Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Eric Bates

Posted on by

If we want to stop gun violence, the 2nd Amendment has to be reworked and we must pass bills that restrict access to all types of weapons. The rest of the civilized world has figured this out already – but Americans are always late to the party when it comes to doing smart and sensible things.

The big problem is that the 2nd amendment won’t be reworked.

Eric Bates
May 15, 2014
The “Guns Everywhere Law” Keeps Us Safe Nowhere
[Bate doesn’t realize that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment nor “is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence”.

I think Bates should move to one of those “civilized world” places he think is “smart and sensible” where they infringe upon the right of people to defend themselves. He should choose wisely because I’m of the opinion we should push such countries to stop their human rights violations and respect the right to keep and bear arms.

Bates is one of those who Alan Dershowitz would call a foolish liberal.

If we want to stop slander and libel we need to rework the 1st Amendment. If we want to get more convictions for criminal activity we need to rework the 5th Amendment. And if we want to stop people with dark colored skin from committing a disproportionate amount of crime we need to rework the 13th Amendment.

We won’t be going there in my lifetime.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian Anderson

Posted on by

Besides the Constitutional issues with gun control, the thing that bothers me the most is that the anti-gunners just don’t know what the hell they are talking about. They say they want to have a “conversation” about gun control, but they aren’t even armed with the basic knowledge of how firearms work, let alone stats and facts to back up their attempts to disarm the American populace.

Brian Anderson
April 28, 2014
Anti-Gun NJ Politician Confused About Guns
[H/T to JPFO.

They don’t have basic knowledge about how firearms work, stats, and facts because they are irrelevant to them. Their “reasons” for wanting to disarm us are independent of such things or the facts that do matter to them must be carefully hidden from us in order for their plans to succeed.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

If you listen to and read their propaganda closely you will notice gun control groups don’t say they seek lower violent crime rates. They seek things like:

  • “Common sense” gun regulation
  • Keeping guns away from people that should not have them
  • Protecting peoples “right” to feel safe

It should be clear from the things they don’t say that they know increased gun regulation does not make the world a safer place. And because of this you must conclude that whatever their agenda is it depends on the public at large being less safe from violent crime.

Such people should be prosecuted.

Quote of the day—Ed Suspicious

Posted on by

The only constant in gun deaths is the presence of guns. Remove the guns you remove the gun deaths. Sounds great to me.

Ed Suspicious
May 11, 2014
Comment to John Oliver nails it on gun control
[Ahhh yes, the great “gun death” argument. As if everyone that dies from a gunshot wound is a tragedy and there is no benefit to gun ownership.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you that no one wants to take away your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Fed Up With Faith

Posted on by

that’s not dumb. You don’t need to Hunt. It’s only because your dick Is small!

@Fedupwithfaith
May 5, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via still another Tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Enforcing the Second Amendment

Posted on by

I have been advocating this for quite a while and I’m glad to see someone else is advocating for it as well:

We have this legal tool on our side to arrest and prosecute anyone, of any office, who violates our constitutional rights. The time is now. Enforce Title 18, USC, Section 241. We just need to agree now on an orderly procedure for carrying this out.

Quote of the day—Chris and Jeff Knox

Posted on by

Reasonable people should recognize and admit that no gun control law has ever met the stated goal of reducing crime, and there is no evidence to suggest that any of the various proposals to further restrict an enumerated right, which “shall not be infringed,” would be any more effective.

Chris and Jeff Knox
On Being Reasonable.
Front Sight magazine, May/June 2014 Vol. 31, No. 3
[Another way of expressing Just One Question.

When someone says something about “reasonable gun laws” push back on them with this. Get them to admit that it’s not about reducing crime. It’s about creating new criminals out of you and me.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Posted on by

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume One) page 13, footnote 5.
[I agree with this review on Amazon:

The writing style is captivating. To some extent, it has been a series of references about how certain people or groups of people were arrested and/or executed. All too easy how people disappeared without a trace and no one even missed them and couldn’t do anything if they wanted to. And the petty, heartless, political and bureaucratic reasons people were arrested makes one closely reconsider his day-to-day activities.

Chilling, as you can see the roots of this activity growing in our country daily.

It will take a while to finish all 3 volumes, but I plan on gradually finishing. It’s hard to read too much at once as your jaw gets tired of dropping constantly and your brain can only take so much astonishment at once.

