Category Archives: Gun Rights

This is how you measure racism?

Posted on by

From this “study” claiming to show that gun ownership is positively correlated to racism we find this is how they measure racism:

1.   It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites.        

<1> Strongly agree
<2> Somewhat agree
<3> Somewhat disagree
<4> Strongly disagree

2.  Irish, Italian, Jewish and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up.  Blacks should do the same.

<1> Strongly agree
<2> Somewhat agree
<3> Somewhat disagree
<4> Strongly disagree

3.  Some say that black leaders have been trying to push too fast.  Others feel that they haven’t pushed fast enough.  What do you think?   

<1> Trying to push very much too fast
<2> Going too slowly
<3> Moving at about the right speed

4.  How much of the racial tension that exists in the United States today do you think blacks are responsible for creating?                       

<1> All of it
<2> Most
<3> Some
<4> Not much at all

5.  How much discrimination against blacks do you feel there is in the United States today, limiting their chances to get ahead?

<1> A lot
<2> Some
<3> Just a little
<4> None at all

6.  Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class. 

<1> Strongly agree
<2> Somewhat agree
<3> Somewhat disagree
<4> Strongly disagree

7.  Over the past few years, blacks have gotten less than they deserve.

<1> Strongly agree
<2> Somewhat agree
<3> Somewhat disagree
<4> Strongly disagree

8.  Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve.

<1> Strongly agree
<2> Somewhat agree
<3> Somewhat disagree
<4> Strongly disagree

Wow! And here I thought racism was an biased view of someone because of their race which was unsupported by, or in spite of, data. Nearly all of the questions can be answered by appropriate research. Asking these questions tells us nothing about real racism. It may well be that someone knows the factually supported answers to these questions and nearly maxes out as a racist.

For example; Imagine the survey was attempting to measure racism toward Asian women and they asked to agree or disagree with the statement, “Asian women are underrepresented on United States professional basketball teams because of racism.” The only bias that could realistically be measured is if the answer was in agreement with statement since:

  1. Statistically Asian women are shorter than average.
  2. Height is a big advantage in basketball.
  3. Both of the above conditions are well known.

In general there are three conditions which must be met before racism measurement survey can be valid:

  1. The factually supported answers align with the biases of the creators of this test.
  2. The person taking the test knew the factually supported answers.
  3. The person taking the test answered the questions in a way that was not factually supported.

If any of the conditions are not met then the survey results are invalid. I am virtually certain the second and third conditions are false for the vast majority of people being surveyed and I suspect the first condition is as well.

There can only be one correct conclusion from this. I must be a racist.

Quote of the day—Bill Hooper

Posted on by

A Nation Practically Owned and Run by the N.R.A. and Walmart,which has countenanced the Fascist W regime ,and where Jeb Bush is a likely Presidential Candidate DESERVES Gun-toting Dogs on a Rampage.

Bill Hooper
December 18, 2014
Comment to Dog shoots man: Accidental shooting injures man
[H/T to Paul Koning.

Disregard the factual errors and hypocrisy of claiming President Bush was Fascist with no mention of President Obama. This is what they think of us. You and I DESERVE to be shot.

Why are progressives so violent? Oh, Now I remember. It’s in their nature.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Darth @DarthNihilus1

Posted on by

@EndNRA @jgrubb62190 @AWorldOutOfMind I see a man making up for his micropenis with a gun, in a bedroom that proves he doesn’t have a woman.

Darth ‏@DarthNihilus1
Tweeted on December 11, 2014
This was in reference to this picture:
DarthMarkleysLaw
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a Tweet from BFD ‏@BigFatDave.

My response was, “And what do you see here?”—Joe]

Quote of the day—kglnyc

Posted on by

You NRA scum are pure evil — PURE EVIL.

kglnyc
December 18, 2014
Comment to Why Sandy Hook Victims Won’t Win Their Suit Against Bushmaster
[And what do most people believe should be done with “pure evil”? Do you think people who believe “NRA scum” are pure evil don’t want to take your guns? Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance of people like this. Failure to pay this price will result in servitude and death for millions of innocent people.—Joe]

Quote of the day—AM

Posted on by

The only way this isn’t blatant hypocrisy is if the Left has denied even basic humanity to the Right. So that conservatives aren’t human, and thus not deserving of human rights. Which makes sense considering how many, “we’ll have the police round you all up and kill you” comments have been thrown at “gun nuts” over the years.

Progressives, still looking to blame someone else and implement their final solution.

