect upon that right.
Even ignoring the principles involved these people are delusional. They are almost completely out of touch with reality. Last year, in my spare time, I reloaded 9531 rounds on my little bench using a simple hand-powered press and other tools. In the last week, putting a little more effort into it because of an upcoming class, I manufactured 1200 rounds. At that rate I could easily assemble over 60,000 rounds in a year. That’s more than enough, even including a fair number for misses, for all the murders committed by people with guns in the entire country. There
So…how do they propose they might be able to stop the black market manufacture of ammunition? There are probably 100s of thousands of people in this country with reloading equipment and components. As soon as there is serious talk of trying to shut us down the component market will explode and people like me will have the components to assemble 100,000s of thousands of rounds (I currently have components for about 10K rounds on hand) before they can get the restrictions in place.
I had a female in here. She’s every bit of 5-foot and 80 pounds. I’m not going to say anyone can’t take a gun from me or, or you know. But, I’m just saying and I told her I’m going to be completely honest with you. In my opinion, I said, if I saw you and I saw you with a gun, especially here in Essex County, and the people we have here in this county. Um, I said yeah I’d be concerned with you having a firearm. Again it wasn’t anything against her. It’s not her fault she’s female and only, but I said we’ve got to look at the public safety.
Police Detective Sergeant
Orange New Jersey
December 2, 2015
Second Amendment Society Claims Police Departments Delaying and Denying Handgun Permits
[As I have said many times before (see also here and here). The only reason I’ll willingly go into New Jersey in its present corrupt state is if I can get a hunting license with an unlimited bag limit for people like this Sergeant.—Joe]
President Obama’s executive orders to ban gun ownership of Social Security recipients who are “incapable of handling their own affairs” raises some interesting questions. How many violent crimes do these type of people commit? Without access to guns will old codgers with Alzheimer’s substitute the use of their canes and walkers to hold up banks and 24-hour convenience stores when they can’t use a gun like they did last week?
One might claim that the President and all his advisers just didn’t think this through. But if you were to claim that I would have to wonder about your gullibility.
The President is expected to expand background checks for people buying weapons from high-volume gun dealers — despite the fact guns used in mass shootings have often been legally obtained.
And I expect ABC and Daniel to continue saying nonsensical things and failing to elaborating on the nonsense they know the anti-gun politicians use to infringe upon our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
In the wake of the Newtown shooting, the mention of which caused Obama to tear up today, he demanded a renewal of the so-called “assault weapons” ban, provoking a furious reaction before retreating to a background-check proposal instead. The well had already been poisoned, however, and the effort failed. He’s made repeated references (Dan McLaughlin counts four times) to confiscatory policies elsewhere as a model for modern nations, and then expresses surprise and indignation when people dare to assume he means it.
If you like your Glock, you can … eh, you get the point.
Ed Morrissey
January 5, 2016
Obama: Hey, forget what I said about Australia (twice) — no one’s looking to take away your guns!
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Depriving the public of gear as a way to stop murderers is misguided, puts you at risk and at its core, is a thinly disguised effort to get to zero-round magazines—in the false and dangerous belief that disarming innocent people will finally disarm criminals.
Alan Korwin
December 18, 2015
KORWIN: Talking Points For The 30-Round-Magazine Debate
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
I’m not advocating violence – I am warning liberals that they are setting the conditions for violence.
And that better worry them, for the coastal elites are uniquely unsuited to a world where force rules instead of law. The Serbs were, at least, a warrior people. The soft boys and girls who brought us helicopter parenting, “trigger warnings” and coffee cups with diversity slogans are not.
I know the endgame of discarding the rule of law for short-term advantage because I stood in its ruins. Liberals think this free society just sort of happened, that they can poke and tear at its fabric and things will just go on as before. But they won’t. So at the end of the day, if you want a society governed by the rule of force, you better pray that you’re on the side with the guns and those who know how to use them.
Kurt Schlichter
April 5, 2015
Liberals May Regret Their New Rules
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
The paid nutters of the nra, aka the #tinycockclub are losing their shit. It’s hysterical. Search my mentions, point, laugh. #gunsense #bok
Bacon @Baconmints
Tweeted on December 23, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a Tweet from BFD @BigFatDave.—Joe]
If Obama wants to truly curb gun ownership at the national level, the solution there is also simple, as the following chart from the NYT reveals:
He should resign.
Tyler Durden
January 1, 2016
Obama To Unveil “Multiple Gun Control” Executive Actions Next Week
[I’m not sure it would reduce it but it stands a chance of slowing the growth.—Joe]
Via NRA-ILA:
I found this taped on the wall of someone that I had been repeated told was very anti-gun.
I’m confused now. I don’t know what to think about them.
But I do know the comic does a good job of expressing our doubts about the validity of surveys to determine the number of gun owners.
The fact is, the President’s gun control agenda will only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to self-defense.
Jennifer Baker
NRA spokeswoman
January 1, 2016
Gun Control Is Obama’s New Year’s Resolution
[Baker is correct.