I am only about a quarter of the way through the first volume (of three) so there may be other things that strike me more profoundly. But so far it is that nearly all believed “in the system”. That once “they” got things straightened out the arrestees would be set free and they would go home. This was even in cases where the NKVD was arresting 25% of an entire town. The NKVD had quotas to meet. And there was always multiple laws they had broken and would be charged with. Just as there are in our country today.

Because of this belief in the system they not only did not resist—they cooperated. At the request of the arresting NKVD they would even tiptoe out of their apartments so as to not wake their neighbors.

I would like to believe that if a similar situation came about in our country that my only attempts to be quiet would involve the use of a sound suppressor for my firearms.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Benny @Brios82

Posted on by

I’m against the mentally ill obtaining guns. You know…like NRA members.

Benny @Brios82
Tweeted May 8, 2014
[This is what they think of you. If you are a NRA member that is proof that you are mentally ill.

Never let anyone tell you that no one wants to take your guns away. Or send you to a mental institution. The political left loves mental institutions and gulags.

I’ve been listening to The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr I Solzhenitsyn. Scary stuff because of the easy parallels to the political left in our country right now. It’s surprisingly easy to listen too even though it is a 75 hour audible book.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jerry Large

Posted on by

We should repeal the Second Amendment.

Jerry Large
April 30, 2014
Common sense calls for repeal of Second Amendment: Guns will continue to be a problem until we remove their Constitutional shield.
[H/T to Sebastian.

Apparently he doesn’t realize the Second Amendment shields the Constitution.

He, as a person of color, should also read Negroes with Guns. I’ve commented on it before (and here). Ry loaned the book to me and told me he thought it should be required reading in our schools. I can’t say that I disagree with that. It has some very powerful stuff in it.

Isn’t it odd that some of the classes of people that would, and have, benefited the most from bearing arms are the same that are so opposed to the Second Amendment?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Hillary Clinton

Posted on by

At the rate we’re going, we’re going to have so many people with guns everywhere, fully licensed, fully validated, in settings where [one] could be in a movie theater, and they don’t like someone chewing gum loudly or talking on their cell phone and decide they have the perfect right to defend themselves against the gum chewer or cell phone user by shooting.

Hillary Clinton
May 6, 2014
Hillary Clinton pushes gun control, Obamacare
[I find it very telling that her concern is about the number of people with guns. Does she also worry about the number of people exercising their First Amendment rights? And does she think it would be appropriate to license and “validate” people that exercise their First Amendment rights?

And since she used the example of a movie theater does she also worry that if people don’t have their mouths locked shut before they enter a theater that they might yell “FIRE!” when there is no fire?

With bigotry and prejudice this severe Ms. Clinton is unfit to serve in public office. She doesn’t want to be a public servant. She wants to be a tyrant.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

Posted on by

In the wake of the Jew-hating shooting in Kansas, the National Council of Young Israel, an Orthodox network, is urging Jews, on the last days of Passover, not to walk home alone from synagogue.

With all due respect to Young Israel, that advice is just silly and only reinforces victimhood.

Do you honestly think that a Jew-hating murderer is going to be deterred by two or more unarmed Jews strolling to or from synagogue?

Robert J. Avrech
April 20, 2014
Young Israel Urges Jews Not To Walk Home Alone
[I see nothing wrong with two more people walking together to protect one another. The real point is that when there is significant risk of being attack being unarmed is taking an unnecessary risk.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Moms Demand Action

Posted on by

Moms Demand Action supports the 2nd Amendment, but we believe common-sense solutions can help decrease the escalating epidemic of gun violence that kills too many of our children and loved ones every day. Whether the gun violence happens in urban Chicago, suburban Virginia, or rural Texas, we must act now on new and stronger gun laws and policies to protect our children.

Moms Demand Action
Web page, as of April 28, 2014
[I find it very telling that if they enumerate what they think are “common-sense solutions” they don’t make them easy to find on their web site. I couldn’t find them. If they really had solutions don’t you think they would announce them all to the world? What this means to me is they are running an emotional appeal, as they have already admitted, and will push whatever restrictive law they believe has a chance of passing. Facts and logic aren’t their tools in trade.

From reading their press releases and get the facts web pages it appears that for starters they want to stop public carry, ban modern sporting rifles, ban standard capacity magazines, and eliminate “stand your ground laws”. And if they were successful doing that you can be sure they would find a lot more “common-sense” restrictions they support.

