Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—David Yamane

Posted on by

Hence, the Brady Campaign’s claim that “people who keep guns in homes are almost 3 times more likely to be murdered.” From this, Kellerman and colleagues concluded, “In the light of these observations and our present findings, people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes.”

…

Of the total number of homicides committed in the study area, only 1.6 percent (30 of 1,860) were gun homicides committed in the victim’s home using a gun kept there. 98.4 percent we either outside the home, were not gun homicides, or did not use the victim’s gun. People in the case sample are 62 times more likely to be killed under these other circumstance than to be killed in their own home with a gun kept there.

David Yamane
July 18, 2014
Scrutinizing Claims About Guns in Homes as a “Risk Factor” for Homicide in the Home
[This is the 1993, long discredited Kellermann study. But this is, to me, a novel approach to discrediting the paper. And it seems to be much more powerful than the other approaches.

It makes it all the more obvious that the anti-gun people have to deliberately lie and deceive in order to get their way. Whatever their motivation it is not for the good of society and it is particularly bad for people that own or want to own firearms. These people are evil.—Joe]

Quote of the day—GunFreeNJ

Posted on by

You gun loons are all the same, nothing but hot air….come elections, you’ll see that both the voters of CT will stand together with the voters of NJ, and come out on top, and finally be finished with people like you, and the NRA.

GunFreeNJ
July 14, 2014
Comment to Conn. Gov. Molloy: Chris Christie missed chance to save lives
[And just how will the voters be “finished” with the “gun loons” and the NRA? Does that mean prisons? Reeducation camps? Death squads?

I would like to suggest that Mr. GunFreeNJ check his calculations again. There are five million NRA members and nearly 100 million gun owners in this country that consume several billion rounds of ammunition each year in practice. His plans to be “finished” with us could come with a very high price tag.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Posted on by

In the Criminal Code of 1926 there was a most stupid Article 139 – “on the limits of necessary self-defense” —according to which you had the right to unsheath your knife only after the criminal’s knife was hovering over you. And you could stab him only after he had stabbed you. And otherwise you would be the one put on trial. (And there was no article in our legislation saying that the greater criminal was the one who attacked someone weaker than himself.) This fear of exceeding the measure of necessary self-defense lead to total spinelessness as a national characteristic. A hoodlum once began to beat up the Red Army man Aleksandr Zakharov outside a club. Zakharov took out a folding penknife and killed the hoodlum. And for this he got….ten years for plain murder! “And what was I supposed to do?” he asked, astonished. Prosecutor Artsishevsky replied: “You should have fled!” So tell me, who creates hoodlums?

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago, Volume 2: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, 1918-1956.
[This is just one of many similarities of Solzhenitsyn’s USSR to present day in the U.S. that sends chills up my spine.

The USSR created hoodlums just as the UK is creating them now and our political opponents in the U.S. appear to want to create. What is even more chilling is that in the USSR the political leaders openly wrote about how the thieves “were allies in the building of communism”. This was because they were the enemy of those who owned property.

I’ll have another QOTD on this topic another time but for now ponder whether our enemies of freedom came to the same conclusion as the communists of the USSR independently, through influence from them, or are only dimly stumbling into the same situation.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

ToyGunToSchool

This is one of those things that makes me think our opponents have mental health issues. They think in terms of “messages” being sent rather than in facts and logic. While I recognize there is value in “messages” the problem is they find whatever they want to find rather than the obvious direct messages. In the case of having armed people protecting our children the obvious messages are that we are willing and able to deliver predators a copper jacketed hollow-point message of “Don’t hurt our children!” This sends a message to the children of, “We can and will protect you.”

I dealt with someone for decades that would, in extreme cases, repeatedly insist there were hidden messages in email that communicated something completely different from what was actually written. Verbal exchanges were frequently like walking into psych ward. I would ask a question and they would respond with something that was only tenuously connected to what I asked. Repeating the question would get something again only tenuously related to my question and unrelated to their previous answer. Asking them to repeat my question back to verify they heard the question would result in them insisting they heard and understood my question but they would not be able to repeat it or even summarize it. They didn’t need to be able to do that because, “I know how you think.” They literally insisted they knew what I was thinking and my words and actions were not necessary for them to act upon “what you really mean”.

