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]
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]
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 We care so much about all that, wrapped in arguments of outdated constitutional amendments, that we’ve basically agreed, tacitly or otherwise, that we will live in a society where an irate moviegoer can kill someone for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“Outdated constitutional amendments”?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 I wonder what other specific enumerated rights she thinks is outdated?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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
We continue to see the federal government overreach their rightful bounds, and if we can create a situation where we have some unity among states, then I think it puts us in a better position to make that argument.
Brian Nieves
Missouri State Senator
January 12, 2014
Lawmakers Plot New Strategy for Defying Gun Laws
[Nieves is talking about gun laws and is criticized by people because “state law does not trump Federal law”. But the same tactic is working with marijuana laws. And if enough states support trimming back the power of the Feds then it also means amendments could be made to the U.S. Constitution.
A friend, Jim G., once suggested an extremely minor change would fix a lot of problems. I’m not convinced it would be best change but it wouldn’t take a lot to convince me it would be better than what we have now. He suggested adding a period after the fifth word of the First Amendment.—Joe]
From the Seattle Police blog:
Officers arrested three women for robbery, among other things. On 1/1/14, throughout the evening there were several reports of multiple females walking through the crowds stealing cell phones and jumping people and stealing their cell phones.
One robbery occurred in the 500 block of Broad St just shortly after midnight and another was reported just shortly before 2:00 a.m., at 2nd Ave and Pike St.
A victim from the 2nd and Pike robbery flagged down an officer and advised him that the suspects who had stolen their cell phones were at a nearby bus stop. Officers contacted and detained the suspects. Two adult female suspects were later identified as having robbed the victim of her cell phone.
Technically, this is a block away from “Mugme Street” as Barb likes to call it. But still it is turf where I frequent. I can’t help thinking that discharging few canisters of pepper spray and maybe an occasional drawn handgun at the appropriate times would make a big improvement in the environment.
About 10 months ago it was predicted that California will be shall issue in 2014. But it appears that prediction was contingent upon the Supreme Court resolving the split between the circuits on the issue of whether carry outside the home is a protected right or not. The court did not accept the cases presented to them.
But the case in Idaho, which is in the Ninth Circuit and includes California, from the other day which just ruled regulation of carry outside the home is subject to at least intermediate scrutiny and perhaps strict scrutiny. That case could help California residents.
Regardless of how things are going at the Federal level that prediction is getting a little closer to realization:
In a decision released today that forces the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to begin accepting and processing handgun carry license applications, Judge Deirdre Hill said that LASD must “consider the applications of all persons seeking a CCW permit in the first instance without requiring any applicant to first seek a CCW permit with his/her local police chief or city.”
The case, titled Lu v. Baca, was filed in 2012 by California-based gun rights organization The Calguns Foundation and a number of individual plaintiffs seeking to overturn an unlawful LASD policy that functioned as a de facto ban on handgun carry licenses for Los Angeles County residents.
When you use colors or visuals in your marketing materials that are almost identical to the same visuals used to market highly violent video games … you’re indicating that you intend to market to our kids.
Rep. Kim Fawcett
Democrat from Fairfield Connecticut
Newtown Activists Call For Change As Gun Trade Show Opens
January 13, 2014
[I don’t know exactly what “marketing materials” she is talking about but from what I can determine the video games use “visuals” that look like real firearms that were sold many years before the video games were created. Not that firearm manufacturers duplicated video game “visuals”.
I have to conclude Rep. Fawcett is either incredibly ignorant or malicious. And since she voted for the repressive gun laws in Connecticut I’m going with malicious. I look forward to this information being used at her trial.—Joe]
Via email from Mike B. we have a ruling in Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. Idaho Jan. 10, 2014). And as Mike pointed out in his email this affects my stomping grounds where I have carried many times on lands directly addressed in the ruling when I had no idea such stupid regulations even existed.
Eugene Volokh, Dave Hardy, Say Uncle, and Sebastian all commented on the ruling. Hardy was the only one that even mentioned the judge says the strict scrutiny must be used when determining whether a law or regulations infringes upon the 2nd Amendment. The court said:
The regulation at issue would ban firearms and ammunition in a tent on the Corps’ sites. This ban poses a substantial burden on a core Second Amendment right and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny.
…
While the ban on carrying firearms for self-defense may impose a burden on this core right of the Second Amendment severe enough to call for strict scrutiny, it is unnecessary for the Court to decide that issue because the regulation fails to pass muster even if intermediate scrutiny is applied.
If strict scrutiny is required to regulate the carrying a firearm for self-defense this will almost certainly mean constitutional carry will become the law of the land.
It sounded to me like the shotgun was empty. But the point being made is valid.
It has long been suggested that gun nuts cling to their weapons as phallic substitutes. Wherever that is the case, I recommend autofellatio. I’m told the climax is a real killer.
E.A. Blair
April 2, 2013
Comment to Debunking the Conservative Myth on “Assault Rifles”
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! With bonus points for advocating gun owners kill themselves.
