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]
To a leftist, reacting to gun-grabbing rhetoric by buying a gun is incomprehensible. The President just explained that guns are bad. Why would you want to self-identify as a bad person? People who would do that are probably dangerously insane.
clintack
December 11, 2015
Comment to White House Spokesman: Surging Gun Sales a Tragic Irony
[I suspect there is more than a little truth to this. It has to do with their desire to conform with the norms of their tribe. Individualism is not something they really understand.—Joe]
From Robert J. Avrech, Jew With Gun:
As has been said by others, if they don’t want you to have a gun it’s probably because they want to do something to you and you would use the gun to resist..
There is no such thing as gun violence.
The left uses the absurd phrase “gun violence” in order to rid our culture of human agency — in other words, of morality. The left denies the notion of good and evil just as it denies IslamoNazi terror, a malignant ideology that is spreading like cancer across the globe.
When two IslamoNazis unleashed terror in San Bernardino, President Obama and the Praetorian media defaulted to their anti-gun obsession, a blizzard of Tourette’s-style rhetoric with no connection to reality. The Democrat party’s solution to the scourge of IslamoNazi terror is to disarm honest citizens. In the fantasyland Democrats inhabit, all they have to do is pass laws and the monsters who terrorize us — IslamoNazis and drug-dealing gangbangers — will vanish.
The real world does not conform to such delusions…
Robert J. Avrech
December 22, 2015
Jew With Gun
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
So President Obama is welcome to sign all of the illegal executive orders he wants, where the rubber meets the road is who comes for our guns. And “assault weapons” are the least of their problems, because as a former professional military guy with 20+ years of service I have to tell you that as a commander sitting in the TC hatch of a tank or a Stryker or a Bradley the thing I would worry about most is a local deer/elk hunter with a dialed-in, high-powered, scoped, bolt-action rifle and the skill to hit me with one round in the head at 300 meters. “Molon Labe!”
Don Kaag
December 23, 2015
Facebook comment to Quote of the day—Kurt Schlichter
[Attend Boomershoot to learn and practice for 700 yards.—Joe]
What people can do with what they buy at the gun store doesn’t bother me much. It’s what the brilliant molecular biologist who has gone sideways can do in his basement in mayonnaise jars that absolutely terrifies me.
Brett Peppe
December 22, 2015
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
So, how do liberals get their wish for a disarmed, subservient population? Because all this talk of gun banning – and now they are finally admitting that they want to take our guns – raises some practical questions. Not least among them is how you get a hundred million-plus armed citizens to cheerfully turn over their firearms at the behest of a bunch of liberals who have nothing but contempt for normal Americans.
…
Don’t count on our guys in uniform killing or dying to please a bunch of coastal liberals determined to turn American citizens into defenseless subjects. And the special snowflake spawn of the coastal elites certainly aren’t going to emerge from their safe spaces and gender studies seminars to suit up in Kevlar and kick in doors in Middle America.
Kurt Schlichter
December 17, 2015
Here’s What A Liberal ‘Gun-Grab’ Would Look Like And Why It Would Ultimately Fail
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Fuck you Connecticut Carry … go buy some Viagra if you need to open carry in order to get a hard on. Malloy has what you lack in abundance … balls! And yeah, America has much more to fear from you piss ant little boys who need your toys than we ever had to fear from the refugees. Go off in a closet and jerk your tiny dicks … we ARE coming for your fucking automatic weapons you fucking dick heads! NO MORE SANDY HOOKS just so you can get hard!
David Hale
December 13, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via email from Rich B. of Connecticut Carry, Inc.
When all they have is ignorance and hate this is what you get. It’s the best they have.—Joe]
Women have always had the right to bear arms, we have had the right to bear arms before we had the right to vote. I just get mad when I hear people say I can’t carry here, or shouldn’t carry at all or that I need a magazine capacity restriction. Those people make me angry because they put me in danger and my children in danger. If they can hire personal security they can’t tell me how I can protect my children. They are trying to put me and other women at risk.
Dana Loesch
April 18, 2015
Dana Loesch – Truly A Well Armed Woman
[Of course they are trying to put women at risk. Then they can claim to be protecting them by passing still more laws. The more self reliant individuals are the less need there is for powerful politicians.—Joe]
Yes, restrict gun ownership. Eliminate concealed carry. Ban semi-automatic weapons. Ban handguns. Make it damned hard to buy a gun. Make a gun purchase take years. Investigate the shit out of whomever wants a gun. Then post the names of the gun owners all over the Internet and list them in the newspapers… right next to the obituaries.
donna in evanston
December 14, 2012
Yes, Mr. President, Take Their Guns Away
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Fred Hiatt wants a gun-free society and isn’t afraid to share his bizarre mindset with everyone:
Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.
Prohibition.
Mass buyback.
A gun-free society.
Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.
Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe?
I don’t know what sort of mind altering drugs he is using but his reality is seriously warped. There is no logic in it as he doesn’t consider the tradeoffs. He only considers the downside of private gun ownership without considering the benefits or the infringement of rights involved in the confiscation of privately owned guns. As for safe, well, ask the tens (or hundreds depending which statistics you want to use) of millions of unarmed and disarmed private citizens murdered by their own governments in the 20th century. Yeah, they seem to be pretty quiet on the topic because they are all dead.
As I have said several times before, the reason they are all coming out of the closet now is the anti-gun people are on a downward slope to oblivion and this is the shrieking as they approach the abyss. It’s a well known psychological phenomena. With the right circumstances and when confronted with unequivocal disconfirmation they will increase their proselyting of the unsupportable belief.
Regardless of his poor mental state don’t every let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
And if you get a chance, tell Hiatt the U.S. isn’t going to have a gun free society in his lifetime.
From The Seattle Times:
Building on California’s longstanding ban on assault weapons, the state’s lieutenant governor is preparing a 2016 ballot measure calling for even tighter restrictions, including background checks on ammunition sales.
Until a majority in Congress stands up to the bullying of the gun lobby, states must take action to reduce the proliferation of weaponry that maximizes one’s ability to kill fellow humans.
Washington state should follow suit by banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. This would increase the safety of its residents and signal a stance firmly against gun violence.
…
Editorial board members are editorial page editor Kate Riley, Frank A. Blethen, Ryan Blethen, Brier Dudley, Mark Higgins, Jonathan Martin, Thanh Tan, Blanca Torres, William K. Blethen (emeritus) and Robert C. Blethen (emeritus).
Bullying is done by the strong forcing their will upon the weak. The “gun lobby” is a collection of people standing up against the attacks against our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. If, by some miracle the politicians no longer had an interest in attacking us “the gun lobby” would wither up and go away. So who’s the bully here? It’s those politicians and their coconspirators in the media who keep tying to force their will upon us.
It would increase the safety of Washington State residents? Really? Do they have documentation for that? And even if they did, it would still be an infringement of a specific enumerated right, it would be ignored by most, and vigorously resisted by nearly all the others. How would this increase safety for anyone?
But telling the truth doesn’t work for them. They have to lie, distort, and ignore the Bill of Rights and the Washington State Constitution to get their way.
I’m pleased to note the online comments are running about 50 to one against them.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns:
If you own a gun or are thinking of owning a gun for personal protection you need to know what some of the anti-gun people think of you. This is from Green Bay 4 Bernie@BernieNda4 (H/T to Linoge for the tweet):
there is no such thing as self defence it is murder
Now that you know that you can comfortable ignore or mock them and anything else they might have to say on the topic of guns.