Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Andrew Kohut

Posted on by

We are at a moment when most Americans believe crime rates are rising and when most believe gun ownership – not gun control – makes people safer.

…

A 2013 Pew Research survey showed that protection is now the top reason gun owners offer for why they choose to own a gun (in 1999, hunting was the top reason). And among the public at large, the latest Gallup survey finds that 63% of Americans now say having a gun in the home makes it a safer place compared with 30% who say it makes a home more dangerous. Fifteen years ago, more said the presence of a gun made a home more dangerous (51%) than safer (35%).

Andrew Kohut
Despite lower crime rates, support for gun rights increases
April 17, 2015
[Principals are important but public opinion is what wins elections and to a great extent judicial rulings. We are now getting nearly everything going our way. We need to politically exterminate the anti-gun people as quickly as we can and make them as socially distasteful as the KKK.

In addition to reasonably hard data like the surveys referenced above I know my workplace has a lot of people quite friendly to gun ownership. And I know one woman who just recently put her profile on Match.com after being “off the market” for several years. She commented to me just last week that many of the men on the site have pictures of themselves with guns. According to her this wasn’t the case even five years ago.

The anti-gun people are headed to the dustbin of history. Help them get there as quickly as we legally can.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Heather Martens

Posted on by

We need to make sure every gun sale includes a background check, and we need to make sure weapons of war are not available in the civilian market.

Heather Martens
Executive Director Protect Minnesota: Working to End Gun Violence
January 20, 2013
Minnesotans rally at State Capitol against stricter controls on guns
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.

We can conclude that she has no regard for settled Constitutional law. This is because of United States v. Miller 59 S.Ct. 816(1939) specifically said that military equipment is protected by the Second Amendment:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Ms. Martens should also research Constitutional law regarding the “chilling effect” of regulations, such as background checks, on specific enumerated rights.—Joe]

Quote of the day—chimprage

Posted on by

Seems like the Seattle Times will use what ever angle they can use to further their anti-firearms ownership agenda. This time it’s the environmental angle. In the future it could be the medical angle, or the racial angle, or the feminist angle, or the gay angle, or whatever other angle they think can be used to limit the private ownership of firearms in the US.

What the Seattle Times needs to do instead is to acknowledge and accept the 2nd Amendment, and realize that it exists because this country owes it’s existence to the fact that private citizens owned and were proficient with the most modern firearms of the day.

chimprage
April 14, 2015
Comment to Toxic ranges win federal contracts
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Hillary Clinton

Posted on by

I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be.

Hillary Clinton
April 16, 2008
Democratic Debate in Philadelphia
[It would appear that Ms. Clinton is of the opinion that as long as there are one or more exceptions under some circumstances then a near total ban on guns would be Constitutional in her view.

This should not be a surprise to anyone. She has explicitly said that people holding the opinion that the have the constitutional to own guns “terrorizes people” and this should not be allowed. She would be the thought police if she could.

She also thinks more people exercising their rights is something to be concerned about.

See also Hillary Clinton on Guns: Not a Big Fan.

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

Please don’t let her gain the power to nominate new Supreme Court Justices.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bacon @Baconmints

Posted on by

PSA: if you are a member of the #tinycockclub you will still be a member regardless how many guns you buy. #bokbok #fuckthenra #gunsense

Bacon @Baconmints
Tweeted on December 23, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a Tweet from BFD‏ @BigFatDave.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Glenn Reynolds

Posted on by

Glamour is undermined by mockery. People steeped in multicultural respect will find that mockery difficult. The other thing that undermines glamour is crushing defeat. The Axis had glamour of its own, until Dresden and Hiroshima.

Glenn Reynolds
January 6, 2015
LIKE MOST SUCCESSFUL CULTS, IT LETS PEOPLE ACT LIKE DEMONS WHILE FEELING LIKE ANGELS
[The context above is the Islamic State but the concept also applies to the anti-gun people.—Joe]

Quote of the day—C.D. Michel

Posted on by

A regression analysis shows a strong correlation between handgun sales and falling crime (with statistically small odds that the covariance was based on random chance) positively certifies that California is safer when its people exercise their right to own the most effective tool available to defend themselves or their families.

Guns deter criminals and guns save lives.

C.D. Michel
March 27, 2015
More Guns = Less Crime; California Style
[As with the rest of the country gun sales in California have increased rather dramatically in the last few years. Read the post for the details.

This sort of evidence will, over the long run, make it more difficult to get repressive gun laws passed and to defend them in court. If we can get strict scrutiny at the SCOTUS level then it should just be a “mopping up” exercise.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Elizabeth Saunders

Posted on by

In all the years I have been in business, I have never seen anything so blatantly un-American as that agreement. The establishment of a government oversight commission with virtually unlimited authority and no accountability is in itself a violation of the basic American concept of free enterprise. No reasonable business person could possibly sign this thing.

