Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Cynthia M. Allen

Posted on by

I have yet to see a gun-control proposal that persuasively purports to do this or even one that would have stopped any of the recent high-profile events.

…

Usually, policymakers prescribe proposals that apply to a recent policy failure, but in the case of gun control, the proposals don’t even address the margins.

Cynthia M. Allen
December 10, 2015
Please, please convince me gun control will work
[Yup. And the only answer I can come up with for this behavior is that they have some other motivation than stopping the high-profile events we are seeing.—Joe]

Isn’t that interesting

Posted on by

From the AP:

One of the guns linked to Islamic militants in the Paris attacks that killed 130 people was exported to the United States in 2013, the head of a Serbian arms factory said Thursday.

Milojko Brzakovic of the Zastava arms factory told The Associated Press that the M92 semi-automatic pistol’s serial number matched one his company delivered to an American online arms dealer in May 2013. It was not clear how the gun got back to Europe.

I find this very interesting. Doesn’t this demonstrate the gun, almost for certain, was smuggled from the U.S. to France? That would seem to be a much bigger challenge than smuggling, say, cigarettes from South Carolina to New York City. Or guns from Virginia to New York City. If France can’t keep guns from being smuggled in from the U.S. then why should the gun grabbers believe guns can’t be smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico, or even Eastern Europe?

If there is a market for an existing product there will be a supplier.

Quote of the day—Ken White

Posted on by

Republicans! Don’t get me started. You can’t sneer at constitutional rights for a decade and a half and then expect them to be a credible shield when you abruptly decide they matter again. With few exceptions, Republicans arguing about Second Amendment rights resemble a kid becoming a sudden rules-lawyer halfway through a game of Calvinball.

Ken White
December 7, 2015
Talking Productively About Guns
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

When will they come for the guns?

Posted on by

Via email Mac asks:

Joe,

If those on the no fly list are to be prohibited from buying guns, what about those they already own?  When will the government come for them?

Good question.

I don’t know the answer. I suspect that is a constitutional infringement the government doesn’t want to cross right now.

Something of a side note is that while researching this I learned there are two lists which I had merged into one in my mind. One is the the “No Fly List”. The other is “Terrorist Watch List.”

From the WSJ:

The National Counterterrorism Center runs a central repository of more than 1 million people called Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE. The TIDE database, which includes about 25,000 Americans as of 2013…

An unclassified subset of the TIDE database is made available to law enforcement as part of the Terrorist Screening Database. That database contains biographical and biometric information about potential terrorists and can be accessed by local, state and federal law enforcement officials who don’t have security clearances. As of 2011, that database was said to contain about 420,000 names, according to the FBI.

The Transportation Security Administration receives an even smaller list of people subject to travel restrictions drawn from the Terrorist Screening Database. In addition to the 16,000 names on the no-fly list in 2011, another 16,000 were on the selectee list. The selectee list doesn’t prevent individuals from flying but subjects them to extra scrutiny.

About 25,000 Americans on the terrorist watch list. According to the US Census Bureau in 2012 there were about 220 million people in the U.S. 21 and over. This means they suspect about one out of 9,000 people of being terrorists. And about one out of every 7,000 people on the lists associated with commercial flight. That isn’t as big a list as what some people have been saying.

The practical problem I see with the government attempting to “come for the guns” which the people on the lists already have is that how do they know which of the people on the list possess guns? If they don’t know which people actually have guns they would have to search their homes and any other place those people might have stored the gun(s). They can’t get a search warrant unless they have probable cause of a crime being committed, a description what it is they are looking for, and where they believe to find the object. “Guns in the home or car or storage unit because they are on this list” probably is going to have the judge frowning at you rather than signing it.

But the issue of blocking sales to people on this list is a different issue because it doesn’t involve the 4th Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is considered by many people to be a second class (if it is recognized at all) right. The 4th Amendment has a process in place which attempts to protect people from having this right infringed.

A comparable process to that proposed to the purchase of a gun being subject to a background check which involves one or more secret government lists would be to subject sales of religious and political books to the same background checks. Of course most people would claim it’s not the same thing at all. My response is, “You are absolutely correct. Ideas are far more dangerous than guns. Haven’t you hear of all the people murdered by those inspired by The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, as well as the The Holy Qur’an and The Holy Bible?”

But to answer Mac’s question I think it will be quite a while before they start collecting those guns already in the hands of people on the lists. But I think it is a great question to ask of those advocating for restricting sales to such people. If they don’t bring up the 4th Amendment issues themselves then you bring them up. And then follow up with the 1st Amendment issues if such a background check were required for reading materials or church attendance.

