These people look at guns like sex objects. They oil them up and rub them.
Danny Jones
Mayor of Charleston West Virginia
March 7, 2015
[H/T to Sebastian.
This is what anti-gun politicians think of you and the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]
Who are the sick women who are having children with these gun nazis? It makes me physically ill. There is something mentally disturbed about people who own more than one gun.
Melissa Challenger
March 9, 2015
Facebook comment on the CSGV page in response to this photo found on Shyanne Roberts Facebook page:
Shyanne, a ten year old competitive shooter, posted the picture with the following comment:
Teee Heee the first shipment of ammo from my sponsor Steel Ridge Ammunition showed up today !! So I decided to forget about snow angels and make an ammo angel instead !
VERY, VERY happy and cant wait to hit the range, thanks so much to the entire team at Steel Ridge Ammunition!
[Apparently Challenger is oblivious to the irony of calling someone a Nazi and advocates for forcing them to give up enjoying their sport and the exercise of their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
Challenger not only wants to take away your guns. She thinks people who own guns are mentally disturbed and doesn’t think gun owners should have have a spouse or children.—Joe]
The corporation, and particularly tech companies, are particularly bad organizations for warfare. One reason is that they are too centralized. In particular, the institution of the CEO is a grave weakness (a systempunkt in global guerrilla lingo). The CEO’s centrality to the corporate network makes him/her a single point of failure for the entire organization. Another is that executives in most of the western world are very soft targets. Easy to find (Google and Google maps), easy to isolate, and easy to kill…
John Robb
March 2, 2015
It’s Open Season on the Tech Elite
[ISIS threatened the life of Jack Dorsey, a co-founder and Chairman of Twitter. I wonder if the gun free zones of corporations will protect CEO’s as well as they do schools. Will corporate security protect the upper management, their families, and corporate facilities and continue to insist the little people must be unarmed?
Interesting times…—Joe]
We’re the ones who don’t need guns to make up for impudent inadequate dicks.
Donnie Brasco @D0NNIE_BRASC0
Tweeted on December 19, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from BFD @BigFatDave.—Joe]
Were it up to me, I’d ban everything except bolt-action rifles and 5 chamber revolvers.
interrogator-chaplain
January 6, 2015
Comment to 3D-Printed Guns Are Only Getting Better, and Scarier
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
The misrepresentation, lies, and false implications of this cartoon are almost overwhelming.
I’ll just address a couple of points. There are many more than could be made in this piece of garbage.
The elephant obviously represents the Republican party. Anyone who claims any major political party in this country is so cold hearted as to deliberately disregard the deaths of the innocent victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy has some serious mental health issues. The participants in the gun law debates can disagree on the appropriate response to the event and still see the other side as caring human beings. This cartoonist sees those opposed to oppressive gun laws as something considerably less than human.
This is consistent with many other anti-gun people. They want you dead and portraying gun owners as less than human is one of the steps on the path to achieving that.
My Facebook page consists of links to all my blog posts automatically published by WordPress. A couple of friends from many decades back (it’s been 40 years since I’ve seen Ken) questioned my unsubstantiated claim that the cartoonist in this blog post was delusional to believe gun ownership rates were going up instead of down.
It is true that various polls give us the idea there is a slight downward trend. The following data is from Gallup:
The cartoon in question was published in 2013. It could have been in response to Gallup’s annual poll.
As with all statistics there are errors. In many cases increasing the sample size will reduce the errors. In other cases changing your sample methods will decrease the errors. Many initial studies are done by grad students on fellow classmates in their college or university. The sample bias is obvious and many poll questions would be pointless in such an environment. There is also a danger of the respondent giving erroneous data and in some cases would also make many poll questions pointless.
For some polls there is little or no danger of getting erroneous data from the respondents. Asking someone their favorite color would be quite safe from this type of error. Asking if there is a wanted fugitive justice living in their home would be at extremely high risk from this type of error with a resultant bias toward “No” approaching 100%. Asking them if they are in an active homosexual relationship would probably have a mild bias in the “No” direction today but would have had much higher bias in the “No” direction 75 or 100 years ago.
It is the hypothesis of many people, myself included, that gun ownership polls suffers from a minor to moderate bias in the “No” direction today.
If you look carefully at the data above you will find something I think is very telling. Look at the rate of people that have “No opinion” in the tables above. I suspect this predominately represents those people that do own guns or have guns in their homes and do not wish to lie to the pollster. Notice how this was consistently 1% in the time frame 2000 to 2008 but came up after Obama was elected? A similar pattern shows up after his reelection in 2012. It is my hypothesis that most or perhaps all of this change is due to concerns that polls about guns could be used to build databases of gun owners for nefarious purposes by an administration hostile to gun ownership. This hypothesis is further supported by the data in the first table going back to the Clinton administration. It is also supported by public approval ratings of the NRA being in the 50+% range while government approval ratings are in the 10-% range.
