Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Jeannie Darneille

Posted on by

I am not a person who handles guns. I don’t own guns. I don’t…they shock me, quite frankly. We’re an open carry state and when I see people open carrying their guns, while it may be perfectly legal, it creates a visceral, personal, physical reaction in me as it does in other people…

Jeannie Darneille
January 29, 2014
Washington State Senator  (D-27th District)
In Senate, less circus, more circumspection, no media, one ‘shock’
[This is precisely what Anonymous Conservative says happens in the brains of liberals. The rabbit brain cannot handle the concept of stress. To others guns are tools to protect innocent life when threatened with immediate danger—a stressful situation.

She is compelled to reduce the thought of stress by demanding you become a rabbit or at least masquerade as a rabbit.—Joe]

Quote of the day—JPFO

Posted on by

Why would a rational person believe, just because Hitler used gun registration lists to identify, disarm and then murder millions, that anyone in America would ever do the same thing? That’s crazy talk. No one here hates the Jews. Or blacks. Or Latinos. Or Christians.

We have very little hate here. We love each other. The FBI, ATF, NSA, IRS, SS, TSA, CIA… they’re on our side. You have nothing to worry about. Trust us. Lay down your arms. Or you will be forced to.

JPFO
January 2014
Gun Control in the Third Reich
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Straw purchases legal?

Posted on by

Well, ain’t that just shiny. Seems the ATF decided on it’s own, without any supporting law, that straw purchases were illegal, and added that question to the 4473 back in ’95. There is now a case before the supremes about it, Bruce J. Abramski v. United States. The potential for an epic spanking of the BAFTE is in the offing. If we needed any more evidence of their lawlessness, we’d have it here.

Quote of the day—the snarkster

Posted on by

Guns are the gateway drug to rightwingerism.

They were for me.

the snarkster
January 25, 2014
Comment to The Washington Post’s Readers Are Already Freaking Out At Having to See the Volokh Conspiracy in Their Little Cocooned Cult
[There is more than a little truth to this. With gun ownership many realize they can handle responsibility and have the ability to take care of themselves and their family. I’m not certain I agree this is called “right wing” but it’s opposed to “left wing” which many on the left label “right wing”.—Joe]

AR-15 lower from a 2×8

Posted on by

We used to say that anyone who knows a little bit of metal shop can build a gun in their garage. Well, it’s easier than that. Here is the lower of an evil “assault weapon” made out of a pine 2×8.

SolidPineAR15Lower

Or maybe it isn’t evil if it is made out of wood and has a natural color finish instead of being black plastic. I never could figure out the rules for good versus evil guns.

Meet Gabrielle Giffords in Olympia today

Posted on by

I have my vacation budget allocated up through Boomershoot this year or I would be on my way to Olympia Washington today to testify against the “universal background check” initiative. Gabrielle Giffords is coming in from Arizona to testify in favor of it. And almost for certain she will imply the initiative would have prevented the shooting in which she was a victim. This is rather odd because the guy that shot her passed a background check. She knows she can only make progress on her agenda if she is deceptive.

Barron Barnett and Anette Wachter say they are going.

Despite what KING5 says it is TODAY that we need your testimony. Here is where you go and what you do. It’s not hard. Even an introvert like me has successfully done it.

Be civil and succinct. Think “sound bite” instead of “essay”. Don’t repeat what others before you have said.

If you want some ideas on what to say read my Crazy Talk post. Or more succulently say something like this:

“Universal background checks” is crazy talk. They cannot be any more useful than bans on recreational drugs or underage drinking and smoking which are bypassed by any high school dropout in minutes.

The only thing the proposed legislation will be useful for is harassing people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It will cast a chilling effect on this right and, if it were any other right being regulated in this manner, will be declared unconstitutional.

I am adamantly opposed to the proposal.

Quote of the day—Gabrielle Giffords

Posted on by

Until now, the gun lobby’s political contributions, advertising and lobbying have dwarfed spending from anti-gun violence groups. No longer. With Americans for Responsible Solutions engaging millions of people about ways to reduce gun violence and funding political activity nationwide, legislators will no longer have reason to fear the gun lobby.

Gabrielle Giffords
January 8, 2013
Giffords and Kelly: Fighting gun violence
H/T to Douglas Anthony Cooper for his post Now We Know Who’s Going to Take Down the NRA
[So… how did that “take down” work out for you guys?

I’ll bet after what happened in Colorado recently anti-gun legislators walk tall, proud, and confident, right?—Joe]

Lists

Posted on by

What if some “news” organization or politician were to propose making lists of one or more of the following sets of people with home and work address, and making them publically available:

  • Homosexuals
  • Blacks/Hispanics/Asians
  • Christians/Muslims/Jews/atheists
  • People infected with HIV
  • People in interracial marriages
  • Women who had abortions
  • Abortion doctors
  • People with I.Q.’s below 85

Suppose the people creating the list of Jews were neo-Nazi’s or Muslims.

Suppose the people creating the list of abortion doctors were abortion protestors.