Quote of the day—Amitai Etzioni

Posted on by

Given that even micro gun control measures will be effectively blocked by the NRA and its allies, and that promoting mini measures as potentially effective is misleading, progressives may as well go for the big enchilada: Call for domestic disarmament.

One may say that the Supreme Court, after 250 years in which the Second Amendment was read as allowing only a well-regulated militia to have guns, recently reinterpreted it to mean that there is an individualized right to own guns. This suggests that we may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.

Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written.

Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.

Amitai Etzioni
December 7, 2015
Needed: Domestic Disarmament, Not ‘Gun Control’
[It’s amusing that someone so ignorant and naïve talks about knowing who is “enlightened”.

All nine SCOTUS justices agreed the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. He thinks its plausible to replace five or more of them with people that will reverse that and ignore all the evidence going back hundreds of years? And then once you have a court that will allow such laws to stand does he can get the votes in congress?

And does he think making gun manufactures liable is going to pass muster in congress or the courts? We currently have a law specifically protecting them from liability.

And banning the sale of ammunition? That’s not only legally problematic but practically impossible. Recreational drugs are impossible to keep out of the hands of teenagers. Ammunition will be no different.

The most amusing is the part where he says “micro guns control measures will be effectively blocked” so they “may as well go for the big enchilada”? That’s like saying, “We can’t get away with robbing the local mini-mart so we might as well go for Fort Knox.

These people are apparently incapable of rational thought!

The one thing he has right is that he has a “compelling vision”. It’s compelling evidence that he is delusional and well as bordering on criminal behavior.

And if you remember anything from this it is that you should never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Good plans and crazy psychology

Posted on by

From MSNBC:

Nobody is talking about gun control in San Bernardino. Here’s why

As a financial aid administrator at a local community college, Melissa Contreras has gone through a number of active-shooter trainings at work. But this shooting hit a little too close to home for her. One of Contereras’ neighbors across the street, a mother to a 22-month toddler, was gunned down in Wednesday’s shooting.

“I have never in all 39 years in my life thought to pick up a gun,” Contreras said. “But now, I want to sign up for a class to learn and train to use one.”

And from the New York Times:

In Wake of Shootings, a Familiar Call to Arms Drives Latest Jump in Weapon Sales

“What if someone comes after me or my family?” said Janet Winkler, a grandmother who was shopping for bullets to fill the revolver inside her purse. “I used to never carry it to Target or to Wal-Mart, but the way things are, after all that’s happened, now I do.”

In the wake of mass shootings in Paris, Colorado Springs and San Bernardino, Calif., Americans are once again arming themselves — stocking up on guns and ammunition, bringing weapons into their daily routines and requesting refresher courses from firing ranges.

Thinking of both self-protection and the threat of new gun laws that could follow the San Bernardino shooting that left 14 people dead on Wednesday, much of the country is rushing toward guns rather than away: Gun shops from Texas to Maine have all recently reported increased gun sales, and in some cases, sheriffs have even urged residents to arm themselves.

It is all part of a weapons boom that has been building for weeks. More Americans had their backgrounds checked while buying guns on Black Friday than on any other day on record, according to F.B.I. statistics, which showed a 5 percent increase over Black Friday last year. In all, 185,345 people had their backgrounds checked on Black Friday alone.

Good people implementing good plans. It should help. There will still be losses on our side but it should reduce the kill ratios.

But what amazes me is the how the anti-gun people conform to the psychology described in the book When Prophecy Fails:

These five conditions specify the circumstances under which increased proselyting would be expected to follow disconfirmation.

The conditions are met and these people follow the psychology.

The majority of the people recognize gun control is a stupid response to the attacks and the anti-gun people respond with increased proselyting. And yet, with all these people believing buying guns, getting trained, and carrying them wherever they can is an appropriate response to terrorist attacks The New York Times thinks it is plausible, appropriate, and politically possible to ban gun ownership of the most popular rifle in America?

As I said yesterday:

The anti-gun people are on a downward slope to oblivion and the NYT editorial is the shrieking as they approach the abyss.

They literally do not know how to think rationally. They have crap for brains. They cannot determine truth and falsity.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

IsisAndGunControl

Note the shoes.

Via Tyler Durden, How Gun Laws ‘Work’ In Reality.

This message in this is so obvious and we have been saying this sort of thing for so long that it would be difficult for me to be convinced those pushing gun control don’t also know this. For nearly 20 years I’ve been asking, “What is the real reason they push gun control?” Examples:

I probably should make that a category on my blog.