I’ve made a case the “No opinion” data above reflects gun owners who own guns but aren’t willing to lie to the pollster. Now lets look at indications gun owners are lying and pushing the sample bias even further in the “No” direction.
It is well known that FBI NICS checks show dramatic increases in gun sales in recent years and only deviated from the upward trend slightly in 2014 (original here). The claim by anti-gun people is that the polling data demonstrates existing gun owners are purchasing more guns and that there are few new gun owners. Those of us close to the gun community strongly suspect this is false because of what we experience at gun stores, the ranges, and in our personal lives. The impression is there are a lot of new gun owners. But how can we quantify that and avoid our own confirmation, and other, biases?
One way to quantify it is through data from states that require registration of gun owners. Illinois is one such state. A Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card is required for gun ownership. Here is what the State of Illinois says on their website about FOID cards:
The Illinois State Police (ISP), Firearms Services Bureau, (FSB) has received a record number of FOID card applications since May 2012. For example, in January 2013, the ISP FSB, received 61,172 FOID applications. As a comparison, in January 2012, the ISP FSB, received 31,655, which had been the highest number of FOID applications received during the month of January in years prior to 2012.
Those are applications. It is unclear but it appears these applications do not include renewals. If true then January 2013 had nearly double the number of new gun owners apply that it had in January 2012. This cannot be attributed to growth in the state population:
Illinois is one of the slowest growing states in the US. Between 2000 and 2010, the population of Illinois grew by a mere 3.3%, compared to a national average US population growth of 9.7%.
Estimates for 2010 through 2014 indicate even lower growth rates.
There are also sources with more detailed information about FOID numbers. Even if FOID stats includes renewals it is conclusive evidence that the rate of legal gun ownership in Illinois is increasing, not decreasing.
Massachusetts has a similar Firearm Identification (FID) card but I was unable to find the numbers (Weer’d Beard gives us these which are consistent even if not complete). Ditto for California, New Jersey and New York (I stand corrected). If someone has those numbers please let me know and I’ll update this post with the additional data.
Another proxy for gun ownership rates is the concealed weapon permits. DiveMedic gives us some numbers that also strongly suggest an increase in gun ownership rates:
… the number of concealed weapons permits in the state of Florida has more than doubled since 2009, when there were 591,830, which was double the number of permits from 2002, when there were 295,658 permit holders.
My conclusion is the polls on firearm ownership rates have a significant negative bias that distorts the true rates and that the true rate is much higher than it was 10 years ago. This is supported by the polls themselves, hard data from registration of gun owners, and proxy data. I have not been able to find any data with contradicts this conclusion.
The cartoonist is not only prejudiced and has a negative stereotyped view of gun owners but is delusional. Gun ownership rates are difficult to measure but there are a lot of indicators that ownership rates are going up. The belief that gun ownership is going down is comforting to the anti-gun person. Being part of the “herd” is important to them and their “herd” getting larger provides more comfort. As Heinlein said, “Delusions are often functional.”
I am of the opinion that it is to our advantage to let the anti-gun people keep this particular delusion. For now.
There’s no question that gun rights groups like the NRA are winning the battle for hearts and minds.
Christopher Ingraham
March 5, 2015
America has more guns in fewer hands than ever before
[H/T to SayUncle.
This is in the Washington Post!
It makes me sad to say this but humans, in general, have a herd instinct. They want other people to like them and to be like other people. Facts, logical support, and consistency tend to be of less importance than being a member of large herd.
We have the facts, logic, and SCOTUS decisions on our side but for decades they had the herd. That is slowing changing. Their claim of “few hands than ever before” is probably false do to the justifiable concern by gun owners that gun ownership polls may be an intelligence gathering subterfuge by criminals (by this I intend to include people working for the government). There is also some funny business with the wording of things. If we are clearly winning hearts and minds then I find it difficult to believe that we aren’t increasing the size of the gun owner herd as well.
I can say, with increasing confidence, that my dream may one day come true.—Joe]
Bogus premise. False conclusion. 100% prejudice and paranoia against the inalienable right to self-defense.
The plaintiffs in these cases are suing because democracy failed them. They didn’t have the votes in the places where votes count: the ballot box at referendum time, the state legislature. They turned to the courts because the Constitution, and the judiciary that is supposed to enforce it, must check democracy’s excesses. Majorities are only entitled to have their way when they aren’t having their way with someone’s rights. But if constitutional interpretation is all about who has the most votes for a policy, why should the Court care about votes on an internet brief when it can look to the result of a real statewide election?
…
There are plenty of places for you to pitch your soapbox, court ain’t one of them.
Alan Gura
March 4, 2015
Amicus Detritus
[While in this instance Gura is not referring to gun rights litigation the principle is the same. This principle, as well as many others, appears to be lost on our opponents. It may benefit us to remind them of this at appropriate times.