Suppose the people creating the list of homosexuals were from Westboro Baptist Church.

Suppose the people creating the list of people in interracial marriages were members of the KKK.

Would you consider this covered under free speech? I probably would. I’d also consider them at least partially liable if the people on those lists were harmed by people utilizing the information on those lists. I think I could convince a majority of people that the intent of the list(s) was to intimidate and/or harm the people on the list(s).

Now imagine it was the government making such a list. Would you regard this a permissible use of the force of government?

So when a U.S. newspaper conglomerate considered making a public database of people with concealed carry licenses and says this about them:

We are launching two enterprise projects across our newsrooms this month. The first will deal with the creeping influence of heroin in our communities. The deadly drug has quietly taken over, reaching across all age groups and eclipsing meth as the recreational drug of choice,” Lawitz began.

“The second project examines the explosion of ‘conceal and carry’ gun permits across the U.S. Through public records act requests, we will attempt to build state-by-state databases that list those who have the right to carry a concealed weapon,”

What do you think their intent was?

What do you think the intent of a government is when it makes such lists?

I don’t know about you but my mind immediately goes to the story of the Belgium Corporal.

Quote of the day—Douglas Anthony Cooper

Posted on by

Only a couple of aspects of the Australian Model would legitimately outrage a predictable group. The ban would be retroactive. Citizens would then have to specify why they wish to keep or purchase an unbanned gun. Sufficient reasons would include hunting, pest control, and target shooting. Insufficient reasons would include, notably, “self defense.” Anyone with a demented understanding of the Constitution would be outraged by this, and you ought to welcome their outrage. They are a menace.

Douglas Anthony Cooper
December 12, 2012
A Proven Way to End the Gun Slaughter: Will We Fight For it?
[It is critical for the anti-gun people to eliminate the concept of self-defense. It is our strongest point in this battle. Look what we did with the concealed handgun laws in the last 30 years. That was the “tip of the spear” and getting some of our gun rights back.

What is surprising to me is that self-defense, of almost any type, does not resonate with many people from other cultures. Our culture of individualism regards self-defense as self-evident. My communist brother-in-law has flat out told me “the needs of the society outweigh the needs of the individual” and denigrates self-defense and individual rights. Individual rights, to him, hinder “progress” because they inhibit the “advancement” of society as a whole.

My brother-in-law and Douglas Anthony Cooper regard anyone who has a respect for individual rights as a menace to society. Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, and Mao Zedong were in full agreement and demonstrated the “proper” way to deal with such people. It should be no surprise so many of these people want you disarmed. And it should be obvious what they would do if they could acquire the power to deal with you as they wished.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Emily Miller

Posted on by

There is no reason for the government to prevent, much less prosecute, a former member of law enforcement from buying a gun for his law-abiding uncle. The Supreme Court should overturn the appeals court, but more importantly, make clear that the government has no right to intervene in private gun transfers between honest American citizens.

The ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment, the prevention of tyranny, depends on the government not having a registry or knowing who is armed.

Emily Miller
January 22, 2014
MILLER: Supreme Court ruling on Abramski could limit Obama’s radical, gun-control aims
[The only thing I would change about the above quote is that it should have been, “the government has no power to intervene”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Will Burns

Posted on by

I think the law can be rewritten to allow residents to determine whether they want these businesses in their neighborhoods.

Will Burns
Member of the Chicago Board of Alderman
January 22, 2014
Chicago Officials Say New Gun Control Law Can Be Crafted
[And do they also think they can also write a law that allows residents to determine whether they want a Jewish/Muslim/Christian place of worship in their neighborhood? These officials need to be interviewed by the police instead of the media. Then they should be prosecuted.—Joe]

What happened to Colin Goddard?

Posted on by

Colin Goddard, the Brady Campaign expert at getting shot, used to get a lot of media attention. But not anymore. I couldn’t find any connection between Goddard and the Brady Campaign since April 2013.

In fact it appears the Brady Campaign has had a complete regime change. These are all new faces to me since Dan Gross took the job as president.

They don’t have a very large staff and to replace that many people in that short of time means that, essentially, they flushed all their institutional memory. Which I suppose makes sense. It’s a good idea to change a losing strategy. But it’s a better idea to shut down an obsolete business rather than to continue dumping money into it.

A million dollar gun control contest

Posted on by

When I read this I was really annoyed:

Smart Tech Foundation, a new San Francisco gun violence prevention organization backed by tech investor Ron Conway, will start taking applications on Jan. 28 for a $1 million contest to identify devices for preventing gun-related injuries and deaths.

In particular, Smart Tech is focused on access control technologies that can reliably prevent unauthorized use of guns and ammunition.

…

Smart Tech was founded in 2013 in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre of children and teachers the prior year in Newtown, Conn.

Why didn’t he offer $1 million for ideas to make our children safer? By limiting his acceptable solution set to only those things that place limits on firearms he is showing his prejudice. It rules out things like firearms instruction for teachers and building designs that inhibit mass shootings.