Sympathy in this case is difficult

Posted on by

The French have been working hard for years to show the Muslims that they mean them no harm. THAT, we are told, is how you get along in peace with people of other cultures, and if other people hate you then there must be a good reason; you need to look at yourself and see what you can do to make them stop hating you.

The French have also adopted the idea of massive violations of the right of honest citizens to keep and bear arms. Criminals will have whatever they want, but the honest must be disarmed.

Predictably then, we get this quote after last night’s coordinated jihad attacks in and around Paris. This was from someone at a rock concert;

“We lied down on the floor not to get hurt. It was a huge panic. The terrorists shot at us for 10 to 15 minutes. It was a bloodbath.” (That’s from CNN if you want to look. I’m not linking to them)

If all you can do is lie down and hope, while people around you are being shot, for 10 to 15 minutes, then your tactics suck. Dozens of people died on that scene, like the helpless sheep they worked so hard to become.

They’ve brought this upon themselves, I’m very sorry to say, and it’s difficult to have much sympathy for them. We’ve tried for years to warn them.

The left in the U.S. sees all this and says to themselves; “We totally need more multiculturalism and more gun control.” That attitude, that insanity, is the enemy as much as any jihadist, for it is that attitude that has emboldened the jihadists. They must be laughing their asses off at our stupidity.

Quote of the day—NYT Editorial Board

Posted on by

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

NYT Editorial Board
December 4, 2015
End the Gun Epidemic in America
[Peter O suggests:

The NYT just published a front-page editorial (The first since 1920!) Advocating for the banning and confiscating of firearms.

You might just be able to drop the topic finally. 😉

The topic being “Don’t let anyone tell you they want to take your guns.” But that assumes there are enough people reading the New York Times for the word to get around.

My take on this editorial is this will further reduce their readership. More and more people realize that with the war with our current enemy for people to advocate gun control is an incredibly stupid idea. Even Chris Christie, who governs a state with incredible strict gun laws, called this editorial, “typical liberal claptrap from the New York Times”.

Yesterday Barb and I were at the range with a relatively new shooter and her husband. The check-in counter and gun store was packed with people. I supposedly had the training bay reserved for them but it was packed with a class. The range gave us a smaller bay and we got her shooting much better and far more comfortable with a gun. She is going to get a CPL.

My point is that rational people realize the answer to violent criminals is to respond with immediate protective violence and the best tool for that is a gun. People advocating removing the tools for delivering that immediate protective violence are being ignored and even anti-gun groups and President Obama recognize this:

President Barack Obama made a promise in October to use his bully pulpit to politicize gun control. But he hasn’t followed through — he hasn’t scheduled a single speech on the topic, instead simply reacting to shooting after mass shooting. And he’s stopped pushing for any real legislation with members of Congress.

Obama frequently repeats his promise to do something. But aides say he’s essentially given up on any significant gun control passing during his presidency.

…leaders of the groups grumble. They still get invited to intermittent brainstorming sessions at the White House where they hear talk about securing a legacy with some more moves, and then they wait as nothing real happens.

In a stopped clock is right twice a day type moment Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence President Dan Gross is right when he says:

We have seen over this past week how quickly an important social conversation can really change how we look at an issue.

The conversations I had at work, with friends wanting guns and training, and the packed gun ranges and stores over this past week we do see that, speaking literally, Gross is right. But not in the way he would like to believe. The anti-gun people are on a downward slope to oblivion and the NYT editorial is the shrieking as they approach the abyss.—Joe]

We are at war

Posted on by

Via a link on Facebook by Greg Hamilton we have pictures of the (fake) car bomb (see also here) the Islamic wannabe terrorist tried to detonate and murder 25,000 people in Portland Oregon in 2010:

PortlandBomber-FBI-1PortlandBomber-FBI-2
PortlandBomber-FBI-3PortlandBomber-FBI-4
PortlandBomber-FBI-5PortlandBomber-FBI-6
PortlandBomber-FBI-7PortlandBomber-FBI-8

To me, one of the more interesting parts of the story is this:

The evidence admitted at trial provided the public a rare glimpse at FBI techniques used in terrorism sting investigations. Most terrorism cases don’t go to trial; they often end in a guilty plea instead.

This is consistent with what Greg said on Facebook and what I have heard hints of before:

Dozens of these have been prevented. Some so early they never became a story.

Carry your gun. It almost for certain won’t help with a real car bomb but it could be very useful in a mass shooting incident.

War has been repeatedly declared on us by these people. We are at war whether you want to believe it or not.

No sane person

Posted on by

This is what they think of you:

@Libertea2012 no sane person needs a gun- they are for the paranoid- thus the mad cycle begins #gunsense #NRA

Ellen Michailov‏@2Dmonds1Pistol
December 3, 2015

And just what would you suspect a person that thinks you are insane thinks the government should be done with you?