Elizabeth Saunders
CEO of American Derringer
March 24, 2000
American Derringer – Statement regarding S&W defection
[Smith & Wesson signed the agreement and came very close going bankrupt after gun owners spontaneously (not the NRA or any other gun rights organization) boycotted them. There were many people who were of the opinion that Smith & Wesson Must Die even after they backed out of the agreement.

See also this quote of Neal Knox about the depth the gun rights movement had fallen to in the mid 1970s. We sometimes think we have it bad now, but remember that in those dark ages we were close to getting national handgun licensing with people openly salivating at the next step being handgun confiscation:

In July 1976, Shields estimated that it would take seven to ten years for NCCH to reach the goal of “total control of handguns in the United States.”

Pete Shields was the chairman of the National Council to Control Handguns (which later became Handgun Control, Inc. which then became The Brady Campaign).

While we do have a long way yet to go we have come a long way.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rosa DeLauro

Posted on by

There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.

Rosa DeLauro
U.S. Representative (D-Conn.)
April 6, 2015
Bill would pay gun owners to hand over assault weapons
[Pictures of Rep. DeLauro from The Hill and the Washington Times:

TheHillDeLauroWashingtonTimesDeLauro

You would think they would get tired of rerunning these same tired arguments. Our standard responses are:

  • It’s a Bill of Rights. Not a Bill of Needs.
  • Since the police have them it must be in their job description to “kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible”.
  • If you really believe this then you are extremely ignorant and/or lack imagination.

Her ignorance and malice is evident in this part of the article in The Hill:

DeLauro is in favor of stronger guns laws that would completely ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, she emphasized this bill would not force gun owners to turn in their firearms.

“High-capacity ammunition”? And of course she makes it clear this is just step toward her real goal of a complete ban. Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Sebastian and most of the commenters over there don’t see a problem for gun owners in this proposed law. Say Uncle just says, “No, thanks.” TriggerFinger doesn’t seem much concerned about it either.

But I would worry about this giving the Feds a list of people that are verified previous owners of “assault weapons”. One might imagine, in her mind, these are the people that need to “dealt with”. The administration has already demonstrated they use the IRS as a weapon. So what better way to get a list of your enemies than pay them a little something to identify themselves to your “weapon”, the IRS?

It’s a variation of the Lenin quote, “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jawhorse

Posted on by

The only persons who fear firearms background checks are people who cannot pass background checks.

Jawhorse
April 2, 2015
Comment to Gun background check hearing: Does bill close loophole or create unenforceable law?
[This is another one of those mental defects who believe they can read the minds of other people.—Joe]

Quote of the day—obvious-if-you-read-carefully

Posted on by

The people fighting universal background checks are the people who deliberately want to be irresponsible.  Plain and simple.

obvious-if-you-read-carefully
April 1, 2015
Comment to Gun background check hearing: Does bill close loophole or create unenforceable law?
[The type of people who say things like this have mental problems. It is common in some personality disorders for the person to believe they can read your mind. I’ve had them insist they knew what I was thinking and/or meant even with the words I used were written down and visible in front of them and I insisted they were completely, totally, wrong. They just knew in direct disregard for all the facts.

This is why I sometimes ask how someone determines truth from falsity with stunning effectiveness. I have literally been told, “It depends on how I feel.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Donnie Brasco ‏@D0NNIE_BRASC0

Posted on by

U need to stop fucking your sister & dildoing urself w/ guuuns

Donnie Brasco ‏@D0NNIE_BRASC0
Tweeted on December 19, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from BFD ‏@BigFatDave.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bob Owens

Posted on by

Brady’s attorneys simply had no viable case against the legal protections under federal law as provided by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which prevents harassment and frivolous lawsuits from gun control cultists.

In addition to dismissing the case, the judge found that the plaintiffs owe the companies they attempted to harass an award of “reasonable attorney fees.”

Bob Owens
March 30, 2015
Brady Campaign Case Targeting Online Ammo Dismissed By Judge
[I find it interesting that as the Brady Campaign lawsuit backfired on them the last Brady (of the campaign) died.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sebastian

Posted on by

Constitutional Carry is the new frontier.

Sebastian
April 3, 2015
Then There Were Six: Constitutional Carry Now Law In Kansas
[I recently had a long chat with Mike B. our friendly lobbyist at Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance about this very topic. He doesn’t really understand why so much emphasis is placed on Constitutional Carry. His point is that more benefit for more people can be achieved while consuming less political capital by getting better reciprocity and carry in places like school campuses, parks, and state and Federal lands.

I find it hard to disagree with Mike from a practical basis but ultimately we want “constitutional carry”. And the more people we have carrying without a license or proof of training and there is no “blood in the streets” the easier it is to get more lenient laws in the repressive states.

But probably the most important reason Constitutional Carry is so popular issue these days that it’s easier to get people fired up about something big than it is something incremental. Sebastian captures that with “the new frontier”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.

