Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Brian Doherty

Posted on by

Certain anti-gun folk seem to sincerely believe that the only reason Second Amendment advocates want to have a gun, or want other people to have the right to have a gun, is because guns are so great at killing people; that a gun not used to kill someone isn’t really worth having. But it isn’t true.

Brian Doherty
June 22, 2015
Gun Rights Advocates Don’t Just Want Guns in Order to Kill Criminals (Believe it Or Not!)
A much-hyped new Violence Policy Center study grossly misses the point about guns’ value in self-defense.
[Doherty points out the straw man almost all of us have encountered with the anti-gun people. It comes in various flavors, such as

  • The only thing a gun is good for is killing.
  • Guns are designed to kill.
  • If you own a gun you must want to kill something.

No matter how many times we correct them they keep coming back with the same or essentially the same straw man. And we keep pointing out the data, as Doherty does in his article quoted above, that successful defensive use of firearms seldom involves killing anyone or anything.

So why do they keep attempting to use this straw man when each time they get what appears to be a full mouthful of reality shoved in their face? I believe it is because their minds don’t operate in our reality. They live in their own imagined reality.

I’m reminded of something Richard Feynman observed in one of his books. I think it was a musician friend was teaching Feynman music and Feynman was teaching the musician physics. After a few weeks the musician told Feynman, “When you say you know something, you really mean it.”

What this means to me is that there a lot of people who believe knowledge is a personal thing. One person’s beliefs, knowledge, and opinions are just as valid as anyone else’s. This is emphatically not true. But yet I am certain there are a great many people who believe this. These people cannot understand facts and logical trains of thought. You can no more teach them logic than you can teach colors to someone blind from birth.

Personal interactions with these people should elicit your sympathy. Their public claims of relevance should be greeted with mockery.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John M. Snyder

Posted on by

These trying times demand that traditionalist Americans develop, defend and promote a manifesto of freedom

…

Let us fight for the right to life, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to be free from the abomination of same-sex marriage.

John M. Snyder
June 16, 2015
Manifesto of Freedom Needed
[I don’t think that word means what you think it means John. Both laws against abortion and “the right to be free from the abomination of same-sex marriage” would appear to require the use of the force of government. That’s not “freedom”.

You aren’t helping when you don’t even make sense.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jewel Staite ‏@JewelStaite

Posted on by

Maybe that last tweet wasn’t clear enough: let’s take all the guns, lock them in a box, and drop it in the middle of the fucking ocean.

Jewel Staite ‏@JewelStaite
Tweeted on June 18, 2015
[She deleted the tweet above a short time later. Here is what she said about it:

Had to delete a tweet cuz someone whose name rhymes with Dadam Raldwin pointed his nutjob followers in my direction. The crazy be out today!

That would be Adam Baldwin who said:

@JewelStaite Would the “taking” be worth the bloodshed necessary to “take” all of the guns?

While I doubt that she has been convinced of the error of her thinking she has probably been harassed enough over this and it wouldn’t do any good to further aggravate her.

Think of it this way. In this case we have the police and the military on our side of the issue, as well as nine Supreme Court Justices who agree the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The anti-gun side has someone who plays make-believe for a living.

Basically I just wanted to remind you to never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Firearms Policy‏@gunpolicy

Posted on by

How do you “prevent” people from violating laws? You can’t –there is no “pre-crime” division.

Firearms Policy‏ @gunpolicy
Tweeted on June 18, 2015
[I have tried to say the same thing over the years but this expresses it so much better.

You know The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is nonsensical simply by it’s name.—Joe]

Quote of the day—George M. Lee and John R. Lott

Posted on by

Despite assertions that the benefits from waiting periods and background checks are obvious, the complete lack of empirical studies to support those claims is stark. No evidence is offered that either of these laws reduce violent crime, nor that they reduce overall suicide rates. Even more striking, the discussions that Appellant and amici use are not relevant to the case before the court.

Evidence provided in this brief shows that for at least concealed handgun permit holders, one of the classes of plaintiffs in this case, are demonstratively law-abiding, and that it is unlikely that waiting periods or background checks for additional gun purchases could lower crime rates.

George M. Lee
John R. Lott
June 2, 2015
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CRIME PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTER
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES JEFF SILVESTER, ET AL., AND SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE
JEFF SILVESTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
KAMALA D. HARRIS,
in her official capacity as the Attorney General of California,
Defendant-Appellant.
[This is about California having 10-day waiting periods for people purchasing a gun even though they already have one or more existing guns and/or a concealed weapons permit.

You might be interested in reading the whole brief but it can be paraphrased as:

Kamala D. Harris and the supporters of this law must be living in an alternate universe. Not only don’t they have any data to support their half-baked ideas, they aren’t even talking about the topic at hand, and they misconstrue the data they do offer.