The people that relate to the cartoon above are like that person. They live in a world that only intersects with ours enough that we can catch a glimpse of their alternate reality.

These people want to control us because their world is chaotic and they desperately want stability. Having a higher authority exercising control over others brings the sense of the stability they seek. For us to say, “No! We will not be unconstitutional controlled by you or anyone else.” increases their anxiety and insistence that we need to be controlled.

I don’t know how this can end well.

Quote of the day—Italian Rose

Posted on by

The AR 15 along with other repeating firearms and handguns are terrorist grade weapons that need to be eliminated from the American landscape at any and all cost. I have proof that all repeating firearms are terrorist grade. In the first video that I am showing is the prelude to a 1958 TV show The Riflemen that my grandfather probably watched. You could see that the lever action rifle used can be shot from the hip to be spray fired just like a semiautomatic military grade rifle.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOEozi95TjQ.

Italian Rose
July 19, 2014
Comment to Federal bill to restrict the content of gun advertising

[H/T to Ted N. who sent me the link via email.

I used to watch this show when I was a kid. It probably wasn’t until 1962 or or 1963 though. I’m tempted to watch an episode or two. I found what appear to be full episodes on YouTube. Here is the first one:

Don’t ever let anyone get away with trying tell you that no one wants to take your guns. Italian Rose is a strong counter example.

It’s clear from the complete rant that revolvers also qualify as “terrorist grade weapons” in this persons eyes.

One has to wonder about their opinion that these type of guns “need to be eliminated from the American landscape at any and all cost”. Just how strongly do they believe in this cause? Are they willing to die for their beliefs? I ask this question because I know quite a few people willing to kill if the Italian Rose were to be able to convince the government to start the “elimination process”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Loos

Posted on by

The bigger the gun, the tinier the penis, and while that may be absolutely, 100-percent true in every single case, there are other things guns compensate for.

John Loos
June 24, 2014
8 Things Guns Compensate For (Besides Your Penis)
n-GUN-large570
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via Say Uncle.

The entire article is stereotyped bigotry and prejudice. Supposedly the article is funny but would anyone think it was funny if stereotypes of blacks/gays/Jews were used instead?

And is that a real gun tucked into the front of his pants? It looks odd to me.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tom Dugan

Posted on by

One thing the gunnies all have in common, besides aversion to dental work, is the “shall not be infringed” crap. It is time to get the guns out of our lives!

Tom Dugan
Comment to a Facebook post by Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
[So, Mr. Friend of The Brady Campaign is saying the Second Amendment is crap, all gunnies have an aversion to dental work, and it’s time to confiscate all the guns.

My response is that if the first item is true it shouldn’t be that tough to repeal it then. He has crap for brain if he really believes the second item. Molon Labe in regards to the last item. And Mr. Dugan should take point on that campaign.

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

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

FloridaConcealedCarry

It would be far more accurate if the date were 10 years ago and headline was “Chicago and Washington D.C. have banned handguns.

But accuracy doesn’t further their agenda so don’t expect it anytime soon.

Quote of the day—Luke O’Neil

Posted on by

All women should, in fact, be armed. Where I part ways with the right here, however, is that I think if we’re going to agree to that, then we’ll need to disarm all men. Men, as the DOJ numbers point out, commit 90% of all homicides. As we’ve seen in nearly every sensational mass shooting that’s been in the news in recent years, men are simply far too emotionally unstable to be trusted with such a powerful tool of violence. If we can’t agree to get rid of the guns, then it’s time we put our collective protection in the hands of those who we can likely trust to make more rational decisions about where to point them.

Luke O’Neil
July 15, 2014
Liberal Compromise on Guns: Arm All the Women
[H/T to Brian Anderson with his post More Gun Control Lunacy: Arm All Women, Disarm All Men.

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

I find his mindset very telling. He doesn’t seem to have a concept of “let people do what they want”. It’s “arm the women” and “disarm all men”. It’s always the collective forcing some decision they made upon individuals.

Another point to be made is that he is an advocate of collective guilt. All men should be disarmed. How about laws aimed at all Jews, blacks, or gays? Collective solutions without regard for the individual.

While I think women have as much or more to benefit from firearm ownership than men I think it is far better they make their own decisions. Their bodies their choice sort of thing. But it seems the irony of such words is completely lost on these people.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

GunCrimeData

Wow!

