We are going to take your guns and melt them into whatever fucked up weird machinery is used to harvest kale.
Mike Monteiro @Monteiro
Tweeted on October 20, 2015
[Molon labe Mike.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Incredibly, Highland Park exempts devices that would otherwise be prohibited as a “barrel shroud” if they do not allow “the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned.”
BRIEF OF NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
August 28, 2015
[This, perhaps more than anything tells us what we need to know about the anti-gun mindset. If you shoot a gun, for whatever reason, they want the shooter to be at risk of being hurt.
This is like demanding that cars must not have doors or seat belts. If they can’t ban all of them then they want to ban all but the ones which put the users at high risk of injury. These are very sick people and should be dealt with accordingly.—Joe]
Now the Commander in Chief needs to make these laws Federal with an executive order. Full stop. One nation one policy. Australia y’all.
Gerald Lee Wolters
October 19, 2015
Comment to Federal Court Upholds Bulk Of Gun Control Laws Passed In Wake Of Newtown
[These people live in an alternate reality where they believe we are all subjects of a king or dictator.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled:
As to the ban on large-capacity magazines, the court upheld it by again pointing to Newtown and the shooter’s ability to fire “154 rounds in less than five minutes” — an observation that was in line with the lower court’s finding that “large-capacity magazines result in more shots fired, persons wounded, and wounds per victim than do other gun attacks.”
Using that criteria they could also ban six shot revolvers as well as ten round magazines. And I expect, single shot guns. As that is only about one shot every two seconds. Certainly two round magazines would be fail their criteria.
Here you see 12 shots from a revolver in under three seconds:
Hence, using a revolver, people could shoot 154 rounds in less than 40 seconds. Okay, not everyone is Jerry Miculek. And this was pretty much a peak achievement for Jerry. Even multiplying Jerry’s time by a factor of three, which brings it into the range of mere mortals, results in the 154 rounds being fired in less than a minute and a half.
Here I demonstrate shooting 35 rounds in less than 16 seconds with 10 round magazines even though I had to clear a malfunction:
This means one could easily fire 154 rounds in less than a minute and a half.
What these people don’t realize is that the size of the magazine isn’t the critical part of putting a lot of bullets on target. It’s the target acquisition time. If the number of shots fired per unit time were something they were seriously going to restrict they would have to ban cartridges.
Of course they would consider that a valid and worthy goal. But it would be ignored and just as easily circumvented as their existing ban on standard capacity magazines.
So, what’s their point? I have to conclude Ayn Rand has their number.
The problem are guns being stolen from these wannabes who watch the “Terminator” movie and have too small wee wees and run down and blow their wad on the cool blue steel of a handgun then take it home so they can stroke it and fantasize. Of course, not bothering to save any money for the gun safe or even a trigger lock. Then a year later when they are bored of it, they leave it on the dresser in plain sight and the bad guy spies it through the window and breaks in and takes it.
Then a year later the gun is used to kill someone.
What universal checks allow us to do is track the gun back to small wee wee guy who made it available to the criminal element by his irresponsible ownership of it.
obvious-if-you-read-carefully
April 1, 2015
Comment to Gun background check hearing: Does bill close loophole or create unenforceable law?
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
One might also ask this bigot if he has a citation for the research backing up his claim that this scenario is “the problem” and how background checks would improve his imagined scenario.—Joe]
Drones are another word for “skeet”.
Steve
October 17, 2015
Comment to In Post-Debate Push, Hillary Clinton Highlights Gun Divide With Bernie Sanders
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
We need the president, Congress, governors, councils, legislators and citizens to discuss the options for creating a society where gun ownership is an exception not the norm.
…
∎ We can protect our homes with a network of good neighbor communications and an attitude of welcome to the stranger.
∎ We can learn to participate in and strengthen our democratic society as the way to prevent government from becoming oppressive. (No amount of home firepower can protect us today from a rogue government army in possession of assault weapons, rockets, tanks, drones and overwhelming air power).
∎ We can provide gun rentals at firing ranges for the sport of target shooting.
∎ We can re-evaluate the ethics of hunting for sport while permitting the use of basic rifles and shotguns for hunting food and for predatory animal control in rural settings.
∎ We can work for an economic system that is fair for all people, narrowing the gap between the wealthy and the poor.
∎ We can advocate against all forms of racism and cultural bias.
Gun legislation and/or constitutional amendments may be far in the future. But political, religious and social leaders and every citizen can begin to cultivate a climate that discourages gun possession.
Rev. John Buttrick
October 17, 2015
My Turn: The path to end gun violence
[He’s delusional and/or hopelessly naïve.