And if we were talking about what they want to talk about, which we are not and never were discussing, here is the data which destroys their view and proves they have at best a tenuous grasp on reality.

Lee and Lott were much more polite in their choice of words but that is what they said.—Joe]

Quote of the day—©Wonder Sammon™ @WonderSammon

Posted on by

@goodgreg42 @andreajmarkley @wallsofthecity All I know is that gunowners have tiny cocks. That’s why they spend their life cowering in fear.

©Wonder Sammon™ @WonderSammon
Tweeted on January 16, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a Tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Pacifist makes terrorist threat

Posted on by

The title could also be “Why are anti-gun people so violent?” From here:

After a gun-control advocate posted “Which one do I need to shoot up a kindergarten?” on a pro-gun Facebook page, Missouri police arrested him illegally, he claims in court.
     James Robert Ross posted the remark in the comments section of a pro-gun article on a Facebook page on Jan. 25.
     Jackson police arrested him the next day, for disturbing the peace and making a terrorist threat, Ross says in his federal lawsuit.
     Ross, 20, sued the City of Jackson, and its police Officers Ryan Medlin, Anthony Henson and Toby Freeman, on June 5.
     Ross says in the lawsuit that his comment “was worded in the form of a rhetorical question and did not make any specific, direct threat against any specific, identifiable person or persons.”

He was held in jail for 72 hours and was released on a $1000 bond. The charges were dropped a little over three months later on April 7. I agree with the prosecutor’s decision but still it was a stupid thing to say. It was pushing the envelope a little bit, but had it been someone who owned guns I could see it going the other way. Especially if it had been in New Jersey, New York City, Maryland, or California.

I’m inclined to say he should lose his lawsuit. I think it was appropriate that the police investigate but I’m torn on the arrest. I think it would depend a lot on his attitude when they went to talk to him.

Quote of the day—Gaia’s Dancing Indigo Children

Posted on by

#GunOwners cry about their #SecondAmendment rights but they don’t give a shit about the fact that thousands of innocent people are killed each year by their sinister death machines. It is time for us to do away with private gun ownership entirely. The only people who feel the need to own guns are paranoid, mentally ill people. If you own a gun, you are a terrible human being and if you own a firearm and you have children you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. A child who is raised in homes with firearms is 43% more likely to die of a gun shot wound. It should be considered abuse to keep firearms in a home with children and the state really should step in and take them into custody. Every gun owner in America is a potential #MassShooter, it’s only a matter of time before the snap and start spraying innocent children.

Repeal2A

Gaia’s Dancing Indigo Children
Posted on Facebook June 11, 2015
[Via a Facebook post from Sean Sorrentino.

This is what they think of you.

There is speculation this is the work of a troll. But it’s consistent with other anti-gun people.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Andrew Scott

Posted on by

We’ve seen massive decreases in violent crimes over the past two decades, but that hasn’t appeased gun controllers in the slightest. So we know that no matter how low the crime rates drop, no matter what legislation has already been passed, they will always want to further encroach on our 2nd Amendment rights.

This is why we’ve drawn the line in the sand. This is why we don’t want to give up another inch. We know that gun controllers will simply never be satisfied until there are outright bans and confiscations. It will be done piecemeal, using every “mass shooting” as an opportunity, with acknowledgements made the whole way that “this won’t solve the problem, but maybe it will help.” And then, when the problem isn’t completely solved, they will do it again. And again.

Andrew Scott
June 12, 2015
Gun Control Negotiations & the Lack of Compromise Claim
[Scott is correct. But there is more.

When they say “…maybe it will help” I don’t think the politicians believe it anymore than I do. I think they have some other reason for infringing upon this specific enumerated right. And I think they need to be asked, “What’s the real reason you are doing this?” And their response, whether it be silence, excuses, feigned insult, whatever, needs recorded and remembered.

Then, when the time comes, that response should be used as evidence at their trial. The evidence that they knew they were lying and doing something wrong at the time they were doing it will demonstrate premeditation.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Randy Barnett

Posted on by

If all this evidence of original meaning is not enough to persuade you, then you are simply not persuadable by evidence.

Randy Barnett
June 5, 2015
More evidence that the “judicial power” included the power to nullify unconstitutional laws
[Via a Tweet from Alan Gura who says, “Slaaaaaam dunk.”

Barnett’s article is about the power of the judiciary, in general, to declare laws “null and void”. Some people are apparently questioning this and Barnett supplies “Slaaaaaam dunk” evidence showing they are wrong.

The quote above was in reference to those people but it is also applicable to people who advocate for infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]

Gift idea

Posted on by

If someone wanted to get me a gift (Father’s Day is coming up) I thought I should let you know that I really like this shirt (I wear a large):

ayn_rand_who_is_going_to_stop_me

It works on so many levels.