H/T to Phil who sent me an email with the link.—Joe]
In fact, the Democrats who passed ObamaCare were well aware of the misery they were about to impose on the American people. We know this because the Democrats authored specific provisions within ObamaCare to protect themselves against ObamaCare.
Welcome to the Democrat Animal Farm.
Robert J. Avrech
January 6, 2014
All Animals Are Equal, Unless They Are Democrat Animals
[If you don’t get the reference you should read Animal Farm.
And if ObamaCare isn’t enough to convince you we live on an “animal farm” remember:
The list probably could be extended hundreds if not thousands of items.—Joe]
It is time for the high court to clarify that the right to bear arms does not stop at someone’s front door. What other constitutional right is confined to one’s house? The Second Amendment was never meant to be encumbered with such a limitation, and it cannot possibly be interpreted that way, but it will take a Supreme Court ruling to convince lower courts and anti-gunners, and put this debate to rest.
Alan Gottlieb
January 9, 2014
U.S. SUPREME COURT ASKED TO CONSIDER SAF, ANJRPC RIGHT TO CARRY CASE
[While I agree it is time to “put this debate to rest” as long the rulings of the courts are ignored in the short term it doesn’t really matter that much. The short term reality is that Despite Ruling, Chicago Officials Vow to Continue Gun Control Measures. And when they decide to obey the law they drag out “compliance” as long as they can.
It might ultimately matter when they get put on trial but that is not going to happen any time soon.—Joe]
This is an interesting suggestion on the gun control debate from Tim Phillips:
Is there another way to frame this issue?
For the last 20 years I have led an international organization that works in war torn countries to negotiate an end to conflict. In places like Northern Ireland, El Salvador, South Africa and the Balkans, groups once driven to violence to defend their beliefs have put down their weapons, sat down at a table, overcome their differences and negotiated. Moving beyond conflict is, indeed, possible.
One dynamic I have observed present in all successful negotiations — which is missing from our current debate over gun control — is a recognition of the role of sacred values.
Phillips claims the two sides don’t really understand each other. While I’m certain the anti-gun people don’t understand us I think we understand them reasonably well. Of course they could be saying the same thing about us.
I am skeptical that progress can be made when the other side has irrational beliefs such as using guns to protect armored cars, banks, and politicians is a good idea but using them to protect school children is a bad idea. But I would be extremely interested to sit down and have such a discussion with an mediator who has experience with the techniques described by Phillips.
…in a gang of thieves.
You know all those crazy, wild-eyed loons living in trailer parks who’ve been warning us about the Federal Reserve? Yeah; what a bunch of maroons (cough cough).
And no; your safe deposit box isn’t really all that secure either. Not anymore. There’s already talk of reaching into people’s bank accounts on a large scale and taking some of it, they’ve already set up the “infrastructure” to do that, and it’s already been done at least once as a trial balloon.
The Progressives (Democrats and Republicans) have already spent your money, you understand (and your children’s money and their children’s money). Now it’s CYA time for the perpetrators.
If you never understood why government types are so terrified of the concept of an armed populace that they’re willing to make complete asses of themselves and risk prosecution for depriving citizens of a constitutionally protected right, maybe you begin to understand a little bit better. It’s not that they’re all that stupid, necessarily– They’re fucking terrified at the prospect of their chickens coming home to roost. Criminals fear armed victims more than anything else. They’re already starting to act like the cornered predators they are, and a cornered predator is a very dangerous thing indeed.
After donating $2.5 million to the Democratic Senate Majority PAC, America’s favorite Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent, former New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg, is signaling that his great crusade against guns is running out of steam.
…
The most important public policy challenge of 2013 was not all that important after all, at least when directly balanced against Democratic control of the upper chamber of Congress. Furthermore, even the most principled among us can be moved to abandon their cause so long as the pressure is intense enough.
Noah Rothman
January 7, 2014
At Democrats’ Request, Even Mike Bloomberg Is Giving up on Gun Control
[This is further evidence that nearly all politicians only have one fundamental principle. That principle is to gain and hold onto power.—Joe]
By analogy, it is enough that Plaintiffs have substantiated a chilling effect on protected Second Amendment conduct.
Judge Edmond E. Chang
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
January 6, 2014
Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers, Kenneth Pacholski, Kathryn Tyler, and Michael Hall, v. The City of Chicago and Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of the City of Chicago.
[I’m not a lawyer but I think this is AWESOME!
This court appears to be saying that a “chilling effect” upon the Second Amendment is the equivalent of a “chilling effect” on the First Amendment and hence is unconstitutional. If so, then I can see registration of firearms and perhaps even background checks being thrown out as unconstitutional as well. And those ambiguous laws which ban “assault weapons” but allow other guns of the same caliber and rate of fire to remain legal will almost for certain be struck down. I could even see “school zones” being struck down because it is difficult to know you are within 1000 feet of school property. Hence those laws have a chilling effect upon your right to carry in public.—Joe]