It wouldn’t matter if 90% of the population were in favor of enslaving the other 10%. The U.S. Constitution does not allow for that and any laws enabling it can and should be struck down. The same applies to laws infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]
This certainly isn’t the way the cartoonist intended it but when I saw this I thought, “I’m all for saner gun laws. Guns are how mothers protect their children.”
If the cartoonist had realized people would so drastically misinterpret it would they have expressed it like this? I assume they would not. If this assumption is true then doesn’t that say something about the mind of the cartoonist?
They must have difficulty in comprehending the mindset of others, right? Is that the type of person who should be driving our public policies? I say no. If they can’t comprehend there even exists another viewpoint how can they possibly weigh the pros and cons of an issue? They can only be advocates for their narrow-minded views.
Defendants cannot support their position with any factual data regarding machineguns with respect to law abiding citizens. It cannot be done and there is no justification for § 922(o)’s prohibition with regard to a law abiding citizen…
Stephen D. Stamboulieh and Alan Alexander Beck
February 27, 2015
Case No.3:14-cv-03872-M
JAY AUBREY ISAAC HOLLIS Individually and as Trustee of the JAY AUBREY ISAAC HOLLIS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States; B. TODD JONES, Director of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearm and Explosives, Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[H/T to Ry for the Tweet.
Work is in progress on making new manufacture machine guns available to the general public. I am not a lawyer but it seems the ATF made some serious forced errors in regards to trusts. While legally a very narrow window of opportunity these may bear fruit when leveraged with the Heller, McDonald, and Mance decisions.
This is consistent with what we were thinking seven years ago while waiting for the Heller decision.—Joe]
Because it is applicable to current events I’m posting a gun cartoon that is actually more pro-gun rather than the anti-gun type I usually do.
Our opponents think they are clever but they are simply wearisome. Ammo bans don’t pass constitutional muster any more than gun bans do. It just costs us time and money to slap them down. Again.
We really need to prosecute these people and put an end to this type of nonsense.
This is deliberate deception on the part of the cartoonist. Over half of the deaths by bullets are self inflicted and there is no gun specific preventative that could successfully reduce the number of suicides. Beyond that death by bullet is not an “epidemic”. Both the absolute numbers and especially the raw numbers have been dropping during the last couple of decades despite there being more guns and bullets in circulation, more people having easier access to them, and more people being able to carry guns in public.
The cartoonist furthers their deception by ignoring the potential risk of Ebola. Some strains of Ebola have a 90% death rate. Even if it were as low as 25%, as one might speculate it would be with first class medical care, with infection rates as low at 5% of the population this could result in four million deaths in a year in the U.S. You would be hard pressed to imagine scenarios involving bullets that cause that many deaths unless the government were to try confiscation of guns (H/T to Don K. for the link). Which one might imagine the cartoonist is suggesting. Hence we can tentatively conclude the cartoonist is advocating for policies which will increase not only the death rate from Ebola due to resources being moved from mitigation of the Ebola threat but increasing the probability there will be an increase in the the death rate from bullets. That demonstrates crap for brains. But as we can see it is common in their profession.
Making the #tinycockclub aka nra lapdogs, twist is a pleasure and a joy. Good times. #chickenshitcowards #gunsense #fuckthenra
Bacon @Baconmints
Tweeted on December 23, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a Tweet from BFD @BigFatDave.—Joe]
Physicians should continue to ask patients to immunize themselves against gun violence by getting rid of the guns.
Mike Weisser
Mike the Gun Guy
February 23, 2015
A Gun Violence Vaccine
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
When the government has a dog of a case, someone has to draw the short straw and argue it. In Henderson v. United States, Assistant to the Solicitor General Ann O’Connell drew that straw. It seems clear that the Court will side with petitioner Tony Henderson – a felon seeking the right to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms that he owns but can no longer legally possess. In offering concession after concession and various fallback options, the government offered a case study in controlled implosions.
Richard M. Re
February 25, 2015
Argument analysis: A controlled implosion
Via Firearms Policy @gunpolicy
[As we build a stronger and stronger foundation of case law more and more of the unconstitutional firearms laws and regulations will result in these sort of implosions. They are defending a house of cards and ultimate nearly all of it will fall to the fundamental principles.—Joe]
No. Take it from the women of America. Should a woman, wearing poor shoes for running, or with a young child, be required to attempt escape from one or more attackers rather than standing her ground and defending herself and other innocent life with the best available tools?
Notice the overweight, small headed, “angry white male”, gun owner? The cartoonist is demonstrating their prejudice and bigotry as well as their ignorance of who actually benefits from such laws.
So, rather than allow a woman to actually defend herself, the University of Colorado believes a woman can urinate her way out of a rape or she might just have to sit there and take it.
When will this madness end? And when will feminists demand that women on college campuses be allowed to protect and defend themselves against sexual assault?
S.E. Cupp
February 23, 2015
Guns for women on campus make sense
Via a Tweet from Kevin Naugle @NaugleKevin.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]