That’s some serious projection on the part of an anti-gun person. Gun ownership and sales have been increasing while violent crime has been decreasing. But they say we don’t want to look at the data?

Yeah, right. Someone has mental problems and it’s those people who want to restrict our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Facts get in the way of their agenda.

Quote of the day—Thomas Massie

Posted on by

It is time for Congress to step in and stop the D.C. government’s harassment and punishment of law-abiding citizens who simply want to defend themselves.

Thomas Massie
U.S. Representative.
July 16, 2014
Was the House Right to Block D.C.’s Gun Control Laws?
House Republicans green-lighted a budget rider that essentially nixes D.C.’s gun laws.
[It’s a good start. Now if we could somehow get Federal Prosecutors to file charges against the politicians involved in the conspiracy to deny people their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms we would see a lot more progress.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

85

Grenades, a RPG, multiple guns, discharging into the air, and the crazy face on the NRA guy.

No bias there.

That is what they think of you. They think you have mental issues if you are a NRA member or own guns.

Sadly perfect gun case?

Posted on by

In order to advance gun law in the right direction, it is often (sadly)  necessary for bad things to happen to good people in order to create the “correct” circumstances for a compelling court case that can overturn stupid laws. There may be one in New Jersey now. Short version: a Pennsylvania nurse with a concealed carry permit drove into NJ, got busted during a traffic stop, charged with second degree handgun possession, faces three to ten years if convicted. She has no criminal history, a good job, and two kids, and prosecutors are passing up every opportunity to lighten the charges or penalty. If the facts of the case are as presented in this article, this would be a case to take to the supreme court to strike down such idiot laws. For her sake, I hope the Governor steps in and slaps some sense into the prosecutor and she gets off with a warning- but it shouldn’t have to need that. Anti-gun people like to compare concealed carry permits to driver’s licenses. Well, here’s their chance to see how well that works.

Quote of the day—Lothar

Posted on by

Anyone who objects to real background checks for ALL gun purchases is an IDIOT!

And, yes I own guns, and was a member of the NRA back in the 1950’s before it was taken over by survivalist unregulated white trash militia nuts.

Lothar
July 7, 2014
Comment to Editorial: In competing gun measures — Yes, on I-594; No on I-591 Support universal background checks for all gun sales. Initiative 594 moves Washington ahead. Initiative 591 is on the ballot to inhibit progress.
[This is what they think of you. Don’t forget that. This is not “reasoned discourse” in the sense of polite company. These people regard you as a “white trash” idiot. And they think you need to be “regulated”. I know where this sort of contempt leads. I won’t be going there. It will be far better for everyone concerned if this initiative is soundly defeated at the polls.

I also find it “interesting” that the Seattle Times editorial board considers it “progress” to criminalize taking a new shooter to the range and letting them use my guns for a few minutes without a background check and transfer paperwork each time the gun changes hands. It also applies to my loaning a gun to friend for a few days even if the friend was in fear of her abusive ex carrying out his death threat. That’s “progress” from the “progressive” mindset.

This incredible burden on gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms is very similar to I-676 in 1997 (it required “a valid handgun safety license” instead of a background check) . We used that screw up against them in the campaign and defeated them (see also here). I would say these people just don’t learn, but to the best of my knowledge none of the high level people who were active in I-676 are involved in I-594. Many of our people are veterans of that fight.

But I’m nearly certain this fight will be tougher than the I-676 fight. We were able to outspend our I-676 opponents. This time Bloomberg can easily dump whatever it takes to outspend us. Our strengths will be tens of thousands of volunteers, the veteran leaders, and millions of gun owners who will come to the polls.

The last fight was nasty. Our people had yard signs stolen every night from their yards and signs on public property in the Seattle area had to be replaced every week. Even though this was against the law the anti-gun people openly encouraged people to removed them because they were “unsightly.” Cars with pro-gun bumper stickers were vandalized.

The anti-gun people lied to the media. The media nearly ignored our 3000 person rally and gave “equal coverage” to the four counter protesters. The media used video of our assembly line making materials for doorknob hangers with a voice over saying the anti-gun people were a grassroots organization.