I have to conclude Moms Demand Action demands are mostly hysteria and wonder if the traditional cure for it wouldn’t bring us all some relief.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Schaus

Posted on by

Deciding that they should organize a protest outside of the NRA annual meeting in Indianapolis, gun control advocates “flocked” to show their disdain for American gun-owners… But, there was only one problem: With a mere 25 people deciding to show up for the rally, the “protest” looked more like an OFA global warming meeting.

Apparently, two dozen people was the absolute most the anti-gun group, Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence, was able to gather for the afternoon… Heck, I could probably attract a larger crowd by handing out high-capacity sodas on any given afternoon.

Michael Schaus
April 28, 2014
Bloomberg Is His Own Worst Enemy on Gun-Control
[David Hardy was there and took a picture with his cell phone (they blocked his video camera). I cannot count more than 25 in his picture yet “Moms Demand Action” claim there were “More than 100…”. And in the comments JT Niggle points out that on their Facebook page they claim “over 300”. They do have a picture up that might have 100 people in it but there is no way they have 300.

Anti-gun people almost always seem to have a problem with numbers. This is just one more example.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cliff Schecter

Posted on by

LaPierre, of course, is never held responsible for this rhetoric, even though it is not too much of a stretch to say that its repetition in all of the NRA’s magazines, radio show, emails, newsletter, speeches, on Fox News, and on right-wing talk radio and beyond clearly contributes to the killing everyday American citizens and members of law enforcement.

Cliff Schecter
April 28, 2014
Preparing for War in Indianapolis: Inside the NRA Plot to Terrify America
[And is Schecter ever “held responsible for this rhetoric” intended to promote the infringement of a specific enumerated right?

Imagine the outrage (and it would be appropriate) if Schecter had a similar screed about Muslims, women, blacks, or homosexuals. He would be (inappropriately)hounded out of a job if not investigated for hate speech.

As you can expect from anti-gun people they are all about the control of others but not of themselves.

As Sebastian said:

 

Don’t you find it telling that when he talks like this about the constitutionally protected class of gun owners you hear nothing but crickets from the those who claim to promote tolerance? This is just another data point that it’s not about tolerance. It’s about control. They want you either assimilated into the collective or banished to the gulags. It’s up to us to make sure there is at least a third option.

This is why there is Boomershoot.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Malcolm Harris

Posted on by

During Michael Bloomberg’s three terms as mayor of New York, he loved nothing more than to lord over the nation’s largest city. Now he’s just a normal civilian multibillionaire, sitting right below the prime minister of India on the Forbes list of the world’s most powerful people — a lowly position that is no doubt a source of immense personal disappointment. Short of patrolling New York’s parks in a spandex bodysuit to inflict vigilante justice on cigarette smokers and super-sized Slurpee drinkers, what’s a rich ex-mayor to do?

Luckily for Bloomberg, in American politics, controlling sublime amounts of capital is its own qualification, and lavishing it on pet issues counts as philanthropy. And this time, without an elected office to use for a pulpit, he’s going to need that money: After attacking tobacco and soda, Bloomberg is coming for guns.

Malcolm Harris
April 25, 2014
The real reason Michael Bloomberg cares about guns
[I think I found this via a post on Facebook but I can’t find it now to give the appropriate credit.

Bloomberg loves power and ordinary people having access to guns erodes some of that power.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charles C. W. Cooke

Posted on by

The National Rifle Association is successful because it is popular, because its members are highly engaged, because it is defending a right that is enumerated in the nation’s founding document and a tradition that is cherished by members of both major political parties, because its opponents routinely embarrass themselves with their hysteria and with their lack of rudimentary knowledge about the topic at hand, and, most of all, because it is a single-issue organization that maintains its focus.

Charles C. W. Cooke
April 27, 2014
The NRA’s Next Challenge: Its Success
[H/T to bitterb.

There are other problems with success as well. You get lazy. An organization can rot from the inside and only have an empty shell that looks imposing but doesn’t have the inner strength to take on the next opponent.

This is why I think it is good that the NRA has competitors for the dollars and grassroot minds of gun owners, such as SAF, CCRKBA, hundreds of state organizations, and even GOA and JPFO.