AM
December 24, 2014
Comment to Their humor is very telling
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

If you use MasterCard

Posted on by

Burn their cards and send them the ashes. Because they should be prosecuted.

Update: It’s also possible, I was thinking after posting this, that it was wishful thinking on the part of Mark Glaze, or it was some MasterCard flunky that didn’t have power to promise anything.

Quote of the day—Defens

Posted on by

ubu would enter a museum of Nazi artifacts and comment on the delicacy with which the lampshades had been stitched.

Defens
December 24, 2014
Comment to Their humor is very telling
[I have long been pleased to have ubu52 comment on my blog and have invited her to attend Boomershoot to meet friends and others in the gun culture. I always viewed her as mildly anti-gun but with good intentions. My model for her was that she understood the facts and the logic of the gun rights movement but had trouble getting over some emotional hurdles into real acceptance. I appreciated her “keeping us honest” when we would get a little carried away with conclusions not fully supported by the evidence. It was “fear” of her calling me on something that would cause me to do a little more research before stating something I wasn’t totally sure of.

My model of her totally changed last night after I read a comment from her about a fiction, extremely graphic, story about someone engaging in degrading, casual sex with Ann Coulter. Her comment was:

The writing is brilliant, creative and professional. No editing required. No surprise, it was written by someone in LA because there are so many professional “creatives” here.

You may not like it because it doesn’t match your core beliefs, but the writing is brilliant.

This blew apart my previous model for her. I’m not sure what to think now but whatever model Defens is using is consistent with the known data.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian Keith

Posted on by

I am a walking no-violent-crime zone.

When I carry a handgun, I ensure the safety of all of those around me.

I don’t replace the police- far from it. I’m the guy you want around when evil strikes so that everyone can stay alive long enough for the police to arrive.

Brian Keith
December 13, 2014

[This was part of his speech at the #IWillNotComply rally in Olympia.

Brian sent me an email a couple days after the event. Part of the email said:

Maybe I’ll get to meet you at the next gun rally. I know my Dad and I would have liked to shake your hand, as we read you almost every day.

I thought about using your bigotry meme as the main theme for my speech.

I went instead for the “I own guns” theme as it is accessible without much thinking.

I did add the bit on at the end about two guys holding hands or an interracial kiss. That definitely comes from reading you.

I almost had tears rolling down my checks from reading that. I can’t begin to say how rewarding it is to make an influence like that on people.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Donnie Brasco ‏@D0NNIE_BRASC0

Posted on by

Take your skinny limp impudent dick & get on now. You’ve got kinfolk to fuck & butt a plugs to make.

Donnie Brasco ‏@D0NNIE_BRASC0
Tweeted on December 19, 2014
[Via a tweet from BFD ‏@BigFatDave.

It’s very telling that we have SCOTUS decisions on our side and they resort to grade-school insults.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charles___Darwin

Posted on by

Some of these hunters should get Viagra instead of bigger guns. Take away some of the “envy” if you know what I mean.

Charles___Darwin
December 4, 2014
Comment to 3 challenge Florida decision to lift ban on gun silencers for hunting
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

What is most interesting to me about this particular example of Markley’s Law is that the article this guy commented on didn’t even mention “bigger guns”. It was all about suppressors.

These people have mental health issues. They literally “hear” things that were not said. I’ve dealt with people like this before. You can repeat your words and they still hear something completely different from what was said. You can literally have them read the words you wrote and they insist there are words there that do not exist. You can push them hard enough to read carefully and agree that those words do not exist then, literally, ten seconds later they insist those words are there again.

I’m reminded of a story where, after visiting a mental health ward, a person asked a health provider, “Why do so many of the patients insist they hear the voice of God?” The response was, “Because it’s one of the few socially acceptable delusions.”

It is my hypothesis there are so many mentally unfit people in the anti-gun movement because it’s one of the few socially acceptable areas where total government control is somewhat accepted. Their lives are chaotic, they feel out of control, and they seek stability even though they make the very decisions that created much of the chaos. Individuality, and gun ownership in particular, represents unpredictability and chaos to them. Government control of their lives and the lives of others represents, however delusional a belief this actually is, the ultimate stability and security.—Joe]

Very telling

Posted on by

I find it very telling this anti-gun “Public Service Video” appears to advocate an activity similar to those practiced by youth organizations in countries like the USSR and Nazi Germany—spying on and turning your parents in to the authorities.

And that doesn’t even include all the crimes committed both in the making of the video and those enacted.

This is the model they envision for the path to their utopia.

Other viewpoints include:

Update: Another way to demonstrate how this is wrong is to replace the gun with a religious book. Do you turn steal constitutionally protected objects from people to give to authority figures?