My guess is if Ellen Michailov‏ had her way with us we would be sent to a psychiatric hospital. Progressives have a long history of doing that.

Quote of the day—Bob Doherty ‏@BobDohertyACP

Posted on by

#SanBernadino shooters reportedly used semi-automatic assault rifles, allowing them to kill so many, so quickly. Ban them, now! #gunsense

Bob Doherty ‏@BobDohertyACP
Tweeted December 2, 2015
[Via a tweet from Linoge.

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

Quote of the day—brookster1

Posted on by

Less guns means less shootings. End of story. No statistic can circumvent this simple formula. We need less guns.

brookster1
December 2, 2015 1:30 PM PST.
Comment to Active shooter reported in San Bernardino, Calif.; authorities say multiple victims, as many as three attackers
[“End of story.” I presume thins means discussion needed or allowed. Just so ou know, this means they would eliminate the First Amendment as well as the Second.

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

Crazy? Or sarcastic?

Posted on by

Sometimes I just can’t tell if someone is crazy or just being sarcastic. This is the most recent example:

… guns are the machine that accomplishes what it sets out to do no matter who the shooter is. The end results is all the same yet we have gun right supporters who continue to concentrate on demonizing the shooter instead of the weapon itself.

Quote of the day—Comrade Enver Hoxha‏@ComradeEnver

Posted on by

@NRA The best way to stop violence is a prompt march of you delusional fanatics to the nearest labor camp.

Comrade Enver Hoxha‏@ComradeEnver
Tweeted on December 1, 2015
[Via a tweet from Linoge.

This is what they think of you. This is what they want to do with you.

Take appropriate action.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Geoff Garin

Posted on by

Opposing common-sense gun safety laws either means that someone is too extreme or too much in the pocket of the gun lobby.

Geoff Garin
A pollster for Clinton’s 2008 campaign now with her super PAC, Priorities USA Action
November 6, 2015
Why Hillary Clinton Thinks Gun Control Can Win in 2016
[Via an email from Miles (a frequent commenter here).

As he also said in the email:

Yep, this is what they think of us. And if they’re this delusional, I hope thy keep thinking it.

While it’s clear the Democrats don’t have very strong presidential candidates and they are choosing their issues poorly I currently don’t see a lot of strength in their opposition. So I suspect it will be another one of those elections where many people will vote for the candidate who they think is the least evil.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bacon @Baconmints

Posted on by

Hey everybody, that guy you know who is super proud of his guns, ya, he’s impotent. #tinycockclub #bokbok #fuckthenra #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—Dana Loesch

Posted on by

Women think it’s not a world for them and I say the hell with that! It absolutely is. I believe if you can drive a car you can handle and shoot a gun.

Dana Loesch
April 18, 2015
Dana Loesch – Truly A Well Armed Woman
[Actually, in many circumstances, you can shoot a gun safely and effectively even when you can’t drive a car.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Aaron Duncan‏@AaronCDuncan

Posted on by

You want friendly, head to your local gun show and masturbate with the other gun cum guzzlers.

Aaron Duncan ‏@AaronCDuncan
Tweeted on November 24, 2015
[Via a Tweet from Linoge.

This is what they think of those who exercise their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Just remember that we have SCOTUS decisions and they have childish insults.—Joe]

Quote of the day—DEA Public Affairs

Posted on by

DEA Acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg today announced results from the 2015 National Drug Threat Assessment (NDTA), which found that drug overdose deaths are the leading cause of injury death in the United States, ahead of deaths from motor vehicle accidents and firearms.

DEA Public Affairs
November 4, 2015
DEA Releases 2015 Drug Threat Assessment: Heroin and Painkiller Abuse Continue to Concern
[H/T to Ryan McMaken for his post: DEA Releases New Drug Overdose Death Figures: Guns Safer than Prescription Drugs who also says:

If policymakers responded to drunk driving the way they respond to gun violence, we would be forced to endure nationwide bans on fast cars and automobile engines that can exceed speed limits. We would be hearing demands for laws shrinking the overall number of automobiles sold each year. “More cars equal more fatalities! We are awash in cars,” we would be told.

…

But the fact of the matter is that gun violence is simply not a leading cause of death in the US, and those things that are more likely to kill us or our children — such as prescription drugs and alcohol — are approached with caution and demands for a “measured” approach.

It’s like those opposed to gun ownership have an agenda other than public safety. The next time someone says they want to restrict guns ask them, “What’s the real reason you want to do this?”—Joe]