I want each of these organizations to be constantly thinking and working to improve themselves. They should be constantly asking themselves, “How can we be more successful in crushing the enemies of the Second Amendment? How can we repeal ineffective, stupid laws that infringe upon the rights of innocent people?”

NRA and gun owners in general are headed in the right direction but our current set of infringing laws and oppressive public sentiment has been decades in the making and it will probably be decades more before the likes of The Brady Campaign, Bloomberg and friends, The Violence Policy Center, and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence are as despised as much as the KKK are now. The NRA, and gun owners in general, need to keep the final goal in mind as well as fighting and winning the individual battles.

As Cooke points out this will require some focus and discipline. It would be easy for a lot of the supporters of the NRA to dilute its power by branching out into issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and racial issues. Our opponents recognize this as our softest spot and frequently attack it. Don’t make their jobs easier. The issue is the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. As soon as our opponents veer to another topic call them on it. Announce they must be admitting defeat on the topic at hand. If the best they have are dick jokes and absurd claims of race or a “war on women” then most people will recognize the crazy rants for what they are.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James Dawson

Posted on by

No need for new gun laws, but will you please make all NRA Members, including you, take a Mental Test!

If this was to happen, you and 96% of NRA Members would fail a mental test.
BTW, you already failed..

James Dawson
April 24, 2014
Comment to The battle over gun policy: Old fight, new strategies
[This was in response to “Kim Jong” who said:

States/counties that issue CCWs have statistically lower crime rates. The more guns in the hands of ordinary citizens the more empowered they become against gun toting criminals who don’t care what the gun laws are.

Jong made a calm, rational, claim of fact and is told that he would fail a mental test on the basis of this statement. And the anti-gun side says we are preventing there being a national conversation on guns. Wow!

This “Progressive” wants to make all NRA members take an mental test. What is the moral, political, constitutional, or common law justification for anyone or organization having such power?  For someone to believe what he believes means I do not have any words for him. It is simply not possible for me to have a conversation with someone with whom I have no common basis to communicate. He is an alien life form who intends to destroy me and our culture and should be treated as such.—Joe]

Studying “gun violence”

Posted on by

CNN is no friend to the Second Amendment so it comes as no surprise they published such a biased piece on gun control. But I continue to be amazed at how widespread the prejudice and bigotry extends into so many aspect of our culture.

Even if you were to concede they had some sort of constitutional authority to exist how can the National Institute of Health think it has any business studying criminal use of firearms?

NIH has and will continue to fund research to inform prevention programs related to firearm violence,” agency spokeswoman Renate Myles said. “Studies designed to develop and evaluate firearm injury prevention activities are part of larger efforts to develop more effective public health education programs.

Would it be appropriate for the NIH to be fund research on Muslim/Christian/name-a-religion violence and develop religion injury prevention activities? Or how about developing free speech injury (such as inciting to riot) prevention activities?

Why can’t these people understand? Government has no business preventing crimes in this sense. You don’t prevent people from falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater by gagging them as then enter the theater. You punish those that cause injury after the injury has occurred. Anything else is prior restraint and has been clearly decided as unconstitutional.

ATF cultural heritage

Posted on by

I saw this tweet from the ATF this morning and the picture stuck with me.

What sour looking faces they have. Is it because they hate their jobs? Is it because they hate people who drink alcohol? Something else?

Whatever the reason I can’t help but wonder if the prohibitionist culture is still alive and well at the ATF. Alcohol and tobacco are still regarded by many as at least somewhat “sinful”. By lumping firearms in with them doesn’t that create some sort of “guilty by association”? The FBI and your local police force deal with people as potential problems. People commit crimes and are fined and/or sent to jail as needed to punish them.

If alcohol and tobacco are considered harmful substances and must be controlled then is any stretch to think it would better if they were banned? Certainly a ban on alcohol reached a critical mass in popularity during the early 20th Century. The “founding fathers” of the ATF were the enforcers of that ban. This Tweet could lead one to believe the some people in the current organization are proud of their “founding fathers”.

I remember discussions about potential bans on cigarettes in the late 1960’s and 1970’s. And handgun bans were certainly being discussed during the same time frame. Wouldn’t the agency charged with regulation of these “sins” attract people more inclined to them being banned?

They may have changed their name but I can’t help but wonder if culturally it still is the “Bureau of Prohibition”. Certainly their anti-gun supporters want them to be that and it would explain some of the nasty things they have done to gun sellers and owners.