Quote of the day—Mike Lupica

Posted on by

This isn’t about responsible gun owners. This is about all the slow thinkers, starting with the mouth breathers from the National Rifle Association — the ones who have pimped themselves out to gun manufacturers and prostituted the Second Amendment at the same time — who actually believe that assault-weapons bans and tougher background checks and limits on ammunition are somehow a threat to everything good and decent.

Mike Lupica
December 14, 2015
America continues to protect gun nuts, even though Newtown remains wounded two years after Sandy Hook shooting
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

That is what some people think of us. “Gun nuts”, “slow thinking … mouth breathers from the National Rifle Association.”

I’ll beat he believes we would give up before we could sound out all the words and get to the point where we read, but still not understand, that if he could he would ban the most popular guns in the country. But it is he that is the slow thinker.

He apparently doesn’t care that more people are murdered with hands and feet than are with the type of rifle used to murder children at Sandy Hook. He apparently doesn’t understand that criminals substitute one weapon for another depending upon availability at the time. He apparently doesn’t understand that when some madman is slaughtering first grade children a machete would work just as well as a rifle, doesn’t need to be reloaded, and can be fabricated in your garage from a piece of scrap metal, a piece of wood and a couple of screws.

Mr. Lupica is such a slow thinker that he believes tougher background checks would prevent “the wrong people” from gaining access to firearms yet the evidence shows any high school dropout has easy access to whatever illegal recreational drug they want as well as alcohol.

Mr. Lupica is such a slow thinker that he thinks a ban on America’s most popular gun and limiting ammunition would not run afoul of the Second Amendment.

If Mr. Lupica thinks we are such slow thinkers then why doesn’t he offer to take point when they decide to go house-to-house enforcing the “assault-weapons” bans he is advocating? If he did then we could get some real world data as to who is the slower thinker as to the practicality of such an endeavor.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mr Wiseguy

Posted on by

Sometimes – as sad as it is – only violence stops violence. The next middle-class white kid that wants to go postal should do a service to his country and do it at the NRA headquarters.

Mr Wiseguy
December 16, 2014
Comment to Why Sandy Hook Victims Won’t Win Their Suit Against Bushmaster
[There are two ways to interpret this. One is that Mr. Wiseguy wants such a person to be quickly stopped with a minimal loss of life. The other is Mr. Wiseguy wants the people at NRA headquarters murdered.

I’m inclined to believe the latter interpretation is correct. Otherwise he might have avoided the ambiguity by suggesting the event occur at a police station or a military gun range where the good guys are more likely to be in armor, relatively well trained, and with loaded guns.

Hence, I have to tentatively conclude Mr. Wiseguy is advocating for the murder of NRA employees. You shouldn’t be surprised by this. It’s an inherent part of their nature.—Joe]

A chink created in GCA68

Posted on by

Via Dave Hardy and WSJ. This is a really big deal:

This case presents an important issue of first impression in the federal courts: whether a prohibition on the possession of firearms by a person “who has been committed to a mental institution,” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), violates the Second Amendment. Twenty-eight years ago, Clifford Charles Tyler was involuntarily committed for less than one month after allegedly undergoing an emotionally devastating divorce. Consequently, he can never possess a firearm. Tyler filed suit in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that § 922(g)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court dismissed Tyler’s suit for failure to state a claim. Because Tyler’s complaint validly states a violation of the Second Amendment, we reverse and remand.

This creates a significant chink in GCA68:

In this case of first impression, we consider not the what, where, when, or why of the Second Amendment’s limitations—but the who.6 Specifically, does the Second Amendment forbid Congress from prohibiting firearm possession by all individuals previously committed to a mental institution?

It also reviews the level of scrutiny being applied by other courts, expends several pages on it, and:

We conclude our explanation of choosing strict scrutiny with a reminder of intermediate scrutiny’s shaky foundation in Second Amendment law.

Strict scrutiny it is!

With strict scrutiny the law must be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. The fact that someone was once confined to a mental institution does not mean they should necessarily be prohibited from exercising their right to keep and bear arms for the rest of their life.

The same could easily be said of those who have committed non-violent felonies.

This ruling could help end the “sporting purpose” test and the Lautenberg Amendment.

Although this was in the sixth circuit and not the ninth which covers Washington State you can see how strict scrutiny would mean the end of the most onerous portions of I-594. How can a law preventing students in a classroom from passing a an unloaded firearm to another student be considered “narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest”? The only way that can be true is if the state interest is that there not be a right to keep and bear arms.