But the one thing you want to remember about this is that you should never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
This is not a negotiation with the NRA. We don’t negotiate with terrorists.
Dan Gross
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
October 14, 2015
Gun control group bashing Sanders, Chafee
[H/T Thirdpower.
And what is the typical way of dealing with terrorists?
This is what they think of you and the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. They want you in prison or dead for defending and/or exercising a constitutionally protected right.—Joe]
Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.
The zealots act as if they just know — somehow — that bullets will be flying hither and yon if you allow ordinary people to have guns. Among the many facts this ignores is that gun sales were going up by the millions in late 20th century America, and the murder rate was going down at the same time.
Thomas Sowell
October 14, 2014
SOWELL: The ‘gun control’ farce
[As usual, Sowell expresses things succinctly and powerfully. Nearly every paragraph in this article is worthy of being QOTD here.
What Sowell doesn’t say, no surprise since it’s out of scope for his article, is that increased gun ownership increases the distribution of hard facts to the population at large. And since hard facts are detrimental to the objectives of the anti-gun crowd anything they do which increases gun ownership in either the short term or long term decreases the odds of them achieving their goals. Hence when politicians start talk about restricting gun ownership, and gun sales dramatically increase, they are indirectly their own worst enemy.
Instead of doing “battle” with those who advocate on social media for the restriction of our right to keep and bear arms maybe we should thank them for increasing gun sales and exposing more people to the hard facts of gun ownership.—Joe]
No one wants to touch the legitimate hunter. But we’ve got to protect society from nuts with guns.
Bay Area Official
1967
[Via Friday A/V Club: What the Gun Debate Looked Like in 1967.
After nearly 50 years of increasingly strict laws, now with some of the most repressive gu laws in the nation, the words they use are nearly the same. California has banned the most commonly sold rifles, used by hunters, sold in the U.S. and yet they never stop pushing for more.
It stops here. It stops now. And we are reversing the trend.—Joe]
If it does get to the point that “Constitutional Carry” is the law in all 50 states, we will still have to be vigilant, the forces of slavery never rest.
Windy Wilson
October 12, 2015
Comment to Quote of the day—Richard Beary
[I have nothing to add.Joe]
Talking about firearms now is like talking about race. These are difficult conversations, and people get very polarized on each side of it.
Richard Beary
Chief of police for the University of Central Florida
President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police
October 9, 2015
Gun Debate Divides Nation’s Police Officers, Too
[Also of interest from the same article:
Jennifer Carlson, an American sociologist at the University of Toronto who studies police attitudes toward gun laws, says this divide has grown since the 1990s. A generation ago, she says, police chiefs made a common cause of legislation such as the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady bill.
“And now you’ve really seen police not taking as much as a unified stance, at least publicly,” she says. “That’s been a major shift.”
She thinks this may have something to do with the expansion of concealed handgun permits, which gun rights groups pushed for especially hard starting in the late 1990s. Police chiefs initially resisted the expansion of the gun permits, but Carlson says many of them changed their minds when they saw that increased permits didn’t cause a big increase in shootings.
Back in the 90s there were discussions about whether the concealed carry permits were something we should push for or not. The argument boiled down to “The 2nd Amendment is my carry permit”. If we concede that we have to ask permission to carry a gun they can, at some later time, deny us that permission. The only principled thing to do is to push for “Vermont carry”.
Had we gone the “principled” versus practical route my guess is we would be in a much worse situation than now. Now we have concealed carry in all states and are making progress toward constitutional carry in a significant number of states. We made progress because we were able to change the culture. We were able to change the culture at the national level because we were able to show we could be trusted with guns in public in states that were gun friendly.
I despise politics because principals and rules (such as the constitution) simply don’t matter. But politics is how laws are changed and politics are the art of the practical and the possible. And that is the path to victory. You do whatever works to get closer to your goal. You get acceptance from the culture. Then you do it again to get another step closer to your goal.—Joe]
It’s just a ploy to pick up the pro-gun vote, with a promise that she’d support repeal of GCA 68 and enactment of 50-State constitutional carry, plus a $10,000 gift to each gun owner, so long as we self-verify that we have no plans to commit a crime.
David Hardy
October 9, 2015
Hillary compares dealing with NRA to negotiating with Iran
[I LOL’d.
But the reality is that Hillary is saying she regards the NRA and gun owners as terrorists and if she acquires the power she will treat us as such.—Joe]
Via Sebastian and an email from Barron we have Josh Marshall demonstrating he has crap for brains as well as honesty:
We’re now actively debating things that no civilized country has ever even contemplated – the right to take a semi-automatic weapon into a family restaurant or shopping mall.
