Any politician who wants gun control should not only never make office, but should be banned from politics for life.
Matt Irwin
November 6, 2015
Comment to McAuliffe Attempts To Claim Virginia Loss Wasn’t Because Of Gun Control
[Of course. It’s no different than they wanted to implement speech, religion, or book control.—Joe]
On September 13, 1994 the Democrats passed the most restrictive federal gun control law in US history. On November 8, 1994, the Democrats suffered their second biggest defeat ever. As a result of a 54-seat swing in membership from Democrats to Republicans, the Republican Party gained a majority of seats in the United States House of Representatives for the first time since 1952 and a majority of votes for the first time since 1946. It was also the largest seat gain for the Republican Party since 1946.
In January 2014, Obama and the Democrats led the charge in further restricting our Civil Rights as numerated in the Bill of Rights by trying to pass an even more oppressive gun-control law than in 1994. On November 4, 2014, the elections resulted in the largest Republican majority in the entire country in nearly a century, with 54 seats in the Senate, 247 (56.78%) in the House, 31 governorships (62%), and 68 state legislative chambers. Moreover, Republicans gained their largest majority in the House since 1928, the largest majority in Congress overall since 1928, and the largest majority of state legislatures since 1928.
I pray the Democrats are so stupid to try it again!!!!!!!! Then you will only be able to see the Party named Democrats in the history books.
M-1
November 6, 2015
Comment to Democratic pollsters: Don’t blame gun control for Virginia loss
[There is more than a little exaggeration in the conclusion but I suspect a fair amount of truth too.—Joe]
From Why Hillary Clinton Thinks Gun Control Can Win in 2016:
Seven years ago, when Hillary Clinton was fighting a grueling Democratic primary battle against then-Sen. Barack Obama, she boasted of duck hunting and championed the Second Amendment. Clinton’s campaign in Indiana sent around negative mailers pasted with rifles, accusing Obama of being weak on gun rights. She talked of learning to shoot a gun as a child.
“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” Clinton said in April 2008. “It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are.”
Now she says:
Today, Clinton’s calculus has changed. She has come out this campaign in favor of gun control measures with a vigor that surprised even some Democrats, targeting minorities and urban voters.
…
Clinton is helping shape the national debate about firearms, calling for a “national movement” to “stand up to the NRA” and lambasting Republicans for voting against gun control legislation.
I guess this must be “evolution” in action. I can’t imagine it is because she sees the potential for campaign money in taking a different position.
Whatever you do when talking to gun owners use simple sentences and talk slow avoiding big words.
Italian Rose
October 12, 2015
How to argue about gun control
[This is what they think of you.
I say, “Just let them just keep thinking that.”—Joe]
The fact is, the widespread availability of guns is a significant, but often overlooked, cause of persistent inequality in the United States. Focusing on the relationship between guns and inequality will allow gun control advocates to argue that restricting firearm access is an essential step towards achieving social justice and economic empowerment.
The first way that guns drive inequality is by making life more violent and less stable for people living in economically disadvantaged communities.
Jacob Schuman
November 4, 2015
The Equality Argument For Gun Control
[He has it exactly backwards. Guns enable a civil society.—Joe]
Let me reiterate that I am ok with mass gun seizing. And a national handgun ban.
Conor P. Williams @ConorPWilliams
Tweeted on November 2, 2015
[Via a tweet from Robb Allen.
Mr. Williams, May you live in interesting times. Molon Labe.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
I’ve proposed a similar Godwin corollary to Godwin’s Law which I have none-too-modestly dubbed “Knox’s Law.”
As an online discussion of gun owners’ rights grows longer, the probability of an ad absurdum argument involving nuclear weapons approaches 1.
Ecclesiastes 1:9King James Version (KJV)
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Chris Knox
November 2, 2015
Comment to Quote of the day—Darcy @brooklinegirl
[And so it shall be. We now have a Knox’s Law category.—Joe]
The ATF tweeted about their Open Data website the other day and I started poking around this evening. There is some interesting stuff there. It includes developer APIs for accessing their data, number of people in various positions, budgets, the number of explosives manufactures in each state, the heat produced by burning a Christmas tree, and tons of other stuff.
My reversal on guns came about because I realized that gun’s are a predicate requirement for individual freedom and security. I’ve created five principles that justify this conclusion. These principles are: (1) Armed citizens are the best defense against the world’s most dangerous killer: government; (2) I am a Jew; (3) I am not a racist; (4) a self-defended society is a safe society; and (5) the only way gun-control activists can support their position is to lie.
Bookworm
October 1, 2015
Five reasons that the benefits that flow from guns far outweigh the risks inherent in guns
[There are a lot of different reasons people can reverse their position on a subject. If you want to have the power to change minds it is important to have as many different tools in your toolbox as you can. You may need to try a great number of them before you find the tool that works in any given situation.—Joe]
There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.
Don B. Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Volume 30, Number 2, Spring 2007.
[See also the more recent commetary on it: Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control (via email from Steve at work.
The paper is over eight years old but it is still relevant.—Joe]
Firearm possession should be banned in America; President Obama can orchestrate this directive. His presidency can be remembered as a remarkable turn in United States history where a progressive leader forever changed the landscape under which we live and work. This is his legacy. To establish gun control laws in America that will reduce high levels of male violence and usher in a culture of peace and civility.