Update: Barb read this post and reminded me of something. I referred her to the statement on the shirt in the picture above.

Quote of the day—Cody Fenwick.

Posted on by

It’s time we start thinking a little more boldly and demanding much more. We should consider abolishing private gun ownership.

…

We don’t need an alternative to guns, we just need people to realize that guns aren’t needed.

Cody Fenwick
June 7, 2015
Let’s Talk About Abolishing Gun Ownership
[Never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Any efforts along these lines will be significantly less successfully than prohibition of recreational alcohol and other drugs. And those were total disasters. I am certain an attempt in “abolishing private gun ownership” will be an even greater disaster.

Why?

Because I and millions more will refuse to give them up.

In the spirit of full disclosure I’ll share that I’m going to the range this week to practice. Then this weekend I’m going to a match to see who can hit five head sized objects the fastest. I think I can draw and hit all of five of them in four to five seconds. Or if they are close enough I can do it in under three seconds.

I can hit a man-sized target on my first shot from 957 yards away.

I also make explosives.

Your move Mr. Fenwick.—Joe]

This is what they think of you

Posted on by

Via a Tweet from Robb Allen we have this Tweet:

@ItsRobbAllen @DLoesch lol there is no need to de-humanize a gun-toting xtian conservative, that’s as far from human as you can get.

An attitude like this makes it all the easier to justify loading up the trains.

I would like to suggest that with this particular minority the task is much easier said than done.

They don’t want a discussion

Posted on by

From Half of Gun Owners Support an Assault Rifle Ban, So Why Are Politicians Still so Afraid of the NRA?

now that I’ve mentioned the unmentionable, those readers in the pro-gun community will please do everyone a favor and keep their comments to themselves.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you they are interested in a “discussion” about gun control. Always remember that the phrase “reasoned discourse” used by the anti-gun people was a euphemism for blocking and/or deleting comments by pro-gun people.

They just want you to shut and listen to them display their ignorance.

Quote of the day—Rowan‏@therowanlee

Posted on by

@ItsRobbAllen @DennisWalkerJr Nah, this has nothing to do with racism or sexism – just blowhard rednecks and their penis replacements.

Rowan‏@therowanlee
Tweeted on June 2, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via Robb Allen.—Joe]

The Insidious Semantics of “Gun Control”

Posted on by

I was taking care of my backlog of unread email and found The Insidious Semantics of “Gun Control” from JPFO. Here is part of it:

guncontrol-poster-450

“Gun Control” advocates fall into only two categories: the Liars and the Ignorant. There is no third category.

The Liars invent the lies. The Ignorant believe the lies and repeat them.

…

“Gun Control”: This is the “big daddy”, the cornerstone, the very foundation of the gun prohibitionists’ deceptive artifice. The phrase, on first hearing, sounds innocuous. After all, why wouldn’t people carefully “control” their firearms?

…

“Personal Arsenal”: This is owning anything over two guns. Two guns is “Multiple Weapons”.

A “Weapons Cache”: This seems to be three or more guns. A “Hidden Weapons Cache” means you don’t leave your guns on the kitchen table all day long.

A “Stockpile of Ammunition” is anything over twenty rounds of any caliber. It’s really a “stockpile” if you have several calibers in your “cache”. That makes you a “Survivalist” or a “Militia Member”.

There is more but the above is what jumped out at me.

ITAR is being updated

Posted on by

I’ve written about ITAR before (and here). It is being updated for the age of the Internet. With the current administration in power you know that doesn’t mean it’s an improvement from our viewpoint.

The NRA explains:

Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a “gag order on firearm-related speech,” the National Rifle Association is warning.

In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.

One could dismiss this as tin-foil hat fears but there does appear to be reason to be concerned when you read the actual proposed changes which include things like this:

This rulemaking proposes that the electronic transmission of unclassified ‘‘technical data’’ abroad is not an ‘‘export,’’ provided that the data is sufficiently secured to prevent access by foreign persons. Additionally, this proposed rule would allow for the electronic storage of unclassified ‘‘technical data’’ abroad, provided that the data is secured to prevent access by parties unauthorized to access such data.

It is easy to read the proposed changes as my reporting accuracy issues with some ammo on my blog as sufficient grounds to be subject to felony charges. Gun and ammo manufacture websites appear to be covered as well, but they would be in a much better position to pay the annual $2000 ITAR fee and get permission before posting their material.

Government is way out of control. Contempt for and ignoring our government at a very broad level will only increase until it collapses.

If you can tolerate getting angered every minute or two read By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission. I’m listening to it now via an audible book. I about a third of the way through and the situation with stupid, stifling, obvious (to me) unconstitutional  regulations is being presented. ITAR hasn’t been mentioned so far but probably 99% of the Federal regulations could qualify.