This fight will be just as nasty. The quote above is just the tip of iceberg. Expect vandalism. Expect to be called terrible names and be accused of terrible things. These people do not regard you and I as worthy of politeness or respect. They want you “reeducated” or eliminated.

Remember the words of Charlton Heston, “It is evil, and we must defeat it.”—Joe]

The good, the bad, the ugly

Posted on by

The last few times I used my AR it would occasionally “double”. I thought maybe it was just dirty and cleaned it. It didn’t do it for a while then it did it again. I cleaned it then when I had the private party last month it did it when it only had a few rounds after being cleaned. I set the gun aside and used a different one.

About three weeks ago I removed the trigger group and was going to replace the springs. That surely was the problem, right?

I was dismayed at the state of the important surfaces.

This is a known good hammer and trigger:

IMG_0739IMG_0740

And cropped down to just the interesting parts:

IMG_0739CroppedIMG_0740Cropped

This is the bad hammer and trigger:

IMG_0741IMG_0743

Again, cropped to just the interesting parts:

IMG_0741CroppedIMG_0743Cropped

Do you see the difference? That’s some ugly wear on those critical surfaces. I believe that was the source of the problem.

It would have been really ugly if the ATF took a dislike to me. A gun malfunctioning like that can result in a prison sentence. It’s not right. The law should be fixed. The ATF should abolished or at least have it’s “claws trimmed”. But that is the way it is.

I’m pretty sure the known good trigger group parts fixed the problem. I have probably 300 rounds through it without issue now.

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

If putting serial numbers on bullets is a good idea to help solve crimes involving guns wouldn’t it also be a good idea to put them on prescription pills to track down whoever is supplying those who abuse those drugs? Or how about serial numbers on cigarettes to help prevent cigarettes from getting into the hands of underage smokers? Or tracking the serial numbers on paper money to combat the recreational drug trade?

The answer is no to all these ideas. Anyone that suggests serial numbers on bullets is as stupid and/or ignorant as someone who suggests serial numbers be tracked on the other items.

Quote of the day—John Walsh

Posted on by

I’ve suggested to the NRA that if they continue to terrorize Congress and they want everyone to have an AR-15 or an AK-47, that in the stock of that gun you should implant a GPS chip. It has nothing to do with civil liberties — just put in them what I have in my cellphone and what you and everyone has. When I lost my iPad they activated it and tracked it down and I went, ‘This works.’ So if you put this GPS in that AK-47 and a responsible owner gets robbed, now you can catch the dirt bag selling it to the illegal gang-banger, the guy who committed those 11 murders in Chicago. Forget about civil liberties — if you use a credit card, you’re already in Big Brother’s computer.

John Walsh
July 11, 2014
10 things John Walsh said about gun control, the NRA and more
[GPS chip? And then what? It also needs the cellphone modem, the battery, the antennas, and the account with the cell phone provider. This is so easy to defeat that a fourth grader could do it. And that assumes the battery wasn’t already dead when the gun was stolen.

Which is it “It has nothing to do with civil liberties?” Or is it “Forget about civil liberties?”

The government having your credit card history is small potatoes compared to the government being able to track the movement of your guns in real time. And who says it’s okay for Big Brother to have your credit card history?

The other nine things Walsh said were just as stupid as this one.—Joe]

A step toward common sense gun laws

Posted on by

I’m all for common sense gun laws. The current laws restricting the exercise of our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms are nonsensical.

Here is just a small sample of the stupidity of some of them:

  • Short barreled rifles are restricted. You are allowed to own a handgun with a barrel shorter than 16 inches but if you cut the barrel and/or stock of a rifle down approaching the size of a handgun you go to jail.
  • Noise suppressors are required on cars but restricted on firearms. Then the neighbors of ranges complain about the noise.
  • Most states don’t have laws against openly carrying a firearm. But if you carry it concealed they have a problem. Even though some ignorant and/or malicious people threaten to, or do, call the police if someone openly carries a gun.
  • Some guns are illegal to be imported into the U.S. But the same exact gun is perfectly legal if “enough” of its parts are made in the U.S. “Enough” is subject to the whims of regulators at the ATF.
  • You are required to have a FFL to be “in the business” of selling firearms. It is okay if you occasionally sell or trade guns from your own collection. But if you sell or trade “too many” guns the ATF will charge you with “being in the business” without a license. They refuse to tell us how many is “too many”.