Barack Obama is the president of the United States. He can change the country. He can do it today. I believe in him.
Barbara LeSavoy
Director of Women and Gender Studies at The College at Brockport.
October 9, 2015
Obama’s legacy on guns should be to ban them
[One has to wonder how it is she determines truth from falsity. Does she believe men are incapable of violence against women without guns?
A firearm is the best tool to ensure she is not a victim of male violence. It is just the opposite of what she believes. It is guns which promote civility.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
So if you love guns, if they make you feel safe, if you hold and cuddle with them at night, then you need to be shot. You need to feel a bullet rip through your flesh, and if you survive and enjoy the feeling––then the right to bear arms will be all yours.
D. Watkins
October 16, 2015
Want a gun? Take a bullet: Take this, gutless NRA cowards — you can have a gun, once you understand the pain of being shot
[It appears to me he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of a specific enumerated right. What “price” must you pay to exercise your other rights as enumerated in the first ten amendments to the constitution? How about the 13th Amendment?
Actually it is more than a just a misunderstanding. He has it exactly backward. If he is going to violently infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms he is the one mostly likely to pay the high price.—Joe]
The most powerful predictor of virality is how much anger an article provokes. I will say it again, the most powerful predictor of what spreads online is anger.
Ryan Holiday
2013
Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator
[This is an excellent book. Jaime, my oldest daughter, got this for herself and we just started listening to it this week. Last night was our first chance to talk about it.
In some regards it is depressing and disgusting. It explains why so much of what we see online is click bait with little or no regard for the truth or completeness. On the other hand it explains in detail how much power blogs, even those with relatively small followings, have if they know what they are doing. Holiday explains in detail how he and many others manipulate the blogs and from there the major media. Everyone, except perhaps the end user, along the way gets what they want.
The online world has returned to the day of yellow journalism like it was 100 years ago. The most sensational headlines of those days sold the most papers on the street. It wasn’t until the transition of the subscription model that newspapers became somewhat trusted news sources. The subscription model of blogs and online news have been, at best, struggling and the quality is corresponding poor. Because sensationalism gets page views and page views mean advertising money, sensationalism wins over thoughtful analysis and thorough, accurate presentation of facts.
Getting back to anger. You see this in the gun rights battle. Both sides use anger to motivate their followers and raise money.
Any blogger who is even quasi-serious or anyone who is concerned about principles and truth in the news should read this book. It will not only open your eyes but it also enables those who care more about the ends than the means to better reach their desired ends.—Joe]
Maybe we are just little, and governments are huge. That doesn’t mean we should make it any easier for them to do bad things than it already is.
Roberta X
October 14, 2015
Okay, Let’s Take This “Get Rid Of The Guns” Thing One Step At A Time
[Roberta has some good points.
I would also like to suggest people look at the numbers.—Joe]
The 2nd Circuit Court upheld the NY “SAFE Act 2013” last week. Bummer. They said that NY could ban certain arms, prohibit private transfers, etc. On the one hand, that really sucks for the people of NY, another in a long line of suckage. Oh, well, I don’t live there, and I’m never planning too. And it sets a circuit court precedent that specific guns can be banned. On the other hand, it was passed so fast, and is so broad, it’s likely to get appealed to the Supreme Court, and it’s also likely to get taken up.
High risk appeal. If we win, it’s big. If we lose, it’s HUGE.
Interesting times.
You can be tough, you can be brave or you can buy a bunch of guns like a scared little coward. Your call. #tinycockclub #bokbok #fuckthenra
Bacon @Baconmints
Tweeted on December 23, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a Tweet from BFD @BigFatDave.—Joe]
Suppressors ought to be regulated like holsters and scopes.
rickn8or
October 23, 2015
Comment to Hearing Protection Act
[Be careful what you wish for. There are two solutions to the problem as stated.—Joe]
@wallsofthecity Of course we want to take your guns. And like every other liberal goal over the past 50 years, we will be successful.
bayo0786 @heyoyayo
Tweeted on October 22, 2015
[What this guy doesn’t understand is there are lines which must not be crossed.
What you need to understand is that you must never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Unlikely to pass, but a good idea none the less. The bill would remove the $200 tax stamp on suppressors and make them a normal 4473 item handled by FFLs the way a firearm would be as far as the FedGov is concerned.
Yes, I know they shouldn’t be regulated at all beyond a basic buyer-beware consumer-safety sort of “do they work as advertised” thing, but it would be another step in the right direction. It would also help the economy by increasing demand for something domestically-made.
The 2nd Circuit took the opposite approach: Guns that are more accurate and easier to use for “deadly” purposes (whether against home invaders or while hunting) are exactly the guns that may be banned. This is in tension with Heller.
By the 2nd Circuit’s reasoning, inferior guns that are less accurate, less comfortable to use and less useful supposedly enjoy greater constitutional protection. That is a Bizarro Second Amendment.
David Kopel
October 21, 2015
2nd Circuit upholds N.Y. and Conn. arms bans; contradicts Heller and McDonald
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]