Nope. That debate was over years ago. We have concealed carry (theoretically, even if it is impractical in some cities or states) in the entire country. Since this guy clearly doesn’t know or care to know what he is talking about you can safely dismiss everything else he has to say except this:
yes, we really do want to take your guns. Maybe not all of them. But a lot of them.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
Dear Josh,
Molon labe. I’ll be ready. Will you?
Your move.
Regards,
Joe
Please really think about guns and what they do. They KILL and that is all they do. Also the right to bear arms is for a militia and does not include Automatic weapons.
Joeann Edmonds-Matthew
October 5, 2015
In response to this comment to Oregon Shooter’s Mom Is A Paranoid Gun-Hoarder Who Taught Her Unstable Son To Love Guns
[This is what they think of guns and the right to keep and bear arms. It is total crap for brains on full display. And they want us to “really think”?—Joe]
Inherently, any firearm can be used for either offensive or defensive purposes. The performance capabilities that cause many firearms to be adopted by the military also make them a preferred choice among the American people. The inextricably intertwined history of parallel use by both the military and civilians necessarily means a firearm’s military heritage cannot foreclose its civilian use.
BRIEF OF NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
August 28, 2015
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
@andreagrimes first gun nut I see in the grocery store gets slapped up side the head and his tiny penis (aka gun) taken away.
RD Copeland @RD_Copeland
Tweeted on March 17, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via email from malroadkill.
Apparently Copeland does not realize they are announcing to the world their intention to commit the crimes of assault, battery, and theft. This also demonstrates Copeland may someday have an excellent chance to earn a Darwin Award.
All of this should surprise no one. Nearly all anti-gun people have crap for brains.—Joe]
I really wish someone would start seriously wondering why having private, for-profit companies running – and ruining – the lives of millions is a good thing.
At the very least, there should be serious limits put on their role in society, because at this point, they own us all.
enlightenment
October 1, 2015
Comment to Experian says 15M have info stolen in hack of T-Mobile data
[“enlightenment” thinks serious thought should be given to eliminating private, for profit, companies? I presume that the functions performed by private companies for everything from the food supply and health care to banking, communication, manufacturing, and transportation should all by done by the all powerful, benevolent government, right?
I don’t think there has been any other political system than that which I suspect “enlightenment” desires which has been more thoroughly tested or found to have inflicted more evil upon society. In the 20th century alone there were hundreds of millions of people murdered trying to make such systems work.
People such as “enlightenment” cannot possible have a mind that functions in any sort of way that I think of as normal. The overwhelming evidence of the errors of their thinking can only mean they have total crap for brains. That such people exist, in apparently large numbers, means the right to keep and bear arms is just a critical to the security of the free state today as it was 200+ years ago..—Joe]
The New York Times posted some drivel about ways to be a “modern man”.
Numerous others have weighed in on this:
I say a modern man is user of tools and has the right tool for the jobs he needs to do (see items 16 and 25).
It’s common for ignorant people to claim society would be better off if there were no guns in the hands of private citizens and some go so far as to say no guns at all. We then frequently explain young, large, thugs would run roughshod over the small, old, and docile. But I think a stronger case may be made by regressing only as far as the iron or bronze age rather than an age before tools.
One of the more recent genocides was largely committed by people with machetes, clubs, blunt objects and other weapons. It is easily demonstrated no guns are needed for mass murder.
It is said one man with a gun can control a hundred without one. But the odds are probably not much different for one well trained man with a bronze sword and shield.
If the next mass murdering nut job really wanted to get notoriety they would use a sword and shield. I wouldn’t be surprised if they couldn’t get an even higher body count because they would be much quieter than those who would use a gun. And never forget that you never need to reload your sword. Swords, for all practical purposes, have an infinite capacity compared to any firearm.
Taking this even further we realize that one, fit, and well trained swordsman is probably the equal of a half dozen or more weak, poorly trained swordsman. Strength, endurance, and training matter more with primitive weapons than with firearms. Firearms are a great equalizer. One elderly, frail, person with minimal firearms training has a decent chance against a couple of thugs, even with guns, as they attempt to invade a home.
Because of this great equalization power it dramatically reduces the need for thuggish “protectors” for the less strong. Dealing with others of near equal power then becomes a process of reason rather than an exhibition of force. The more equal the power the more important the ability to convince and reason with others. It is my belief that those that would have us disarmed do so because of their frustration at being unable to reason well. They long to be in a position to force us to their will. It is in their nature.
Because of this change from a society of force to a society of reason one could, and should, go so far as to say the gun is civilization. Those who claim “civilized countries” are disarmed have it exactly backward.