All of these are weak links that I think are should be challenged in court before some of the more difficult issues like “high capacity” magazines, “right to carry”, “Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale”, “micro-stamping”, etc.

This doesn’t mean that I think anything other than “shall not be infringed” should be the final objective. It’s just that I’m a big proponent of picking the low hanging fruit first.

To that effect today we have the CCRKBA announcing they are attempting to pick some of that low hanging fruit:

CCRKBA FILES LAWSUIT CHALLENGING FEDERAL LAW ON HANDGUN PURCHASES

Tuesday, July 15th, 2014

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has filed a lawsuit today in federal court in Texas against Attorney General Eric Holder and B. Todd Jones, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, challenging the current federal law prohibiting cross-state handgun purchases.

CCRKBA brings this lawsuit on behalf of its members throughout the country, who would legally buy and sell handguns outside of their home states, just as they currently do with long guns. Joining CCRKBA as plaintiffs in the case are Texas resident Fredric Russell Mance, Jr., and Tracey Ambeau Hanson and Andrew Hanson, both of Washington, D.C. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth division. Financial assistance for the lawsuit is provided by the Second Amendment Foundation.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, noting that his organization rarely pursues a legal action of such magnitude, said today’s lawsuit is necessary to advance the right to keep and bear arms for all citizens. He said current law essentially criminalizes the interstate handgun market, which does not apply to the sale of rifles or shotguns.

“It is overreaching, if not downright silly, in today’s environment with the federal instant background check system to perpetuate a prohibition on interstate handgun purchases that has outlived its usefulness,” Gottlieb observed. “If a law-abiding citizen can clear a background check and legally purchase a handgun in his own state, he would pass the same background check just across the border in another state.”

This is very important to District of Columbia residents, who can now legally purchase rifles and shotguns from federally-licensed gun dealers in neighboring states, but they still may not purchase handguns. Plaintiff Mance is a federally licensed firearms dealer who would sell handguns directly to consumers in other states, but under current law, he is prohibited from doing so. The Hansons are fully qualified under federal law, and laws in Texas and the District of Columbia, to purchase and possess handguns.

“Federal law allows for interstate long gun sales,” Gottlieb noted, “as long as the dealer follows the law, so what’s the logic of the federal government banning interstate handgun sales? Some states allow for, or even welcome, interstate handgun sales, so what’s the federal government doing?”

Quote of the day—Rolf

Posted on by

They do not care about productive contributions. They are about marginalizing, hatred, bigotry, and challenging any threat to their worldview. They are like a teenager who KNOWS!!1! they are right. They have their stereotypes, and will cling to them tightly, because like a vampire fears sunlight these sorts of minds fear reality; they know outside their temporary bubble, where they imagine they are safe because the illusion has been going on for so long, they wouldn’t stand a chance, and that thought terrifies them. SO, rather than face their fears, they retreat further into their imaginary world, where the law IS the effect, where the average person is bad but government people are good, where real independence is bad and dependence is good, where things are good or evil, and where facts and ethics are all relative.

Rolf
July 14, 2014
Comment to Quote of the day—Qrys Bin Thynkn (@QrysBinThynkn)
[In this particular case I agree completely with Rolf but perhaps not in more general instances. This particular immature, name calling, bigot read my blog post about him and continued with the penis insults on Twitter here, here, and here:

The fact that you felt the need to single out my quote tells everyone that you do, in fact, have a small penis. 😉

And you still comment. LOL!! Must be really small. 😉

Do you think these small penis gun advocates realize by ripping into my post they are basically admitting they have a small penis?

Logic and facts are beyond the capability of this guy. There is no such thing as debate using facts, benefits versus hazards, or rights versus reasonable regulation. It about delivering the last lame insult.

I guess you have to play the hand you were dealt. And if that is all that you have you do the best you can with it. But it’s still a losing hand.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Qrys Bin Thynkn (@QrysBinThynkn)

Posted on by

[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via Mark (‏@tazcat2011).

It’s mind boggling how stupid some people are. In what universe does this even begin to make sense or have any hope of making a productive contribution to a discussion about gun ownership?—Joe]