After reading a part of his website I’m slightly less annoyed. It’s not quite as bad as I thought it was, but it still has lots of room for improvement:

SmartTechFoundation

On the gun side of things the solutions being suggested will never be retrofitted on hundreds of millions of existing firearms even if they are found to be feasible in new production guns. And I have my doubts that any biometric solution will be practical, ever. The hurdles to a biometric solution are very high and numerous. And they are all bypassed with 3-D printers and/or someone with access to hand tools in their garage.

On the brain health side of things short of mandatory examinations of a large segment of the population it’s not going to work no matter how accurate your examination is. And that gets into some troubling civil rights territory.

It will be interesting to watch and see what comes out of this. My guess is nothing anywhere nearly worth $1,000,000.

Quote of the day—Chris W. Cox

Posted on by

The louder Bloomberg shouts his nonsensical rhetoric, the fewer remain willing to listen.

Chris W. Cox
December 2013
Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Bus Tour Travels a Road To Nowhere
[Bloomberg’s slogans are moderately effective but his objectives and his illegal mayors cannot stand up to examination. It’s time to prosecute them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Don Lemon

Posted on by

Well, first let’s remove the politics and truthfully talk about gun laws, about gun violence.  After the Newtown shooting President Obama commissioned the Center for Disease Control to research gun violence and offer solutions.  And the study was completed this summer and it just might make you rethink your stance, your view, on the issue.  It did for me.

Don Lemon
September 19, 2013
REALITY CHECK: Let’s Talk About Guns
[You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.*—Joe]

*John 8:32

Only a gun

Posted on by

Does Lorraine Devon Wilke live on planet Nerf where the bats can break Nerf desks and Nerf windows but not a head?

The student in Roswell might have picked up a bat and smashed a few desks, knocked over some chairs or even broken a few bones. He might have trashed a locker, broken a window or spewed graffiti across a wall. But leaving a child critically wounded with a shot to the face? Only a gun can inflict that result.

Only a gun? Wow!

Wilke goes on to say:

It appears we care more about owning guns than saving ourselves from them. We care more about being able to carry them, defend them, shoot them, and justify the damage caused by them. We care so much about all that, wrapped in arguments of outdated constitutional amendments, that we’ve basically agreed, tacitly or otherwise, that we will live in a society where an irate moviegoer can kill someone for texting, an angry child can destroy a classmate out of anger, and a distraught father can end his life out of despair.

I do not want to live in that kind of society. Do you?

“Outdated constitutional amendments”? She has to have the 2nd Amendment as one of those. I wonder what other specific enumerated rights she thinks is outdated? The rights that would inhibit the confiscation of all firearms in the hands of private citizens?

Ms Wilke, if you don’t want to live in a society that respects our preexisting, specific, enumerated, rights then I suggest you to move to a different society. You won’t be taking my guns and my rights from me during my lifetime in this society.

I have to conclude these type of people have crap for brains.

Quote of the day—Morpho

Posted on by

I don’t care so much about banning assault rifles as I do about the clip sizes and background checks. These weapons really aren’t the problem. If people want to waste money on these toys, go ahead. They’re fun to shoot for about 1 clip, then boooooooring. They’re a pain to clean and maintain, and the ammo isn’t exactly cheap. But they sure make your wiener feel enhanced, right big boy?

Morpho
February 4, 2013
Comment to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die So That Broader Gun Policy Legislation Can Live
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Quote of the day—J. D. Longstreet

Posted on by

Mr. Obama, through his words, deeds, and declarations has made it clear that he finds our constitution abhorrent.  It is Obama’s propensity for shrugging off the will of the people and the bonds of the constitution on government that have made him the gun salesman of the year.

J. D. Longstreet
January 17, 2014
Beware the Phrase “Sensible Gun Control Laws,” or Why Obama is The Best Gun Salesman In History
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—New Yorkers Against Gun Violence

Posted on by

The NY SAFE Act included crucial and widely popular provisions like background checks on all gun purchasers, a prohibition on sales of assault rifles with certain characteristics, a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other measures.

New Yorkers Against Gun Violence
January 15, 2014
Groups push for more gun control in NY
[“Widely popular” must have a different meaning in the alternate universe in which these people spend most of their time. In the real world a large number of Law Enforcement is Against NY Safe Act. If even law enforcement is vocal about opposing the law then the law is essentially pointless. Who is going to enforce it?

These people have mental problems.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Harvey Weinstein

Posted on by

I don’t think we need guns in this country. And I hate it. I think the NRA is a disaster area.

Harvey Weinstein
January 15, 2014
MILLER: Movie mogul says new Streep film to make NRA ‘wish they weren’t alive’
[H/T to Emily Miller for the Tweet.

From the same article:

Asked if it was going to be a documentary. Mr. Weinstein said no, that it would be a “big movie like a ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’”

The movie mogul said his vision was to scare people away from firearms and the Second Amendment. He foresees moviegoers to leave thinking, “Gunstocks – I don’t want to be involved in that stuff. It’s going to be like crash and burn.”

Of course it’s not going to be a documentary. Facts would get in the way of his agenda.—Joe]