I think the author is going to tell us to ignore the regulations and wait for the collapse as the best way out. That would appear to me to be just as good as advice as anything I can think of.

Update: Sebastian agrees it is a very serious issue.

Quote of the day—George M. Lee and John R. Lott

Posted on by

CCW permit holders are so law-abiding that they compare favorably even to police officers. According to a study in Police Quarterly, during the period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007 there was an average of 703 crimes committed by police per year, with 113 involving firearms violations.6 With about 683,396 full-time law enforcement employees in 2006,7 that translates into about 102 crimes by police per hundred thousand officers. Of course, this compares very favorably to the U.S. population as a whole over those years, with 3,813 crimes per hundred thousand people – a crime rate that was 37 times higher than that for police.

But concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding than that. Between October 1, 1987 and April 30, 2015, Florida revoked 9,793 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.5 per 100,000 permit holders – a mere eighth of the rate at which officers commit misdemeanors and felonies. In Texas in 2012, 120 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 20.5 per 100,000, still just a fifth of the rate for police.

Firearms violations among police occur at a rate of 6.9 per 100,000 officers. For permit holders in Florida, it is only 0.31 per 100,000. Most of these violations were for trivial offenses, such as forgetting to carry one’s permit. The data are similar in 24 other states.

George M. Lee
John R. Lott
June 2, 2015
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CRIME PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTER
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES JEFF SILVESTER, ET AL., AND SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE
JEFF SILVESTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
KAMALA D. HARRIS,
in her official capacity as the Attorney General of California,
Defendant-Appellant.
[This makes it extremely clear that if you are concerned about private citizens legally carrying guns in public then there are a limited number of nonexclusive conclusions that can be arrived at regarding your concerns. Which of the following best describes you?

  1. You are far more concerned about the police carrying guns.
  2. You are not concerned about people legally carrying guns committing a crime with them. Instead you are concerned about those people using them lawfully. If you are a rational person we must conclude you are a violent and/or evil person afraid of being legally shot.
  3. You were ignorant about the crime rates of people who legally carry guns and will now cease advocating in support of more restrictive laws regarding the carry of firearms in public.
  4. You have crap for brains and don’t care what the data is.

Other options exist but they appear to be variations of the themes I have already enumerated. Or did I miss some?—Joe]

Orange is a special color

Posted on by

The anti-gun people were asking that everyone wear orange yesterday to support them. As with Sebastian, I didn’t see anyone wearing orange all day. But an interesting observation was made by Miguel and CCRKBA. Miguel is rather subtle so I’ll use CCRKBA’s words to provide the detail for those anti-gun people who are little on the slow side:

Today’s nationwide effort by the Michael Bloomberg-supported Everytown for Gun Safety to promote the wearing of orange garments in an effort to push the gun control agenda at least uses a color so many of Bloomberg’s former colleagues are already wearing, in prison, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms observed.

“We’ve been watching social media throughout the day, and we’re stunned that the organizers of this event chose the same color that many prison inmates, including several ex-members of Bloomberg’s other group, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, are wearing every day of the year,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “At least they’re sticking with a color familiar to so many anti-gun politicians.”

Two Bloomberg-supported groups, Everytown and Moms Demand Action, along with other gun control organizations – essentially the entire gun prohibition lobby – are endorsing and participating in today’s “wear orange” effort.

“When this publicity stunt was launched,” Gottlieb observed, “the organizers tried to peddle this as an adoption of the color that hunters wear for safety in the field. What they didn’t expect, however, is that millions of hunters and gun owners are now fighting back, reminding the gun grabbers on social media that orange is also the color of prison jumpsuits.

“At least we’ll see the anti-gunners coming from a long way off,” he chuckled, “but we can’t be sure if they’re just misguided protesters, or jail escapees. In either case, we’re advising our members to not let anybody wearing orange get too close today.

“What is truly deplorable,” Gottlieb added, “is that this effort tries to send a subliminal color-coded message, linking crime and violence to legitimate hunting and recreational shooting. Maybe next year, the gun prohibition lobby should just wear black and white stripes.”

It’s no wonder they chose orange to represent their people. It’s what so many of them wear on a day-to-day basis.

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

Posted on by

Hoplophobia continues to take a huge toll on the nation, distorts the political climate, and costs lives as innocent people are disarmed or subarmed (inadequately armed due to infringing laws) to help salve the irrational fears of its sufferers. The White House had no comment.

Alan Korwin
May 31, 2015
Medical Hope for Hoplophobia Sufferers
[Of course they had no comment. As with all people with personality disorders they don’t think there is anything wrong with them. And if something goes wrong they cannot see that they made any contribution to the problem.

In addition to consideration of a test for voters I think consideration should be giving to tests for public servants. Hoplophobia sufferers would be immediately disqualified.—Joe]