Quote of the day—kglnyc

Posted on by

Our society is at fault for allowing people like you and the NRA for creating a national epidemic of gun violence, and one day we will be able to take reasonable legislative actions to control you murderous, greedy, insensitive elements and live freer and more safely.

kglnyc
December 16, 2014
Comment to Why Sandy Hook Victims Won’t Win Their Suit Against Bushmaster
[I’m going to ignore all the factual and logical errors and focus on the really important issue here…

And just what “legislative actions” would normally be taken to control those who are “murderous”?

As I have said before, one might even be able to make the case that the Second Amendment isn’t only not about hunting–it’s about protecting us from people like him.—Joe]

What if?

Posted on by

What if there were a county in Washington State that publically announced they would not enforce the I-594 provisions (H/T to Say Uncle and Miguel) against people who were not prohibited from gun ownership?
 
Could people travel to that county, do a private sale, and return to, say, King County and be immune from prosecution by the tyrants in King County because the “crime” occurred in a county out of their jurisdiction?

If that were the case then wouldn’t it mean I-594 is essentially unenforceable everywhere unless there were witnesses or compelling evidence that such travel and sale did not occur?

I asked this question of a lawyer friend who said, in part:

I’m not sure that the King county courts have jurisdiction over offenses committed outside the county borders. Of course, the King county prosecutor could always charge their residents with criminal conspiracy or racketeering (if they somehow discovered that an offense had occurred).

A couple of things I’ve been working on re: 594: I’m trying to get a model ordinance going at the county level that designates areas where shooting occurs (someone’s backyard for instance) as an “approved range” if no other zoning ordinance would be violated.  I’m hoping to get this going in Whitman soon- maybe it will spread. If you know people who live in “good” counties that might be interested in taking this to their commissioners, send them my way.

If you are one of those people that live in a “good county” send me an email and I’ll forward it on to my lawyer friend.

The anti-gun people think they are clever and that we are just “stupid, uneducated rednecks.” I wonder how long they will hold onto that belief as we start “driving trucks” through their stupid law and laughing at them.

Quote of the day—Mike Costanza

Posted on by

Morons with guns are the scourge of this country.

Mike Costanza
December 15, 2014
Comment to Bride, groom bring out the big guns during Washington state rally opposing universal background checks
[This is what they think of you.

And just what do you suppose they think should be done to end the scourge?—Joe]

Why just the gun manufacturer?

Posted on by

I’ve been thinking about the lawsuit against Bushmaster because of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. And the more I think about it the more clear it becomes that our political opponents are not rational.

If the gun manufacturer is responsible then isn’t the magazine manufacturer just as, if not more, responsible? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the custom springs in the gun? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the ammunition? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the propellant in the ammunition? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the bullets? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the shell casing? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the cups, anvils, and explosive compounds in the primers? Why just the gun manufacturer?

And of course we could, and have, asked similar questions about the car the shooter drove to the school, and that leads to the gasoline, tires, oil, and roads he used to get there. And once we go there why not the shoes and clothes of the shooter? Or maybe he wore glasses and would have had trouble hitting his targets if it hadn’t been for the manufacturer of the corrective lenses and the optometrist who prescribed them.

We could carry this on to bizarrely extreme levels but I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader. So how does the anti-gun mind work such that they think the gun manufacture is responsible but none of the other manufactures of the components involved in the crime are? The point is that there is no clear threshold where it is easy to say the manufacturer of one component is responsible and the next is not.

The only thing I can think of is that they have some mind distorting hatred of GUNS!!! such that they cannot think rationally. They recognize the absurdity of blaming the car and corrective lens manufacturers but it just doesn’t register that since the ownership of a gun is constitutionally protected right that makes the liability of gun manufacturer even more absurd.

The inability to recognize the obvious in defiance of clear and presence evidence is evidence of a mental disorder. We see it with Peterson Syndrome and we see it here.

Speaker at I-594 Rally for Your Rights

Posted on by

Yesterday I was asked if I would be a speaker at the rally against I-594 on January 15th. I agreed and today they announced it.

Don’t let this stop you from showing up and supporting the movement to rid our state of this unconstitutional law. Confirm your attendance here.

Quote of the day—westcoast2012

Posted on by

Back ground checks before being allowed to own a gun is just common sense, as is outlawing AK-47’s, but the pro gun movement has always seemed to me to be void of common sense.

westcoast2012
December 14, 2014
Comment to Bride, groom bring out the big guns during Washington state rally opposing universal background checks
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one want to take your guns.—Joe]