Posted on by

My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.

Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.
October 7, 1952
Speech in Detroit
[At first glance this appears to be a decent one line definition. Some simple tests are as follows:

  • In some societies it is unpopular to be of a particular religion/ethnicity/sexual-orientation. But in a free society such people will not be harmed as long as they do not intimidate or harm others. In an non-free society they may lose their jobs, socially shunned, their property destroyed, or even killed for merely for being suspected of matching an unpopular attribute.
  • In some societies it is unpopular to be a gun owner. But in a free society such people allowed to go about their business without restraint as long as they do not intimidate or harm others.

It is clear that the U.S. is not a free society. It has various degrees of freedom depending on the relative popularity of the activities of the person. 100 years ago gun owners were relatively free but today in certain political jurisdictions we are at great risk of going to jail if we attempt to go about our business even though our actions harm no one.

100 years ago to be homosexual in many locations in the U.S. was very risky and Christianity very low risk. Today homosexuality is much lower risk and Christianity is at some risk.

Stevenson definition is a pretty good for those issues. But as you dig into things more your realize Stevenson definition is not really adequate. What about alcohol production? Beer and wine are quite popular but highly regulated. Cars are very popular but highly regulated.

I have a half-baked hypothesis that total freedom in our country is a near constant. As it increases in one area it decreases in another. People demand control over something.

In the beginning it was black slavery, indentured servants and intolerance of non-Christians. Then as those went away it was regulation of things like alcohol, guns, drugs, business, tobacco, and a million little things. It doesn’t seem to have any relation to public safety, economic prosperity, or anything of importance. It’s just control.—Joe]

And then there were…five?

Posted on by

Kansas Gubnuh signs “constitutional” carry bill.

There’s also talk about lowering the legal age for open carry to eighteen, some citing the fact that eighteen year-olds can fight for their country. Well, yeah. I havent seen any age restrictions in the second amendment, but maybe I didn’t look close enough. That sort of thing (for those under 18) should be up to the parents, and Uncle Sam is not my daddy or my kids’ daddy.

ETA: If we didn’t think she’d be arrested for it, my daughter would be packing right now. Instead we’re forced to decide whether we’re more concerned about her being judged by twelve (actually since she’s under age it would be judged by one) or carried by six.

“I believe we can lower the age to 18 at some point in the future. I think after everybody sees that there are not going to be any of the dire predictions coming true, and they relax a little bit, then we can talk about that.”

OK; why do some people need to be “relaxed” before others can exercise their natural human rights? Where in the constitution does it say that? There must be one hell of a long list of qualifiers that I haven’t seen yet.

I’ve mentioned “control by freakout” before, and this is an excellent example – media get people all hyped up and “un-relaxed” and our rights are violated as a result. I must say it is a brilliant tactic.

Quote of the day—Eliot Engel

Posted on by

This legislation is not stopping hunters from continuing to participate in legal sporting activities. What it does is make the rational point that “green tips” are not necessary for those purposes. While some argue that these bullets have not been used to kill cops, I say why should we wait around for that day to come?

Eliot Engel
U.S. Representative
March 27, 2015
View: Deer don’t wear Kevlar
[While some may argue that Engel should be gagged, removed from office, and prosecuted before he says something even more stupid and attempts more criminal acts I say we can only prosecute him for acts committed. The principles our country is based upon say that, yes, we do need to “wait around for that day to come”. To do otherwise is called prior restraint and is, rightfully so, illegal.—Joe]

Quote of the day – me

Posted on by

“I don’t see it like that. The way I figure, the various anti libertarian government entities are violating my rights three times per day, and more. Don’t tell me I’M the felon, see. That puts the attention in the wrong place.”

Seen over at Uncle’s.

Quote of the day—Steve Wood

Posted on by

Guns are like drugs. The addicts don’t see a problem. The sober people over-react. What we need is a culture that doesn’t worship violence. From TV and movies to video games and sports, the “if it bleeds it leeds” media, (Even though crime rates are way down) Americans have a love affair, no, an addiction, to violence. Any attempt to ween them from violence elicits violent outrage. I say, come on climate change! Release that lethal dose of methane in the permafrost and end this. But I tend to be pessimistic sometimes.

Steve Wood
March 11, 2015
Comment to The NRA Wins Again on Armor-piercing Bullets, But Common Sense Was Already Lost
[Wood claims we need “a culture that doesn’t worship violence” yet he desires the extinction of humanity.

Such conflicting statements, even ignoring the spelling errors, are a sign of mental problems. But that is the norm with anti-gun people.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bacon @Baconmints

Posted on by

The paid nra nutters have gone into full meltdown mode. They hate that guns won’t make their tiny peens grow. Sad. #tinycockclub #gunsense

Bacon @Baconmints
Tweeted on December 23, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a Tweet from BFD‏ @BigFatDave.—Joe]