Because gun control advocates don’t recognize the existence of or the legitimacy of self-defense they can convince themselves that any restriction on gun ownership is a good thing because it will make it harder for the bad guys to get guns. Any negative consequences of making it harder for good people to obtain or use guns is ignored and/or dismissed.
What is lost to many people is that restrictions on firearms ownership always affect the normally law abiding people far more than those who habitually disobey the law. Think of the illegal use of recreational drugs. How hard is it for someone to obtain and use them if they are willing to break the law? It’s trivially easy. But it is very difficult for someone to stay within the law and use those same drugs (they have to obtain and use them in a location outside the law such as in a different country or out at sea).
Making it difficult for the normally law-abiding to defend themselves is an extremely immoral act, a violation of our rights, and is, rightly so, a crime. These criminals should be arrested and prosecuted.—Joe]
The best evidence to date suggests that right-to-carry laws increase gun violence, so efforts to eliminate or tighten those laws and to oppose their adoption in the states that do have them would be prudent at this time. A recent study noted that since May 2007, 29 concealed carry permit holders have gone on shooting sprees that killed at least three individuals. In general, legislative tightening of those allowed to possess guns to the fullest extent that the Constitution allows is clearly worth exploring.
John Donohue
Stanford Law Professor
December 31, 2015
Improved gun buyer background checks would impede some mass shootings, Stanford expert says
[“Gun violence” is a totally false metric and is immediate disqualification for taking this “expert” seriously. “Gun violence” includes self-defense shootings, and ignores any increase in non-gun violence as a result of people being unable to defend themselves. This “expert” clearly has an prejudiced and bigoted agenda against the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. And he does not even acknowledge the existence of such a right.
In eight years 29 of the millions of concealed carry permit holders have killed three people? How many people in that same time period with medical degrees, drivers licenses, and police badges kill? If Donohue’s claim is true then he just claimed we are extraordinarily safe people yet he presents it as if we are dangerous.
This is no different than someone discussing “black violence” and insisting government should enslave all people with black skin based on the number of crimes committed by such people and completely ignoring the 13th Amendment. Someone with Donohue’s attitude on fundamental human rights isn’t fit to clean the toilets at Stanford let alone represent them in public.—Joe]
Back in North Texas a young coed was visibly upset when interviewed on TV. The guy sitting next to her in class might whip out his concealed carry gun and start shooting, she feared. A libertarian would ask why she also didn’t fear that he might suddenly start bashing her with his MacBook or stabbing her with his BIC pen? Or maybe whipping out his concealed carry phallus and raping her? This is, after all, the same guy who has been sitting next to her all semester. Why the sudden irrational fear over a gun?
Why isn’t she reassured that another student sitting nearby with a gun will jump in and defend her? Why, in fact, doesn’t she just grow up, act like a responsible adult, get handgun certified and defend herself?
Maybe people just need to stop coddling and being coddled.
Garry Reed
December 29, 2015
Gun culture, anti-gun culture and Texas campus carry
[The anti-gun culture has nothing but childish insults so it seems entirely appropriate to speak to them as if they were children. Something like, “Go someplace else now, the adults are talking.” Or perhaps better yet tell them, “Grow up and act like adults instead of spoiled children.”—Joe]
Denying a request to carry a gun in public is not disarming that person; he already owns the gun, and no one is proposing to take it away; just keep it at home. Reasonable gun controls designed to save lives have nothing to do with taking guns away. The writer says that “Examples abound of gun control leading to extermination of dissidents and minorities”, but of course he does not mention any actual examples where this occurred, and there are none.
Bruce Rollier
December 29, 2015
Gun control is not about disarming U.S. citizens
[I would find it difficult to come up with a more disingenuous and/or delusional statement even if I were deliberately trying. This is total crap for brains or alternate universe material.
If you can’t carry a gun in public then you are disarmed in public. Which is, DISARMED.
No one is proposing to take away our guns? Is the New York Times, numerous politicians, and hundreds of ordinary citizens I have documented as saying they want to take our guns “no one”?
I have to wonder what color the sky is in his universe where Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, The People’s Republic of China, Cambodia, and numerous other countries did not murdered tens of millions of disarmed people.—Joe]
Americans should possess at least 1.25 billion firearms, likely closer to 2 billion, and at least 1200 rounds of ammo on hand in between range trips.
Only a coward with a small penis would argue for less.
Michael Z. Williamson
December 27, 2015
They Complain About 1.1 Guns Per Person? That’s Not Nearly Enough
[Okay, without the prevalence of Markley’s Law the last sentence would be a little over the top. But the anti-gun people do go with Markley’s Law all the time so I find it amusing to reverse the tables on them.—Joe]
@kounteeline And you’re a doughy, stupid, tiny-dicked moron fapping while you watch Rambo movies & eat Cheetos. Fuck off. @wallsofthecity
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]
My complete answer, off the record, is we should ban guns altogether, period.
Thiruvendran Vignarajah
Maryland Deputy Attorney General
2015
[Via Glenn Reynolds and David Hardy.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
